How will you vote from this election forward?


PDA






Doug.38PR
October 11, 2006, 03:22 PM
Democrat, Republican, or Other Party/Independent/just won't vote?

I've read about how some polls are revealing that Democrats are going to take back power and that a lot of people are tired of the Republicans who have been in power for over 10 years and been, in many ways, even worse.

How will you vote next presidential, congressional and senate race? Or are you just fed up with both partys and either won't vote or vote for an independent who sticks to his guns (Constitution party et al)

If you enjoyed reading about "How will you vote from this election forward?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
tenbase
October 11, 2006, 03:24 PM
Neo-Whig (http://www.neowhig.org/).

Sam Adams
October 11, 2006, 04:41 PM
R. Its the lesser of two evils.

My attitude is to vote for the person I REALLY want in the primaries, and the least bad person in the general. Given that we have only 2 parties that are likely (99+%) to win in any given election, I recognize that this can be a recipe for mediocrity - but it is better than going to Hell in a handbasket.

Remember: "The perfect is the enemy of the good." Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.

ozwyn
October 11, 2006, 04:57 PM
I didn't see the choice "my individual and how they stand on issues"

Not a big fan of rubber stamping either political party when they've both given good cause to distrust with our rights.

ZeSpectre
October 11, 2006, 05:10 PM
I miss voting FOR someone.

The last three elections have strictly been a case of either voting against someone, or not voting at all because I did not feel that I could, in good conscience, give any of the choices my vote.

I truely miss the old ballots that had "no confidence" as a vote.

Sometime I wish there was some system where a majority "no confidence" vote would eliminate the current candidates and force the process to start over but yes I can see some of the issues that would evolve there as well (like the current party remaining in office even longer while the vote was re-run).

ArmedBear
October 11, 2006, 05:22 PM
I miss voting FOR someone.

That's true.

But I have to thank the Democrats for making voting AGAINST someone so much more palatable, especially in 2004. Looks like the trend will continue.

ApexinM3
October 11, 2006, 05:26 PM
Sad to say, but I'll vote Republicrat for the time being. The Libertarian front just doesn't have the momentum needed to be a viable choice. Unfortunately the current political structure isn't ready yet (or set up properly for) a third party yet. Too bad, because I think the change would be a welcome one.

Art Eatman
October 11, 2006, 05:27 PM
National? For the least harmful; against the most harmful. Same as always.

It's a lot easier to vote for "the good guy" at the local level. Easier to get involved in his election campaign, as well. And if you don't do that, don't gripe.

State level? Fortunately, most small-town candidates in Texas tend to be at least mildly conservative. The big-city liberal vs. conservative thing is at least reasonably evened out.

Art

BigG
October 11, 2006, 05:28 PM
Wow - this is a tough choice. Wait a minute here - let me think. I guess I'll just turn D. :scrutiny: NOT :scrutiny:

carnaby
October 11, 2006, 05:35 PM
Hey, you usurped my thread (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=227058) :cuss:

Heh :D

Rev. DeadCorpse
October 11, 2006, 05:39 PM
Depends on who is on the ticket. Mostly, I vote Libertarian. I believe that the "lesser of two evils is STILL more evil than I could endorse." I didn't vote "for" Bush in the last election, I voted "against" Kerry.

My hypocrisy has limits though. If the GOP runs McInsane, Julieonme, Bloomingidiot, or Mit "How far left can I lean" Romney.... I'm voting for the LP'er even if they end up digging up Harry's coffin...

Yakko
October 11, 2006, 05:40 PM
Anti-incumbant!

Living in Oregon, that means it is almost guaranteed to be a Republican.

MD_Willington
October 11, 2006, 05:41 PM
Not allowed to vote, it is a deportable offense....:uhoh:

ArmedBear
October 11, 2006, 05:42 PM
It's all about timing for me.

There's a time for a protest vote, and there's a time for a "best realistic option" vote.

Depends on the state of things, the percentages likely to vote and for whom, etc.

If I could vote as often as some Democrats in Washington State do, I'd vote Libertarian every time, and put some in office.:p But since I only have one vote, I have to weigh other factors.

ArmedBear
October 11, 2006, 05:45 PM
Not allowed to vote, it is a deportable offense....

Ah, if only you were Mexican and illegal, you could vote here without fear. I pity Canadians in the US these days.

MachIVshooter
October 11, 2006, 05:53 PM
I miss voting FOR someone.

At 24 years old, I've never been privvy to that.

My short voting career has been exclusively voting against the guy who is more likely to take away more of our rights and/or tax the ever-loving ***** out of us.

Painful as it was after the Patriot act, I voted for GWB again because Kerry simply wasn't acceptable.

State and local elections have proven easier to stomach, but still frustrating.

That said, the prospectives for '08 don't appear to have a lesser evil on either end. Both parties have proven that they intend to take and spend our money while eroding our liberty. Americans are screwed no matter who takes it.

FeebMaster
October 11, 2006, 05:56 PM
I don't vote.

Hazzard
October 11, 2006, 08:53 PM
I don't vote.

Then don't complain about who is elected. Not that you have complained, but if you don't vote you have to accept whoever is handed to you.

Soybomb
October 11, 2006, 09:01 PM
Anyone who blindly votes for someone based on the letter by their name is really voting foolishly. You have to know the candidates. I will generally vote for the person who I feel represents the largest number of my interests.

Waitone
October 11, 2006, 09:01 PM
In my 30+ years of voting in national elections, I voted FOR a candidate exactly one time. Every other election (and I've never missed a national election) I voted against the other candidate.

I honestly think we are rapidly developing conditions which will allow a viable third party to develop and, no, I am not talking about libertarians. I suspect it will take a form similar to the Federalists.

GLOCK19XDSC
October 11, 2006, 09:10 PM
I usually choose the elections I feel are most important and vote against the candidates I find the most distasteful, which usually results in a split ticket. For local elections that have no clear bad guy I always vote third-party, or not at all if there is no third party.

BJPZOO
October 11, 2006, 09:12 PM
I will go Republican most of them like guns more....I think:neener:

fjolnirsson
October 11, 2006, 09:39 PM
I'm gonna throw away my vote/ hand my vote to the guy farthest from my ideals, depending on who you listen to. I vote for the guy closest to my position, who turns my stomach the least or not at all.

Either way, it doesn't matter. I believe our only chance at a free society is colonization of space. Earth is screwed.

FeebMaster
October 11, 2006, 10:18 PM
if you don't vote you have to accept whoever is handed to you.

You voters don't?

DerringerUser
October 11, 2006, 10:34 PM
Damn, where are the liberatarians when you need em?

FeebMaster
October 11, 2006, 10:36 PM
Damn, where are the liberatarians when you need em?

They're voting Republican, of course.

Hazzard
October 11, 2006, 10:46 PM
You voters don't?

I'm reminded of lyrics by the band Rush here.

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Perhaps a better discussion in APS?

orionengnr
October 11, 2006, 10:52 PM
"It's a lot easier to vote for "the good guy" at the local level. Easier to get involved in his election campaign, as well. And if you don't do that, don't gripe.
State level? Fortunately, most small-town candidates in Texas tend to be at least mildly conservative. The big-city liberal vs. conservative thing is at least reasonably evened out."

I would be interested in your perspective on the Governor's race. I believe that both of our Texas Senators have a good grasp on things, and I have no problem voting for the one that is up for re-election. Likewise, my local representative, whom I have met several times. He "gets it"...one of the few.

Now our Governor does, IMHO, not "get it" at all. About 30 days ago, he suddenly became a Border Believer. Although I had written him repeatedly on the issue for the last 2 1/2 years (as long as I have been a Texan) I received absolutely zero until 30 days ago. And even now, I get a letter signed and sent by a staff assistant...no Governor's signature.

So, for whom will you vote?
IMHO, Kinky is a bad joke, although many view him as a protest vote.
Strayhorn is not much better, although I believe I will vote for her as a somewhat more legitimate protest vote.

Perry will probably prevail, which makes me retch.

cookekdjr
October 11, 2006, 10:56 PM
Would have helped if you had a category for "the best candidate". There are good candidates in both parties.
-David

ETXhiker
October 11, 2006, 11:01 PM
Anyone who blindly votes for someone based on the letter by their name is really voting foolishly. You have to know the candidates. I will generally vote for the person who I feel represents the largest number of my interests.

Translation: Democrat. Just say it, it's okay. But...

If your candidate votes with his party and his party doesn't support the 2nd amendment, then everything else can be taken from you. The Dems are ENEMIES of the 2nd amendment, at least at the national level.

I call myself a conservative, not a Republican. I will probably vote Libertarian the first time they have a snowball's chance of getting double digits at the polls. But with global jihad, North Korea, Iran, China, Russia, communists like Chavez just south of the border, I refuse to waste my vote on a symbolic gesture. I've been diasappointed with Republicans in a lot of things lately. But Democrats have a track record of tough talk and no action. Don't need Neville Chamberlin types right now.

Soybomb
October 11, 2006, 11:29 PM
Translation: Democrat. Just say it, it's okay. But...
Good try, but no. If i had to pick any single party it would be libertarian. I'm not single issue voter. I care about more in life than just guns. I see things that are much more immediate concerns than guns. Sometimes that mean I vote democratic because there's a republican who would love to limit my freedoms and legislate his religious views like alan keyes, and other times I must vote against a democrat who is corrupt or financially irresponsible, such as blagojevich. Honestly I can't imagine how anyone can fall within any party's lines on every issue unless they care about an exceptionally small number of issues. Instead you can just vote republican and get a big pro-gun president who says he'll sign another assault weapons ban anyway. Or elect a republican governor who would ban .50 weapons in a state. Thats why I say its important to know the candidates and not the party.

Lone_Gunman
October 12, 2006, 12:33 AM
The Republican party should be very afraid when only 65% of a pro-gun forum are willing to vote for them.

I think there are bad times ahead for the Republicans.

earplug
October 12, 2006, 12:46 AM
Since I left the major parties.
I look at the idea of voting for the less evil as if Poland had A choice in voting for invasion by Russia or Germany.
I will always vote for the best from now on.

bclark1
October 12, 2006, 12:54 AM
I've voted libertarian in the primaries, but I just can't find a niche there. For every pre-daughter-coming-out Alan Keyes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Keyes#.22Christ_would_not_vote_for_Barack_Obama.22), who believes in small government, low-taxes and high-freedom, protecting innocent life and all that good stuff, there are ten pothead hippies who just want to make it safer for themselves to slam hallucinogens while they sleep around with as many unwashed, hairy people as they can. While morality is relative, I think there are some time honored codes that have superceded empires and politics, and I simply can't support amoral abuses of freedom. I believe in social services, for it's been said that the measure of a great society is how well it takes care of its weakest members, but that still doesn't really sway me to vote liberal. The liberal systems do not help the weakest members, they help those who know how to milk the system. Care for the disabled, sick, elderly and other truly marginalized sectors has taken a back seat to lots of lazy, selfish drains who are simply too unambitious to pull themselves up by the boot straps. Actual good or merely lesser of evils, I end up being a pretty partisan voter. While people may debate how that goes on federally, it's been good locally. My family and I have fairly good contact with our state reps, I can talk to them about gun-related legislature, and I even got a shining reference letter for OCS out of one of them.

Anyway... spent way too much time on the board today! Time to hit the hay.

Autolycus
October 12, 2006, 01:04 AM
I will vote Libertarian. The 2 major parties turn me off. The Democrats in general are anti 2nd amendment and have some very socialist like tendencies. The Republicans in general are anti 1st amendment, anti 4th amendment, anti 5th amendment, and very theocratic in my opinion.

I voted Republican in the last 2 elections. (They were the only elections I have ever been allowed to vote in due to age) and I was left with a bad taste in my mouth. In my state, Illinois, I could vote Republican and it still doesnt make a difference.

Even if my vote was the one deciding vote in an election between a democrat who will disarm America or a Republican who reappeals all laws I dont think I could stomach voting for either.

The sad thing is that we are now left with choosing the lesser of two evils. Dumb and Dumberer are the candidates we have to choose from. I just will vote my heart which is Libertarian.

borrowedtime69
October 12, 2006, 01:36 AM
Soybomb
Anyone who blindly votes for someone based on the letter by their name is really voting foolishly. You have to know the candidates. I will generally vote for the person who I feel represents the largest number of my interests.

i hate to respectfully disagree with you view. i vote republican all the way every time. i believe in the "Party trumps person" motta.

i want all republicans in every office because i want the republican party to fill the court vacancies with conservitive judges, i want the republicans to run the legislature and in effect ennact laws that help the conservitive cause (lower taxes, get rid of the welfare state, solid on defence, vouchers in schools, etc.). the democrat party does not reflect any of my values as i feel that the really have no values of their own (other than what todays poll tells the dems what they should be faking to show concern). further more i absolutely DO NOT trust the lefties with the economy, defense, gun rights, taxes, and the evironment.

i will never vote for a democrat because if one gets in office he/she will be heavily influanced by othe groups that are extreamists.

democrat politicians are chronic lyers, they dont really ever come out and give solutions to problems to help their nation, they merely complain and attack if kerry had gotten the vote and got into the white house, this country would have been attacked much more than we've had. he also would have handed the US over to the control of the United Nations.

a vote for the democrat party is a vote against the US.

Biker
October 12, 2006, 01:42 AM
I know some Dems, and they all know how to use the caps key.

Biker

AJAX22
October 12, 2006, 02:35 AM
I'm voting libritarian this election.

I'm sick of voting for the lesser of two evils,

its time to take a stand and say, this is the party which closest matches my own ideas and beliefs. its not a perfect fit, but it best represents who I am.

I won't give my vote to someone who I do not support simply because the other mainstreem canidate is bad.

the two party system is the enemy of representitive democratcy.

xd9fan
October 12, 2006, 03:22 AM
I honestly think we are rapidly developing conditions which will allow a viable third party to develop and, no, I am not talking about libertarians. I suspect it will take a form similar to the Federalists.

I hope your wrong. I hope anti Federalist...but given American Socialism........I will not bet against you.

The Republican party should be very afraid when only 65% of a pro-gun forum are willing to vote for them.

I think there are bad times ahead for the Republicans.

They deserve it. That party needs a disciplined stiff kick in the a$$.

.41Dave
October 12, 2006, 04:49 AM
i want the republicans to run the legislature and in effect ennact laws that help the conservitive cause (lower taxes, get rid of the welfare state, solid on defence, vouchers in schools, etc.)

So do I, but despite the Republicans complete control of all 3 branches of government for the last 6 years, none of these things have come to pass. (Yes, I know about the tax cuts, but the Republicans just turned around and added or raised other taxes, for a net wash.). Under the Republicans, government spending is out of control, and makes even old Bill Clinton and the Dems look like misers. Liberty is under greater threat than ever before. The shredding of the Constitution and the demise of the 1000 year old right of Habeas Corpus under the Republicans is chilling. If a Democrat president had ever tried to push through something like the Patriot Act or the Military Commissions Act, the Republicans likely would have fought tooth and nail, and sought impeachment for the president who tried it. Instead, An allegedly Republican president works to strip America of her Essential Liberty, and the so-called Conservative Republicans submit with barely a sheep-like bleat of protest at being led to the slaughter. The sad and repugnant fact is, the Republicans are no longer conservatives. The party is in thrall to the "neoconservatives", who are in fact old-line Trotskyite Leftists. In reality, your choice is a vote for "the lesser of two evils" between a Leninite Leftist, or a Trotskyite Leftist, or a quixotic vote for Liberty and the old Republic by voting 3rd party. Unless the republican rank and file realize (and soon) that their party has been subverted, prepare for a Leftist dictatorship with the option (at least temporarily) to switch flavors every 4 years.

i hate to respectfully disagree with you view. i vote republican all the way every time. i believe in the "Party trumps person" motta.

You also disagree with George Washington, who very cogently warned AGAINST the evils of political parties in his farewell address. Looking around today, most everything he warned of has come to pass.

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another." ~ George Washington, from his farewell address on September 17, 1796

dot 43
October 12, 2006, 09:23 AM
Republicans are the price I pay for keeping Democrats out of office. The price is exorbitant, but it's worth it.

Ian
October 12, 2006, 09:48 AM
I don't vote. I won't be sucked into giving my approval of any candidate - they will inevitably be evil. It's you people who do vote who have to bear the moral weight of putting some Constitution-gutting power-monger (of either party; they're both the same) into office.

Manedwolf
October 12, 2006, 09:58 AM
For whatever politicians I can find that aren't anti-gun and also aren't horribly corrupt, dangerous theocrats or lip-service tools thereof, dictator-enablers, authoritarian socialists, rubber-stamp yesmen for the executive branch, pets of lobbyists, pork-barrel addicts, pedophiles or shielders of pedophiles.

I sometimes wonder if that leaves ANYONE of any incumbents. :mad:

Republicans are the price I pay for keeping Democrats out of office. The price is exorbitant, but it's worth it.

Right up until they get so cocky at being unopposed that they add 2A to the rest of the bill of rights they've been using for toilet paper recently, yes. "Only terrists need assault rifles! Cause..they could, y'know, shoot up a mall...hurt 'merkins."

I want a viable third party. One where the candidates can quote from Jefferson and Adams et al, from the Bill of Rights and even the Federalist Papers without a teleprompter.

wingman
October 12, 2006, 10:20 AM
Perry will probably prevail, which makes me retch.

Same here but I will vote against him....................



I have long been a Republican supporter, however I feel we can no longer
have the luxury of voting one issue and we need to rid ourselves of folks
who don't do the job either party, my opinion vote them out.:cuss:

Robert Hairless
October 12, 2006, 10:57 AM
We have to be proud of the gun owners who don't vote, or who vote for third-party candidates that don't stand a chance of winning, or who vote for anti-gun Democrats.

Those gun owners aren't stupid. They know that their failure to vote means that they aren't expressing a preference. They also know that when they vote for a candidate who has no chance of winning they are not helping pro-gun candidates be elected. And they know that they give an even bigger boost to anti-gun candidates by voting for them, and when they vote for Democrats they are helping an anti-gun party dominate the Congress. So those gun owner are not stupid.

They also know that this one issue has irreversible consequences. Gun owners know that Mayor Nagin of New Orleans confiscated firearms, lied about doing so, and created such strict conditions for their return that very few gun owners have been able to get them back even after the NRA and SAF are being successful in their suit against New Orleans. Gun owners know that when their firearms are banned--as Bill Clinton's Democrats did immediately after they took control--they will never get them back.

Nevertheless, those gun owners are willing--even eager--to suffer the inevitable consequences and surrender their right to own firearms because they have higher principles and more important issues in mind.

What can you say about guys like that? All the rest of us can do is be proud that such people exist in the United States of America and try to figure out what life here will be like without private ownership of firearms. So let's hear a rousing cheer for those highly principled gun owners! Hip, hip, hooray! And let's give them a nod of appreciation: :banghead:

DRZinn
October 12, 2006, 11:03 AM
For every pre-daughter-coming-out Alan Keyes, who believes in small government, low-taxes and high-freedom, protecting innocent life and all that good stuff, there are ten pothead hippies who just want to make it safer for themselves to slam hallucinogens while they sleep around with as many unwashed, hairy people as they can.Unfortunately, you're right. But WHO CARES?? They can slam hallucinogens and sleep with unwashed hairy people all they want and it won't affect your rights or mine.

I simply can't support amoral abuses of freedomNeither can I. That's why I don't want the government telling those hippies what they can't do, especially when that means they'll restrict my freedoms, too.

My default position is to vote Libertarian. If there are circumstances involved which make this a bad idea (such as a swing state where voting Libertarian would help elect a Socialist), I'll reconsider.

BigG
October 12, 2006, 11:32 AM
Well said, Robert Hairless.

wingman
October 12, 2006, 11:43 AM
Nevertheless, those gun owners are willing--even eager--to suffer the inevitable consequences and surrender their right to own firearms because they have higher principles and more important issues in mind.


All sounds very noble however unless we get those "more important issues"
under control firearms for average Joe will cease to exist. We have a out
of control population issue mostly from immigration, loss of middle class jobs,
outsourcing, rising medical cost, on the present path private gun ownership
will be gone in 20 years, I have seen the changes first hand having grown
up in the 40's/50's. Simply it cannot be a one issue vote any longer.

Keith Wheeler
October 12, 2006, 11:45 AM
Huckabee.

Manedwolf
October 12, 2006, 11:55 AM
It seems like, now, being a single-issue voter on gun control while ignoring all the rest of the rights-violating legislation and the people who support it is akin to trying to stand in front of your own tree while a forest fire is burning up the others. If you ignore it, by the time it gets to you, it will be too powerful for you to stop, and your tree will be burnt up too.

cracked butt
October 12, 2006, 12:03 PM
Evil, the lesser of the two.

#shooter
October 12, 2006, 12:05 PM
Both. I am tired of the rubber stamp congress. As unbeliveable at it seems, I think the gridlock days were better.

Biker
October 12, 2006, 12:06 PM
Great analogy, Manedwolf. Could be the Pubs are counting on us to focus only on the 2nd while they slip in stuff like the PA.

Biker

buzz_knox
October 12, 2006, 12:08 PM
Great analogy, Manedwolf. Could be the Pubs are counting on us to focus only on the 2nd while they slip in stuff like the PA.


And the Dems are counting everyone to think that way so they can use the PA (which they voted for) to take away the 2nd (which they despise).

03Shadowbob
October 12, 2006, 12:09 PM
+1 Robert Hairless
I also vote for party not person. I don't necessarily like GW Bush but his party is a lot better than the others (IMHO).

Biker
October 12, 2006, 12:12 PM
Buzz...

Everyone voted on that POS without reading it - 900 pages or so presented in the wake of 9/11 and rammed down our throats by the Bush admin.

Biker

Lonestar
October 12, 2006, 12:17 PM
The lesser of two evils, probably Republican unless Jeb Bush runs, then I'll vote Libertarian. If its going to be Jeb Bush and Hilliary Clinton, I will give up all hope for this country democratic process. The Dynasty would continue with Chelsea Clinton and one of GW Bush's daughters running in 2020. I think the Libertarian party will win in 08 since everyone will be "so called" throwing away their votes in protest.

I really want a solid , non wacky 3rd party candidate to run in 2008.

Soybomb
October 12, 2006, 12:42 PM
Just to sort of stir the pot a little I have to ask that if I'm supposed to only care about 2nd amendment legislation, what good is the 2nd amendment? If I can't vote against the patriot act because I'm too worried about my guns being taken away, what good is the 2nd amendment to begin with? If a little legislation is all it takes to disarm people, isn't that a sign that the 2nd amendment has lost its teeth anyway? If people are willing to be disarmed have they lost the rebellious spirit of liberty anyway? :evil:

Borachon
October 12, 2006, 01:18 PM
Ross Perot.

I like it when someone in Washington admits there is a giant sucking sound.

Biker
October 12, 2006, 01:29 PM
I voted for Perot. No regrets. I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

Biker

EttenBoom
October 12, 2006, 01:32 PM
Let's look at my options.

1) I could vote Republican, but during the primary, one of the Republican senate candidates in my state, Katherine Harris, declared that voting for a non-Christian is voting for sin. She was easily nominated as the Republican candidate. Being a non-Christian, it was made clear to me that the Republicans neither want or require the vote of non-Christian sinners such as myself (the hypocrites have enough of their own already).

2) I could vote Democrat, but I'll then have to spend the next six years trying to hang on to my second amendment rights. Plus, the thought of being "represented" by some smug jerk who thinks that anyone who disagrees with his position is simply not smart enough to know better is unappealing.

3) I could vote independently, and have a clearer conscience, but if he doesn't win, that end up helping one of the bozos above.

4) I could not vote at all. By not voting, I'll give up my right to complain, but I won't be responsible in any way for electing some greedy, power-hungry jerk who cares not one bit about serving the people who put him in office.

Right now, #4 is the most appealing to me, giving up my "right to complain" is a small price to pay for having the right to say "don't blame me, I didn't vote for that *******"
I think it's sad, but this is the first election in the 22 years I'm seriously considering sitting out.

Keith Wheeler
October 12, 2006, 01:40 PM
Let's look at my options.

Last time I'll say it in this thread.

Huckabee.

Soybomb
October 12, 2006, 03:30 PM
3) I could vote independently, and have a clearer conscience, but if he doesn't win, that end up helping one of the bozos above.

4) I could not vote at all. By not voting, I'll give up my right to complain, but I won't be responsible in any way for electing some greedy, power-hungry jerk who cares not one bit about serving the people who put him in office.
How could not voting possibly be better than showing that more voters support a 3rd party?

EttenBoom
October 12, 2006, 03:48 PM
How could not voting possibly be better than showing that more voters support a 3rd party?

By not voting, I wouldn't be responsible for putting politician D in office by denying politician R a vote because I voted for a third party that had no chance of winning anyway.
Not better for the third party, or the people, but better for me.
I guess I'm just thinking selfishly here.

Manedwolf
October 12, 2006, 06:50 PM
As to politics in general, when I hear stuff like that for 08, some Republicans want to run Jeb Bush and some Democrats want to re-run Kerry, I just get the mental picture of a really, really, REALLY big bulldozer.

I am so utterly sick of more-of-the-same, lobbyists uber alle (there's over 33,000 lobbyists active in D.C. now), pet obsessive wedge issues, corruption, lying, stealing, nepotism, profiteering, cronyism, disgusting scandals coming like afternoon rain every day, coverups, and just sheer, idiotic, loudmouthed, closed-eared, closed-eyed INCOMPETENCE with a capital I and a dozen exclamation points that I've just lost all faith in both parties.

Jefferson's tree of liberty is a crumbling ruin that's rotted from the core.
We REALLY REALLY need a third party.

Panthera Tigris
October 12, 2006, 08:17 PM
I voted for independents before, probably will now.

Ian
October 12, 2006, 08:40 PM
As unbeliveable at it seems, I think the gridlock days were better.

I think so. A dem president and a repub congress...the republicans are better at gridlocking the dems than the dems are at slowing down the republicans (they've been hardy a speed bump for Bush, it seems).

borrowedtime69
October 13, 2006, 12:10 AM
Ian
I don't vote. I won't be sucked into giving my approval of any candidate - they will inevitably be evil. It's you people who do vote who have to bear the moral weight of putting some Constitution-gutting power-monger (of either party; they're both the same) into office.

i dont mean any disrespect or to flame you with the following statement but...

a few million American soldiers have given up their time, happyness, health, limbs, sight, dreams, and lives to give us the right to vote for our leaders to represent us and to run the country the way we see fit. i for one will NOT take their sacrifice for granted by sitting out pouting that if nobody's "perfect" for the job, im just not gonna vote.

there has to be a government, someone has to run the country, provide national security, public services, transportation, and justice.

i for one will stand up and vote every chance i get, not just for me, not just for my children, but to thank those soldiers that gave some or all so that i could have the chance to vote freely for the person i think is best to do the job. no political system is perfect, you have to make the best of what you have. -Eric

cbsbyte
October 13, 2006, 12:19 AM
This is a pretty stuiped post since elections are not that Black & White. For instance, I will be voting Democrat for state representives, Independent(against a Republican LT governor) for Governor, and third party or not at all on national races. No way in hell I am voting for Kennedy or my national representive but I hope that Dems take both houses and end up impeaching Bush. And yes I believe Dems will sweep both houses for the betterment of this country.

Ian
October 13, 2006, 12:45 AM
borrowedtime,

The real insult to past soldiers would be to take the vote they (in theory) protected and use it to help either Bush or Clinton or Kerry into a position of power. Because none of those politicians have any respect for any of the other rights that the soldiers (in theory) protected.

borrowedtime69
October 13, 2006, 01:41 AM
klinton & kerry are indeed scum of the earth, but ive seen nothing but respect and honor from Bush to our soldiers. i dont know what your malfunction is about Bush and the republicans being just as bad as the dems, the dems would have pulled a france manuveur after 911 and we would all be speaking arab and praying to allah. Bush answered their attack with force, now the scumbag terrorists are afraid to attack us until a dem gets in office.

if you dont want to vote for anyone cause everyone is evil and corrupt, then what the hell do you suggest can be done about it?!?!? you just want to give up on America and to hell with everybody?!!? what a defeatist attitude, go right to innaction and surrender. lets hear your solution to this "nobodies good enough to govern" crisis.

the economy is doing well, we havent been attacked again in 5 years, we all still have our guns, we have a decent, honorable man in the white house that isnt getting blown in the oval office or bombing asprin or chemical plants and calling it a strike against terrorists. Bush 43 is twice the man his father was and 10 times the man klinton was. sure, he's letting the illegal imigrant thing slide and i dont like that, but hell, no politician is ever gonna be perfect.

are you an anarchist? you want to go back to having a king? whats your solution?

Ian
October 13, 2006, 02:12 AM
NAIS?
Patriot Act?
Real ID?

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, itís just a goddamned piece of paper!"

Can you vote for that in good conscience?

Do I advocate surrender and inaction? No. But neither major political party has anything to offer the freedom-minded citizen. So voting simply isn't an effective way of getting a freer America. Other things are, though. Like getting fence-sitters interested in shooting and gun rights. Or email encryption and privacy rights.

DRZinn
October 13, 2006, 02:28 AM
Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, itís just a goddamned piece of paper!I'm still not sure why everyone acts as though it is unquestionable that Bush said this.

Bottom Gun
October 13, 2006, 03:20 AM
If the Lord meant for us to vote, he would have given us candidates.

longeyes
October 13, 2006, 01:17 PM
In the current social and cultural context suffrage is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Apathy, lack of turn-out, general ignorance of the issues, misuse of the voting privilege, and media manipulation on a grand scale have made the "sacrament" of voting more illusion than reality. Add to that the degree of social division we now have, and it is even-money we may not even have an '08 Election or if we do have one it will be nothing more than a charade concocted by the usual suspects angling for advantage.

Did someone mention bulldozer? I'll vote for that!

This comes from someone who's voted in every election since I was legal, and that was a long time ago. Kidding ourselves that elections, at this juncture, will really be the answer to any of our serious problems will get us nowhere. We are not even talking about the real issues in our elections--what's the point, even if people were informed and showed up? I don't write this happily; on the contrary, our position is tragic.

Zen21Tao
October 13, 2006, 01:58 PM
I didn't think I was allowed to vote, I AM an citizen and haven't been in prison. :D

EttenBoom
October 13, 2006, 03:08 PM
you want to go back to having a king

No, that's Bush's position.
Since 9/11, he's managed to get us in war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 , with no plan for getting out.

If you recall, our soldiers were sent to Iraq lacking in adequate body armor, where's the respect and honor in that.

Osama Bin Laden is alive and well, five years later. The Iraqi's quality of life is even worse than it was under Hussien, their infrastructure is destroyed, and they have civil war.
Meanwhile, our constitution is being treated like a piece of toilet paper, in the interest of "safety".

And we have a more-of-the-same, lobbyists uber alle (there's over 33,000 lobbyists active in D.C. now), pet obsessive wedge issues, corruption, lying, stealing, nepotism, profiteering, cronyism, disgusting scandals coming like afternoon rain every day, coverups, and just sheer, idiotic, loudmouthed, closed-eared, closed-eyed INCOMPETENCE with a capital I and a dozen exclamation points (I could not have said that better)
Congress that's allowing it all to happen.

That's why I don't want to vote.

Kowboy
October 14, 2006, 01:47 AM
I am not going to vote for any religious-right politician even if he promises a free handgun for every adult. These we-know-what's-best-for-you bigots are the American Taliban and will be the end of this country if we don't throw them out.

Even though Republican Michigan gubrinatorial candidate Dick DeVos has a very high NRA rating, this moron wants to teach religion ("Intelligent Design") in public schools. I'm forced to vote for Jennifer Granholm who opposed Michigan Concealed Carry. I'm certain he's the bigger threat to liberty and has a lesser understanding of the Constutution.

Kowboy

Eyesac
October 14, 2006, 01:50 AM
I would vote Libertarian, but lets be realistic...

Panthera Tigris
October 14, 2006, 09:28 PM
Oh, I don't know. I'm not religous at all, but maybe if the bible crowd did take over, my employers would be forced to allow us to have Christmas and Easter off, instead of making us work 365 days a year. :evil:

DRZinn
October 14, 2006, 10:20 PM
If you recall, our soldiers were sent to Iraq lacking in adequate body armorEvery individual I saw over there, without exception, had body armor, and it 95% of it was the brand-new OTV, and most of that included the trauma plates.

aspen1964
October 14, 2006, 10:25 PM
thank god our ww2 soldiers didn't refuse to go into battle
until body-armor was invented...

bg
October 14, 2006, 10:44 PM
Out here in Ca there are only a couple real choices for
sanity again..Sen.Tom McClintock for Lt Gov and
Sen.Chuck Poochigian for Ca's Atty General. I
hope other members who are here from California will
vote for these two candidates as well. Jerry Brown is
running anti gun ads for the Atty Gen's job and John Garamendi
leaves little to be desired as a potential Gov in 2010.

Both the Senator's I've posted above are pro-firearm
candidates, as well as common sense legislators running
for two very important offices. Please support them.

Tess
October 14, 2006, 11:52 PM
None of the above.

I vote for candidates, not parties.

SoCalShooter
October 15, 2006, 12:15 AM
I dont want this admin and I dont want this congress and I sure as hell dont want the dems in there messing up everything. We have a multi-party system but none of the other parties have enough money or political pull to get themselves in. I have thought about voting repub, but with all the religious bull that they are using to get elected I dont think in ernest I can vote for them and the dems are weak knee'd little girls who wouldnt know what the common sense bus looked like if it ran them over and then backed up again.(present dem community on forum excused). Libertarians are the way to go is what I am thinking.

I agree with what Tess said also, vote for the canidate and not the party. I dont want to lose more gun rights but in light of recent events and past transgressions my hope that the repubs will find their backbone and use it against this admin is quickly waning.

Dan from MI
October 22, 2006, 11:58 PM
I go down every single race on the list and make my decision from there.

I usually vote GOP, but vote person over party. (A gun grabber won't get my vote)

scurtis_34471
October 23, 2006, 12:24 AM
If one party has too much control, I vote for the other. All things being equal, I tend to go anti-incumbant.

sm
October 23, 2006, 12:41 AM
Humm...
Well I have never voted for a Dem in my life, not about to start now.
Pretty darn obvious all my life, seeing the rape and pillage of my rights by the Dems.

Well it seems to me we really do not have two Parties, have not had in some time. So to be totally blunt it does not matter what the "label" is on a Canidate is, if MY Rights are being raped, I ain't voting for the person. Dens are not an option, last time the Rep were not either.

Just me, about time we reminded folks that swore , or will swear to an Oath of Office that WE the People run this here Republic - not the PoliticianCritters.

Aside - being in Arkansas, the last damn person I would vote for if running for a Fed office would be a Baptist Preacher, Gov, from AR named Huckabee.

Man does not even deserve to utter the name of Winthrop Paul Rockefeller, may he RIP.

My not so humble opinion -

BigFatKen
October 23, 2006, 02:34 AM
http://www.alabamabass.com/Web/50stars.gif



I'll wrap myself in the flag and vote GOP. I don't like what the current POTUS has done in all regards to spending, but consider the alternative.

Said before, the Dems have promised to take your guns. The GOP may come around in 2008 if a Contract with America type of thing can come along.

RCouch
October 23, 2006, 02:47 AM
It's 10/23/06 at 12:45 am and I voted by mail in ballot yesterday. I'm not at all satisfied with the GOP but it's better than the alternative. I'm scared to death of Clinton/Pelosi.

If you enjoyed reading about "How will you vote from this election forward?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!