[Moparmike]

I have given a lot of thought to this question. My personal answer is "now." Others, like many here, have not reached this answer yet, and a few others reached this decision before I did.


I am not talking about Dubbya in particular, nor Kerry if he fits your definition of the lesser evil. What I am talking about is when do you start voting for whom you best believe will lead the country, and not some party hack who tells you he is less worse than the opposition? Many of us have Senators and Representatives that we can genuinely look up to and respect, no matter their party affiliation (Larry Craig and Zell Miller are great examples). Others of us have human beings that put the "scum and villainy" in the description of DC (Schumer, Feinstine, etc).

It is my opinion that the GOP hasn't put forth a decent candidate for POTUS since Reagan. And yet, because the DNC has put forth a worse candidate in the eyes of a majority of THR'ers, we vote for the less worse of the major candidates because we have swallowed the bunk fed to us about "winability."

So, I ask you: Where is your line in the "sand?" When do you start voting for what you believe in? When do you find another "restaruant" (political party) who will not put garbage on your plate and tell you it is fine cuisine, when there are better places with better choices?

It is my opinion that both the major parties could put forth better candidates from their ranks.

[Dbl0Kevin]

If there is a third party candidate running whom I agree with 100% on every issue I MIGHT consider voting for that person in order to make a statement. But as of right now there isn't anyone even close. While the Libertarian party is pro-gun which is good, they are also for wide open borders, legalized drugs and I can only imagine what they'd do to the military. While I disagree on what Bush does on quite a few things he is still the only candidate that stands a chance at winning that I respect the most.

It's not a perfect system but it's the best we got.

[WilderBill]

I suppose I'd stop voting for the lesser of two evils when I see a better, viable option.
It seems to be the nature of politics.

[444]

I don't think I ever will.
At the present time, on a federal level, the two party system is reality. A candidate from one of the two parties IS going to be elected almost every time. Therefore, I am going to have to live with the actions of one of those two candidates. I might disagree with the platforms of both cadidates to some degree. But, I am going to vote for the cadidate that promises more of what I think is important than the other cadidate. If I decide to be a rebel and not vote for either, then I might as not vote at all. Obviously an issue important to me is gun law. If one candidate calls for some "sensible" gun law and the other candidate calls for a total ban. I have to vote for the one that represents the least evil to me and the issues important to me. It might make me sick, but this is reality. Things don't very often happen the way we wish they would.
Voting for a third party is fantasy.
Let me give an anology of my opinion:
You take your vehicle to a mechanic and he tells you he has bad news. Your engine is shot. You can either buy a new engine, or totally rebuild the one you have. Instead of futher evaluating the two options present, you elect to change the air filter and hope for the best.
Note that you did what you wanted. Neither other option was attractive to you. You didn't like the other options. However, your solution didn't solve the problem. It was only a misguided hope.
Do I wish a third forth or fifth party candidate would emerge and make everything better ? Sure I do. But I seriously doubt it is ever going to happen, so I accept the fact that it is just a fantasy and then continue on with the reality of the world.

[Graystar]

Here in New York when Pataki was running for governor he was critical of the fact that Cuomo hadn’t passed a budget on time. He called it “despicable.” Well, Pataki won and not only has he not delivered a budget on time, but it’s been more delinquent than ever! So I don’t believe in the idea of “voting someone out” because what you get may be worse.

When I tell people that I probably won’t vote for Kerry they get upset and say crap like “we all have to work togethet to get Bush out!” So I tell them “You don’t vote someone out...you vote someone in.” I wish there was a “Not Bush” option on the ballot, but there isn’t. So I have to vote for who I think will be best for the country.

Personally, I’m voting for gridlock. Whichever way the House and Senate will seem to swing, my vote for president will swing the other way. I think the people need a break from Congress. They’ve been reckless lately and they need to be stopped, and the best way to do that is to have different parties in power. Then nothing gets done.

[Lone_Gunman]

I have always voted Republican for President, including GWB.

However, after the horrible policy that Bush has put forth in his first term, I will not be voting for him.

Of course I won't be voting for Kerry, either.

I am not sure if I will vote for a 3rd party candidate or not. The Libertarians have that pro-drug thing in their platform, and the Constitution Party seems a little too theocratic. I will probably just sit this one out and reserve the right to bitch about whoever wins. We really have the worst choices of my lifetime in this election.

In case you are wondering why I won't be voting for Bush:

1. Medicare Reform -- biggest increase in welfare since LBJ.

2. Campaign Finance Reform (my God, he said this was unconstitutional and signed it anyway).

3. Stupid ideas about illegal immigration.

4. Luke warm at best regarding the 2nd amendment, and at least voices support for the AWB.

5. Spends way to much money, while at the same time proposing tax cuts. This will not work long term.


All five of these points are liberal proposals previously touted by Democrats. In the style of Bill Clinton, Bush has taken his opponents platform and made it his own.]

If Bush loses the election, he will have no one to blame but himself. He has forsaken his party's conservative base. They won't go out and vote for Kerry, but a lot of them are going to sit home and not vote at all.

[geekWithA.45]

You stop voting for the lesser evil when you realize that you best interests are neither with the greater evil nor the hopeless cause.

Then you're simply voting in your best interests.


because we have swallowed the bunk fed to us about "winability."

Unfortunately, it's not bunk. Although even I personally wish it otherwise, electoral dynamics in a first through the post system are pretty well studied and understood realities that have to be taken into account when strategizing your vote. Much as it seems to be what some might describe as the "propaganda of the boot on your neck party (aka RepubliCrats, DemoCans, etc)", that's unfortunately not the case.

If it were, 3rd parties would have an actual chance.

It is not the result of a scheming cabal of statists. If it where the cabal could be identified and broken. It is something much more insidious and hard to correct; it is a persistent and stable pattern of the sum of vectors, like the "eye" storm on Jupiter.

This is not to say that all is lost, and change is impossible, but what it is to say is that in order to effect change, we're going to have to engage the parties at a deeper level, where the rubber meets the road, in order to influence them to produce the sorts of candidates we want.

In practical terms (for me, that is, ymmv) that means to discredit the Hard Leftist Infestation of the DNC by handing them repeated and consistent defeats, until they realize that to get the votes, they'll have to swing towards the center, and become recognizably American again, rather than the bizarre Pseudo Euro/Socialist monster they've become. Meanwhile, we'll have to be working to engage the GOP to produce more liberatarian, less creepy conservatives.

(extensions on these themes here: http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2004_05_23_geekwitha45_archive.html#108528949056788783 )

[R.H. Lee]

If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got.

[Freedspeak]

Contrary to many folks beliefs the Libertarians have been working at the local
levels (city, county and state) and succeeding.

Someone said they don't agree with the Libs. 100%, can you honestly say you agree with the Dems. or Repubs. 100%?

None of us agree 100% with any group ( even Libs., we just acknowledge a persons right to a diffrent view, we may feel they may be misguided, but, that is their right:D)

BTW: If you vote for the lesser each time, but the quantitative evil(at both ends) is larger each time where are we going?:what:

As was once said, those that don't participate get the goverment they deserve, and have no right to complain! ( A paraphrase)

[rick_reno]

I have always voted Republican for President, including GWB.

However, after the horrible policy that Bush has put forth in his first term, I will not be voting for him.

Of course I won't be voting for Kerry, either.


I'm at this same point. I campaigned door to door for GWB in 2000 and contributed $'s to his election effort. I've always voted Republican, since Nixon ran in 68. I won't be voting Republican this year, he's been a real dissappointment - in both leadership quality and policy.

When did I decide to vote third party? When I realized it doesn't make any difference which party is in the White House. If GWB's last 4 years demonstrate the best we can hope for with a "Republican" President and a "Republican" Congress then we're in real trouble. I find it incredible that his support among the RKBA crowd is so solid - IMHO, he and this Congress have done nothing for us. I know my expectations were much higher when we elected him in 2000 - and I'm certainly not going to lower them to whatever benchmark he has set.

[Standing Wolf]

My personal answer is "now."

I voted for Republicans in 2000 and 2002. They won. They didn't do anything for America or the Second Amendment, although to give credit where credit's due, they've been doing a truly outstanding job of soliciting me for contributions.

The Libertarian party hasn't actually accomplished anything more than the Republicans, but at least it has principles.

[Pendragon]

The problem is that nobody who comes within a few miles of a libertarian platform is going to be electable in this day and age.

Libertarians and people who think strict adherence to the constitution is important are a very small minority and somewhat frightening to the general population.

This election has me so depressed, and as much as I dislike Bush, Kerry is much more frightening.

It's really a case where they are asking you if you want to be shot in the chest or shot in the arm and you are asking if instead, might you have a jelly sandwich?


Arm please.

[rayra]

When do you stop voting for the lesser of two evils? Never, as I intend to REMAIN a part of the political process in my country. The Libertarian party can't even muster as many votes as the Idiots in the Green Party.
CHANGE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FROM WITHIN, instead of taking your Constitutional ball and going home.
In the meantime, I'll remain 'unaligned', and continue Voting the lesser of two evils, whichever party they come from.

[fjolnirsson]

It's really a case where they are asking you if you want to be shot in the chest or shot in the arm and you are asking if instead, might you have a jelly sandwich?

Well, more like shot in the chest or the guts, but yes.

[David W. Gay]

“When do you stop voting for the lesser of two evils?”

Never - as I never have.

I have never voted for a Democrat Presidential candidate.

I, probably, never will.

I have never voted for a Republican Presidential candidate.

I, probably, never will.

I will, however, ALWAYS cast my vote for the candidate that most closely represents my interests and views.

Always.

I consider this to be the political equivalent of “Molan Labe”. In other words, - if you want my vote, Come and Get it!

[Bainx]

When do you stop voting for the lesser of two evils?

When you vote third party of course!

[Ryder]

I'd like to see every election have a "None of the Above" option. If nobody is elected they would have to start over from scratch. Eventually we might end up with politicians who believe in doing things for the people instead of whatever it is that motivates them now..

[Treylis]

The Libertarians have that pro-drug thing in their platform

You know, it never ceases to amaze me when pro-gun people have issues with drug legalization.

[hillbilly]

I hear lots of folks carping about how Republicans have never done anything for gun owners.

I wonder how that tune will change in the second week in September when the Assault Weapons Ban sunsets?

hillbilly

[Hemicuda]

Because of out political system, the TRULY best people for the job of POTUS wouldn't get NEAR the position... they already have all the money and power thay need, and don't need the headaches and paycuts that the job requires...

so, for the forseeable future, I'll bet it will ALWAYS come down to the lesser of the evils...

[444]

Well I don't agree that Republicans haven't done anything with the gun issue over the last four years.
First of all, if things didn't get worse, that is a good sign. I feel quite certain that if we had a house, senate, and presidency full of democrats that our freedoms would have been eroded far more than they are now.
Second as was mentioned is the so called Assult Weapons Ban. We arn't completely out of the woods yet on this one, but it is looking pretty good. Assuming this law sunsets, are you going to still complain that Republicans haven't done anything with the gun issue ?
What about concealed carry ? Is it just a coincidence that over the last four years, the right to carry has increased dramatically ?
IMO, there are other aspects of gun ownership that have improved under the Republican watch.

This is yet another case of picking between two candidates. With one, things have gotten better. We don't know about the other one, but it is almost certain that he is out to get us. You can vote for the one that has either done nothing or a little bit in the interest of gun owners, or you can vote for some third party candidate who doesn't have a chance of winning and feel comfortable that you made some kind of statement.

[dischord]

The Republicans aren't as anti-freedom as the Democrats (slow march vs. quick step), but they're anti-freedom nonetheless.

Republicans take comfort in the fact that their anti-freedom guys win.

Libertarians take comfort in the fact that losing guys support freedom.

Either way, I lose my freedom. But at least I can look myself in mirror by voting LP.I hear lots of folks carping about how Republicans have never done anything for gun owners. If this election were about nothing but guns, I'd probably vote GOP. It's not.

[Lone_Gunman]

You know, it never ceases to amaze me when pro-gun people have issues with drug legalization.

I don't see what is amazing about that.

If the Libertarians would drop that one issue from their platform it would help their cause more than anything else.

I understand the theoretical argument for legalizing drugs, but I don't think it would work from a practical standpoint.

Also, there has been a tremendous amount of effort spent convincing people that drugs are bad and should be illegal. Most people believe that, and I think the Libertarians don't have the resources to change those beliefs.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Question: What party has elected more Libertarian candidates to national office than the Libertarian Party?

Answer: The Republican Party (http://www.rlc.org/?p=FAQ#4253)


Question: What party has the following membership in common - 1988 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, California LP Chairman and co-founder of Canadian LP party, 2002 LP candidate for Congressman from MA, 1997 LP Gubernatorial candidate for NJ, former LP National Secretary and former LP Treasurer?

Answer: The Republican Party (http://www.rlc.org/?p=Bios)

The first rule of politics in a democracy is compromise. You can only refuse compromise from a position of strength. The people in this thread are taking the position that they do not wish to make that compromise, even though they are obviously not in a position of strength.

Now that is fine. You owe it to yourself to do what you believe to be right and I wouldn't have it any other way; but as supporters of either LP or Constitution party philsophies, you must have some grasp of basic free-market capitalism and the law of supply and demand. You are demanding a very high price (no compromise on basic constitutional principles) for a very low supply of votes.

Currently, there is no shortage of people who are willing to compromise on basic constitutional principles. As a result, the LP is very unattractive to major parties. In order to garner that hardcore, 0.36% of LP voters, they would have to offend many more voters who don't believe in LP principles. The net result would be both a loss of votes and loss of power.

The problem is not the major political parties; but the voters that give them power. Until you change that dynamic and educate those voters on why a better adherence to our initial Constitution is in their best interest, you will not change a damn thing by voting for third parties. Once you've educated enough voters, the LP/CP will still not gain power because the major parties will assimilate and usurp LP/CP views.

The numbers here are quite solid. The LP could earn ten times the vote this election and it wouldn't even reach the level of earning matching federal funds, though it would reach the level that would guarantee a Kerry win in another close election a la 2000. By competing with every other ideology in a national platform, you minimize the effect of your numbers by diluting them in a larger pool.

Narrow the size of the pool (say to the membership of a major party) and you increase the effect of your influence. Doubt me? Look at what the Republican Liberty Caucus (http://www.rlc.org/) has accomplished in 13 years and compare it to what the Libertarian Party has accomplished in 30 years.

If you want to change the NRA, you'll have a lot more luck as an NRA member than you will as random cranky guy who doesn't pay membership dues but complains about organization policy. This same principle holds true in political parties as well.

[Boats]

I am going to keep on voting for the lesser evil because voting for the irrelevant evil only helps the greater evil.

Am I enthused to vote for GWB this election? No. However, all I need to recharge my resolve is to listen to Kerry for a minute.

Badnarik was the "lesser evil" of the Libertarian convention, and surely not even the best messenger for the party.

[TarpleyG]

I look at it like getting screwed, literally. You can have it with or without lube. Which one do you prefer?

Greg

[dischord]

I look at it like getting screwed, literally. You can have it with or without lube. Which one do you prefer? I'll take the third option and fight, even if the fight is hopeless. Sorry, I'm not the type to lay there and enjoy it.

[BigG]

Never. There is always something more to be desired from any candidate. Maturity is being able to deal with higher and higher levels of ambiguity, some have said...

[dischord]

Bartholomew Roberts: Look at what the Republican Liberty Caucus has accomplished in 13 years and compare it to what the Libertarian Party has accomplished in 30 years.If I had a RLC candidate on my ballot, I'd probably vote for him/her. I don't. So now what? Support an anti-liberty Republican anyway? Please.

The RLC candidate's list is pretty slim this year --
http://www.rlc.org/?p=Candidates

BTW: It not a matter of supporting either the LP or the RLC, but not both (until that rare instance that both are on your ballot .. we could only be so lucky as to have that dilemma).

[dischord]

Maturity is being able to deal with higher and higher levels of ambiguityMaturity is being able to deal with higher and higher levels of ambiguity by still standing by your principles. Immature people stand by their principles only when there is a carrot/stick.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If I had a RLC candidate on my ballot, I'd probably vote for him/her.

Who do you think the RLC will support in the Presidential General election this year? Michael Badarnik or George W. Bush?

[dischord]

Who do you think the RLC will support in the Presidential General election this year? Michael Badarnik or George W. Bush? Bush. However:

Vote for anti-liberty Bush because at least he'll win = keep losing my freedoms.

Vote for unwinnable Badnarik because at least he's pro-liberty = keep losing my freedoms.

The result is the same, but at least I can look myself in the mirror with the latter.

And please don't tell me Bush can be considered an RLC candidate even if the RLC endorses him.

[Zundfolge]

The numerous "3rd parties" at this point don't have enough power to actually get elected (at least not on a national level and not in enough numbers to actually cause any changes in policy).

The goal of people like myself in the Republican Liberty Caucus (www.rlc.org) is to change the Republican Party from the inside out so that at some point in the future the Republican candidate is not the "lesser of two evils" but is the "alternative to evil".

Otherwise we're still left with a "lesser of two evils" vote, or worse a "vote your conscience and end up helping the worse of the two evils" vote. While there are many here who argue the second option is a myth, the truth is that the vast majority of people who vote for Greens would have voted for Democrats where there no Greens and I still believe that the vast majority of those who vote LP would hold their nose and vote Republican if the LP where to disappear overnight.


Many here believe that the only difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that one is dragging us to tyranny at 5mph and the other at 50mph ... but we need that extra time to effect change with the RNC (because there is no chance of changing the Democrats and making them more pro-liberty).


I hear a lot of people here complain about the "Republicrats and Democans" but do nothing to change either party.

[Dbl0Kevin]

As I've heard stated before the primaries are where you go to vote FOR someone. Once the general election comes around you're going out to make sure the other guy loses.

This can be complicated during the primary for some of us. While there may be a candidate who you agree with and like the most, he might have no chance in hell of winning the general election. The game of politics is compromise and some people here just don't seem to understand that.

In order from someone to get elected he has to please the most amount of people. In order to do that he/she can't make hardline stands with one small group or another and alienate a whole larger group. It is for this reason that you have to learn to read between the lines. Take GWB for example. He has stated he supports the assault weapons ban. He has to because coming out with a straight opposition would give his opponents room to blast him from all angles. Now look at how he's handled it. With a Republican House and Senate and just about FULL democratic support he could have had that passed ages ago. But it's not. This is the way politics works and that's what you have to understand.

[dischord]

Zundfolge: The goal of people like myself in the Republican Liberty Caucus is to change the Republican Party from the inside out so that at some point in the future the Republican candidate is not the "lesser of two evils" but is the "alternative to evil". RLC vs. LP is not an either/or proposition.

Just like you can send money to the NRA and GOA, you can send money to the RLC and the LP.

Numerous states (including here in Virginia), do not register by party, so you can vote in the LP primary one election and the GOP primary the next, depending on what is most stategic.

I have no problems with the RLC. I have problem with the majority of Rs who are not RLC.

Just because the RLC exists, doesn't mean that I should support the GOP in general. Look at Senator Warner here in Virginia and his recent co-sponsoring of AWB legislation. There's no way I'll vote for him if he runs again in 2008. Period, the RLC be bleeped.

[flatrock]

When do you stop voting for the lesser of two evils?

When you start considering more than two candidates.

Then you start voting for the lesser of three evils, or four, or twenty evils.

[fix]

Well, more like shot in the chest or the guts, but yes.

Actually, it's more like being shot in the thigh with a 22lr or a 30-06, except it's not a jelly sandwich...it's a hemp laced brownie. :neener:

[Dbl0Kevin]

Flatrock, you summed up my sentiments exactly. Even with all the 3rd parties out there there is not ONE candidate that truely holds all of my views. Thus I refuse to throw my vote away and cast it for someone with no chance of being elected whatsoever. I'd rather pick the candidate that DOES have a chance at winning that I support the most.

[TallPine]

it's a hemp laced brownie
Which of course is why we need to ban chocolate ....

:rolleyes:

[oldfart]

When do we stop voting for the lesser of two evils?

That depends. Individually, we can stop anytime we want to.

Collectively though, it might be when that "lesser" evil has become "major" and suspended all elections. Or it might be when we finally realize there is no real difference between Party "A" and Party "B" other than the color of the fire extinguisher in our handbasket to hell.

The United States of America is on a one-way road to a totalitarian tyranny. It will not happen this year or next, perhaps not even in the next twenty years, but it will happen. Each Patriot Act or Campaign Finance Reform law or SCOTUS decision upholding police or Executive powers is another finely crafted cobblestone in that road. Whether or not the stone was designed with tyranny in mind as the final destination is inconsequensial. Our road to hell will be paved with as many good intentions as evil ones.

Let's face it folks, our votes aren't worth much. Sure, in a city council race in Bum????, Utah, one vote might make a difference. In a national election for President though, one vote for the good guy is overwhelmed by 3000 soccer moms who like the way the other guy combs his hair. Even in the highly unlikely event we could get Highroaders to vote as a block for any candidate the effect would be like pissing in the ocean. Vote your conscience or your wallet or whatever you want-- or don't vote, it won't make any difference. The outcome of the next election will be decided by ABC, CBS and NBC. They will push and squeeze and form the mush that has become the minds of the American electorate until they get what they want.

For those of you tuning up your flamethrowers: Yes, I'm pessimistic. But I'm also realistic. I know these things are happening and will happen and so do you. Just because someone said BOHICA doesn't mean you have to bury your head in the sand.

[Gordon Fink]

What I don’t understand is all the people who say they disagree with only one or two planks (usually on drugs or immigration) in the Libertarian platform but still vote Democrat or Republican. Presumably, these same people disagree with an even larger portion of the major parties’ platforms, but they keep voting for them, so which is really the lesser evil?

~G. Fink

[Moparmike]

It saddens me that so many here are willing to brush aside their principles to win the horse race.

I just cant understand how someone can look at a restaruant's menu wherein there is crap served many different ways, but still crap, and order something from that menu instead of leaving the restaurant.


Some people call the dems and anti's "sheep." I say they are just a different breed of sheep.:(

[joe sixpack]

Unfortunately in my area of the country, illegal immigration is a major
issue for me and many others. Any party claiming to support it, does not get my vote (whether or not they agree with more government or less) and is steering the ship towards a larger socialism, imho.

cheers, ab

[The Real Hawkeye]

I have made that decision a few times already. I voted Libertarian in '92 and '96 (voted for Reagan twice, and Bush the elder once). I was fooled into voting Republican for president in 2,000. G.W. advertized himself as being against foreign adventuring with the military and against "nation building." What a liar he is! He signed into law Campaign Finance Reform, which amounts to a denial of our First Amendment Right to free political speech exactly when it can count the most. He advocated the Patriot Act, and an even more expansive version. He wants to give illegal aliens a pass, and does nothing to close our open border situation. We have little old ladies being frisked at airports while Abdule walks on unharrassed for fear of "racial profiling." He had practically nationalized public education, and instituted the destructive policy of "no child left behind." He has said he would sign a renewal of the AWB. He gave us a phony tax rebate which just pushed off the tax for the next year. Government has grown since he has taken office. Why should I reward any of that? I am back to voting third party for president. In the past I've voted once for the US Tax Payer Party and once for the Libertarian candidate. Will make my choice based on who they put up this time. Certainly G.W. is not getting my vote again.

[Boats]

It saddens me that so many here are willing to brush aside their principles to win the horse race.

Such melodrama. What you are inveighing against, ineffectively I might add, is called pragmatism. Badnarik won't win. Can't win, and will likely be beaten by the Green candidate. Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. A Libertarian might be perfect on the gun issue, but even if he won he wouldn't accomplish jack.

Therefore, being the unprincipled, jaded, strategic whore that I am, who sees things for what they are rather than for what I wish them to be despite all evidence, Kerry is by far the more insiduous clear and present danger to my gun rights. With extreme wariness, I can keep the GOP in check because I am their base voter. Even with such diligence, I am exactly nobody to the Dems except an opinion to be ignored, and opposition to be overcome. Ask any Californian who has ever written to Boxer or Feinstein if they think they might at least get the time of day from a Republican Senator like they had when Pete Wilson was in office.

I just cant understand how someone can look at a restaruant's menu wherein there is crap served many different ways, but still crap, and order something from that menu instead of leaving the restaurant.

I can understand when someone is ordering up a false dilemma, hold the onion. :rolleyes:

Some people call the dems and anti's "sheep." I say they are just a different breed of sheep.

I'd say we Republicans are like stubborn draft horses who just keep pulling as best we can given the circumstances of having been yoked to the Dems, who are the silly jackasses who have been mulewhipped in the head one too many times and nothing they do resembles work anymore.

Third partiers then are just dumb oxen left behind at the barn, who no one even wants to hitch up because they don't ever get their noses out of the fecal matter and then are always braying about how bad everyone else smells.:D

[JoeSF]

You will lose legality for your guns quicker under the democrats. A republican congress and president have a chance of appointing judges our side needs. And that counts for a long time. You wont get them from the dems. Bush has at most 4 more years. It is about the judges. If you vote 3rd or dem be prepared for more unfavorable gun laws.

[cropcirclewalker]

The arguments I see made here suggest that maybe we could resolve our problem sooner by voting for Kerry.

Let's face it. As a republic, we're doomed. You ignorant republican plowhorses (see post above) will keep lemminglike voting for the lesser of evils until all we have left are Pre Ban Ivers Johnson Champions.

This forum will talk about lead vs steel shot and whether we really need that little bead at the end of the barrell. No, wait, lead will be illegal.

We will slowly shuffle into socialism with Bush but we (if accounts above are to be believed) will leap into it with Kerry.

Best way to get rid of a zit is to squeeze it. Bring on Kerry. Load up the courts with flaming liberals. Outlaw all guns. Make dogs and cats live together in peace.

Maybe that will bring on the reformation.

Otherwise, we're screwed anyway.

It's like going to the dentist. The longer you wait the worse it hurts.

They don't make novacaine for this.:(

[The Real Hawkeye]

You will lose legality for your guns quicker under the democrats. A republican congress and president have a chance of appointing judges our side needs. And that counts for a long time. You wont get them from the dems. Bush has at most 4 more years. It is about the judges. If you vote 3rd or dem be prepared for more unfavorable gun laws.How many pro-Second Amendment Supreme Court judges have been appointed by Republican presidents lately?

[Boats]

Maybe that [OD'ing on liberals] will bring on the reformation.

Yawn. All talk, action limited to only voting for minor leaguer irrelevancies.

Look, all the codespeak for armed revolution is cute, but really, have you ever watched the Libertarian Convention? More Star Trek convention goers likely attend than potential latter-day Gods and Generals material. :rolleyes:

[Hawkmoon]

Personally, I have always been an unaffiliated voter, because I believe that the two-party system is geared to keeping qualified people out of office and toward rewarding political whores who toe the party line.

Nonetheless, I have spent my entire voting life either voting against someone, or voting for the "lesser of two evils." As if those two views are different. In the last election, I drew my line in the sand. I refuse to waste my precious vote on someone I don't feel is qualified to govern, simply because the person he/she is running against may be even less qualified. I decided to vote FOR someone in the last national elections.

The problem, of course, was whom to vote FOR. In my analysis, Gore was a hypocrit, Bush was a dolt, and Nader was a snake. Not much of a choice. In the end, I voted for me, as a write-in. And I wrote in Jesse Ventura as my VP "running mate."

I'll do the same this time, except probably with a different name for VP.

[cropcirclewalker]

Yawn. All talk, action limited to only voting for minor leaguer irrelevancies. Maybe I am learning. Why waste my vote on a 3rd party guy? It's a vote for Kerry anyway.

Why not just vote for Kerry?

Maybe I will give lots of thought to your suggestion. I don't want to be irrelevant. :neener:

[Boats]

Whatever gets you through the night. If that vision includes having Sarah Brady welcome in the White House again, that is your choice.

[BigG]

It saddens me that so many here are willing to brush aside their principles to win the horse race.

The sewage is getting mighty deep here. :rolleyes:

[The Real Hawkeye]

In the end, I voted for me, as a write-in.Now, that really is a wasted vote. Why not at least make a statement with your vote that will actually be registered and taken note of, like pulling the lever for the USC Party, or the Libertarian Party?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

How many pro-Second Amendment Supreme Court judges have been appointed by Republican presidents lately?

Scalia? Thomas?

[Thumper]

Hate to be a cheerleader, but...

Boats had a pretty good couple of posts yesterpage for those who missed it.

[Ryder]

It would seem voting third party is that "none of the above" option I mentioned. That's just fine by me. I'm apparently missing that winning team bragging rights gene.

Bet those Nazis really enjoyed being on the winning team? What glory that must have been!

Freedom is way too important to vote based on who has the best haircut, most brilliant smile, or predicting who you think the winner will be in advance.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Scalia? Thomas?Would you mind providing some evidence that they would actually rule in favor of the actual intent and plain meaning of the words of the Second Amendment. Looking forward to your response.

[fix]

Bet those Nazis really enjoyed being on the winning team? What glory that must have been!

Neat. Can we invoke Godwin's Law now?

[The Real Hawkeye]

Neat. Can we invoke Godwin's Law now?I vote for overturning Godwin's Law. There are times when a reference to historical totalitarianism is perfectly appropriate. If we cannot discuss history, we cannot learn to avoid the mistakes of history. I generally oppose the imposition of any sort of politically correct speech codes. I think the notion is entirely antithetical to American principles, and to liberty in general. A pro-liberty forum should not encourage such things as a Godwin's Law. If such a historical comparison lacks legitimacy in any given case, let it be exposed to the light of day and refuted on factual and logical grounds.

[JoeSF]

Let's face it. As a republic, we're doomed. You ignorant republican plowhorses (see post above) will keep lemminglike voting for the lesser of evils until all we have left are Pre Ban Ivers Johnson Champions.

lets see who gave us....
Clinton Clips? Assault Weapon Ban? Liberal 9th circuit Federal Judges?

Please vote third party or better yet... stay home.

[fix]

There are times when a reference to historical totalitarianism is perfectly appropriate.

Oh sure there are. But this isn't one of them. This is a case of "You disagree with me, therefore you are a Nazi."

[The Real Hawkeye]

If such a historical comparison lacks legitimacy in any given case, let it be exposed to the light of day and refuted on factual and logical grounds.

[ProGlock]

Well I won't address everyone's reply, but here is why I am voting for Badnarik in November.

First off, voting for a third party is never a wasted vote like that old tired argument people like to use. Let's assume Kerry wins - everyone who voted for Bush was a wasted vote too. People use this argument for a couple reaons: first because no one likes voting for a loser; everyone likes voting for the winner, plain and simple. Second because people use it in an attempt to discourage any independent thinking in order to bring people back into the two...err, I mean one party system we have now.

This is a precise example of how dispicable political strategies have become these days that the common citizen no longer votes with their heart for whom they think will be the best person to do the job. No, instead they vote for someone because "I don't want that other guy in office". This is the "lesser of two evils" strategy. Here is a newsflash: voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

These days I now see the argument that it would better if Kerry got the Presidency because it would force the GOP to go back into the more conservative mode that they were before. Does anyone here see the ridiculousness in this argument? The GOP campaigned this stuff broad and wide back in the '90s that "if we're in power, this is what we'll do to change things", a couple of which being they were in favor of smaller government and strict protections for the 2nd amendment.

Well here it is, we now have a GOP controlled Congress and in the White House. Have we seen smaller government? No. Have we seen Blitzkrieg tactics against those liberal idiots to put some legislation on the floor to repeal some of their stupid laws or enact any to help gun owners? No. Oh wait, Sen. Craig's bill earlier this year for firearms manufacturers liability right? No....why in the hell did Sen. Craig propose a bill, and then propose amendments to his own bill? One of those amendments was for more strict punishments of people using armor piercing ammo on cops. Wait a sec - there's already a law on the books for that! Sen. Craig kept using the argument against Feinstein's AWB amendment that we've already got laws on the books against these issues and we don't need anymore. Why didn't Sen. Craig listen to his own advice? Another amendment proposed was for national CCW reciprocity for LEOs - NOT the regular citizen. Great, just what we need...that ever increasing divide between the common peon citizens and trusted ones of our nation's elite. Let's also not forget our friend the Patriot Act. I don't see any liberals jumping up to repeal it - no they're comfy where they are it's here to stay.

The GOP's gun bill completely dead, they can now say "hey look, we tried" or "hey look, we put Feinstein's AWB amendment in the grave". Yeah right...let's remember that Feinstein's AWB amendment PASSED with a GOP controlled senate. And now it's on the floor again. Where is all the GOP pro-2nd amendment legislation to repeal crap like the '86 machine gun ban? Or the '89 import ban?

Another common tactic that people like to use is "well even if a third party got the White House, how in the world could they get anything done because the Congress is still GOP/Dem". Total BS. I suppose by that same reasoning no business should have gotten accomplished in the '90s when we put the GOP in power in Congress while Clinton was in the White House?

I'm voting for a guy who is crystal clear on any issue that has been brought up to him. He isn't afraid to take on the tough issues and I have yet to see him dodge a question just because it might be politically correct. He's done an interview on C-Span taking random questions from callers all over the nation. When was the last time you saw a GOP/Liberal do that?

"We don't need a person in office who claims we have lost so much freedom because the government doesn't tell us what to do?" ...another argument that is pointless. Does the govt tell you what weapons you can/can't have? Yes. Does the govt force you to participate in a retirement system we all know is doomed to fail? Yes. Does the govt tell you what consumables are legel/illegal? Yes (marijuana, cuban cigars for example). Do they tell you to submit correct ID to an LEO anytime they demand it? Yes. Do they force you to use a fiat currency based solely on "credit" that with the stroke of a pen and a flick of a switch can be made worthless by printing trillions of dollars? Yes.



Lastly let's not forget the Republicans humble roots as they too started out as a third party. At least I know I am voting for someone who has come up with some damn good answers to some VERY tough questions. I have yet to hear anything out of our one-party candidates on those same issues.

[Walking Wounded]

Would you mind providing some evidence that they would actually rule in favor of the actual intent and plain meaning of the words of the Second Amendment.

I'm neither a republican nor a fan of Scalia. But he has the right idea about the 2nd amendment. Check out his book A Matter of Interpretation.

[cropcirclewalker]

If I could paraphrase Mr. Shakespeare,

"A man can smile and smile and yet be a villian."

:p

[fix]

Wouldn't that also apply to Baradnik?

[Zundfolge]

Let's face it. As a republic, we're doomed. You ignorant republican plowhorses (see post above) will keep lemminglike voting for the lesser of evils until all we have left are Pre Ban Ivers Johnson Champions.

The difference is if Republicans keep winning that day is a couple of decades away ... giving us (particularly the RLC types) time to change the Republican party and push it back toward libertarianism ... thus giving us a glimmer of hope that that day will NEVER come.

Voting for 3rd parties just insures Democrats win and that day will be a couple of years off instead of a couple of decades and then if the RLC is successful in changing the RNC it won't matter because we'll all be labeled "terrorists" and locked away.


This notion of being more interested in winning then in being principled is just asinine ... I for one don't want to have to invoke the real reason for the 2nd amendment and "feed the hogs" because its going to be messy and there's no guarantee that some form of feudalism won't grow out of it (or the police state crushes the uprising and we end up with totalitarianism) so I understand the reality that we have a better chance of reaching a more libertarian America with Republicans then Democrats (and significantly more chance then with the LP).

So those of you out there who consider us Republicans to be "lemmings" can go out there and be all principled and hand victory to people who's ultimate goal is to round you up and put you in deathcamps (and if you don't think that's the direction the DNC is headed you've blinded yourself with your hatred of your closest allies; the Republicans).


Currently the RNC is not perfect ... far from it ... farther from it then back when during the "Republican Revolution" in the legislature or under the Gipper, but we have a better chance of changing the Republican party then changing the entire government and the DNC and a much better chance of changing the RNC then elevating the LP anywhere near a majority in the House and Senate.

Bush sucks ... but he's not the only Republican and I don't believe the majority of the Republican party supports him for any reason other then he's the bastard we're stuck with for now.

[cropcirclewalker]

I guess so.

What's the point? Wouldn't it also apply to Walt Disney?

Are they on the supreme court?:confused:

[fix]

What's the point?

The point was that you had no point. I see you didn't get it.

[cropcirclewalker]

The difference is if Republicans keep winning that day is a couple of decades away ... giving us (particularly the RLC types) time to change the Republican party and push it back toward libertarianism ... thus giving us a glimmer of hope that that day will NEVER come.

Why would you put something like this off for our children and or grandchildren to straighten out?

Like I said before, It's like going to the dentist. The longer you wait, the worse it hurts. :(

[The Real Hawkeye]

Another common tactic that people like to use is "well even if a third party got the White House, how in the world could they get anything done because the Congress is still GOP/Dem". Total BS. I suppose by that same reasoning no business should have gotten accomplished in the '90s when we put the GOP in power in Congress while Clinton was in the White House?The president, when it comes to legislation, isn't dependent on support from Congress, generally speaking. What he does primarily is either sign bills into law or veto them. Sometimes he proposes bills, but that is not essential. Even if a Libertarian president would have his proposed legislation ignored, he still has the power to veto, which is a motivation for Congress to play nice with him on occasion if they want their bills made into laws occasionally. He also has the power of the bully pulpit, wherewith he may take his message directly to the people, who can then pressure their Congressmen to support his proposed legislation.

[Boats]

Do it for the children? Are you serious? What are you changing with a vote for Badnarik? Answer: NOTHING!

The LP--Going Nowhere Fast Since 1971

[BigG]

Boats: :cool:

[Hawkmoon]

Now, that really is a wasted vote. Why not at least make a statement with your vote that will actually be registered and taken note of, like pulling the lever for the USC Party, or the Libertarian Party?
:)

I expected that someone would come back with this.

This vote was no more wasted than if I had cast it for a third (or fourth, or fifth) party candidate who had no chance of winning.

I repeat -- my line in the sand was to stop being negative, to vote FOR someone rather than against. The only person I know of who completely embodies and embraces my views on what's right for this country, and who satisfies MY criteria as being qualified to be president, is me. Therefore, I really have no alternative other than to vote for myself if I am going to be true to the philosophy that I choose to vote for the best man for the job.

[cropcirclewalker]

Like I said at the top of the previous page, I WAS planning on voting for Badnarik, but you have shown me the error of my ways.

Now I am thinking about voting for Kerry. like you said, "For the Children"

A vote for principles is a vote for Kerry.

:neener:

[The Real Hawkeye]

Therefore, I really have no alternative other than to vote for myself if I am going to be true to the philosophy that I choose to vote for the best man for the job.I believe that when people say "vote for the best man," they are referring to candidates for the office. If you would like to be a candidate, you have to get chosen by some recognized party. Just voting for Joe Johnson down the street is not getting you anywhere, because no one knows what Joe Johnson stands for, or what message you are trying to communicate by voting for him.

[Moparmike]

Bush sucks ... but he's not the only Republican and I don't believe the majority of the Republican party supports him for any reason other then he's the bastard we're stuck with for now.So, we have 2 options here.

1. The GOP is a bunch of lemmings who will elect what is put in front of them.
2. The GOP knows that Bush sucks as a candidate and is busily formenting a plan to get another candidate.


Which of these scenarios is currently playing out?:uhoh:



I guess what I meant to ask, and what very very few have answered with, is "Where do you draw the line?

<Working within the party/ supporting the party>--------<GRAY AREA>--------<Shooting The Bastards>


Where in that Gray Area do you say "No further?" When do you stop going with people that want to merely go slower toward the abyss than the other group? When do you reassociate yourself with people that want to go in the right direction?

Work within the party you say? When do you say "hey, this isn't working!"


At some point between "Supporting those who sell you out/working within" and "Shooting The Bastards"* you have to draw a line and say "I am going to stand up for what I believe in, and I am not going to keep doing the same thing I have been doing which has been doing no good (IE :banghead: )." So, I ask you again: Where is your line? When do you stop voting for the lesser of two evils which gets you nowhere, and start supporting what you believe in?


*meaning those that put us in the handbasket and those who kept us from escaping...

[Dbl0Kevin]

1. The GOP is a bunch of lemmings who will elect what is put in front of them.

I think this is a bit unfair. If you remember back to the 1999 primaries the two major contenders were John McCain and George W. Of the two Bush was considered to be the more conservative, and at the time he had backed it up. While Governor of Texas he didn't give any indications of the kind of nonsense he'd pull while president. He signed CCW and Firearms Liability Bills and was a steadfast supporter of gun rights. He also didn't have any of the bigger government tendencies that he now has.

I remember personally that during the primary I was torn, because I figured if McCain won the primary he'd cruise to victory in the general election with his eyes closed. BUT I figured Bush was the more conservative so instead of "voting for the lessor of two evils" and going with electibility I decided to support Bush and go all or nothing. The bad thing is it worked and Bush won.....but now he's turned out to be worse than McCain nearly. :banghead:

This being said, he's an incumbent Republican president who STILL supports a LOT more of my positions than John Kerry ever will and he has the best chance of winning so he gets my vote. The time to change things is in 2008 when we get a fresh slate and can vote for a TRUE republican in the primary. Not in the middle of things and give the liberals control for four years and let them whittle away at our rights more. That's just shooting yourself in the foot for no other reason than to spite yourself.

[The Real Hawkeye]

I think this is a bit unfair. If you remember back to the 1999 primaries the two major contenders were John McCain and George W.Two comments here: Firstly, did you pick those two as our options? Nope, neither did I. It reminds me of the old Soviet system where you get to vote for one of the members of the Communist Party, and the Communist Party tells you who your choices are. These things are decided in smoke-filled rooms behind closed doors. Don't believe what anyone tells you about the grass-roots Republicans getting to pick who the choices are. Secondly ..., oh hell! I forgot what my second point was. :banghead: If it comes back to me, I'll be sure to post again. :D

[The Real Hawkeye]

Oh yeah, the second point was that you seem to be implying that the more liberal the Republican candidate, the better chance he has of getting elected. This ignores a couple of facts: Firstly, in '80, '84 and '88, the Republican candidate for president was perceived by the people, and portrayed in the press, as being extreme conservatives, and the Republicans won all three big. Once Bush the elder was perceived as a liberal big taxer, he was booted out. Secondly, G.W. didn't win in a landslide in 2000 because he did not ignite (and actually alienated) the Republican conservative base, due to his insinuation that traditional American conservatism lacked compassion for the common man. That shows a huge misunderstanding of real principled conservatism, and real principled conservatives resented it. Too many stayed home or voted third party. The only reason he squeaked through was that the Dem candidate was so damned Leftist and scummy. Reagan captured the Republican conservative base, and brought in many libertarians and traditional Christians too, which is why he won so big. He appealed to solid American values, and, yes, libertarianism is a solid American value. Just ask the Founding Fathers.

[13A]

I'm writing in Ron Paul for president.

I have received two surveys from the Republicans and three phone calls in the past 4 months. They are worried. I live in Oklahoma and I never even saw an ad for Bush in 2000 because he knew he had a lock on the state.

Bush is too liberal to get my vote. Coburn gets my vote in the Republican Senate primaries. He's a conservative.

[Boats]

. . .libertarianism is a solid American value. Just ask the Founding Fathers.

I agree that it is a solid American value, one of many. However, as a single organizing principle that acknowledges none of the communitarian values of this country, which also have long and respected lineages, it makes for a wacky and wholly out of touch political party.:evil:

[Zundfolge]

Why would you put something like this off for our children and or grandchildren to straighten out?

No. I can't have children so there won't be any grandchildren. I want to give myself a chance to straighten this crap out.

I don't want the totalitarian socialist police state the Democrats are bringing to come so soon that we loose any chance of making changes within the system thus requiring a bloody revolution.

So, we have 2 options here.

1. The GOP is a bunch of lemmings who will elect what is put in front of them.
2. The GOP knows that Bush sucks as a candidate and is busily formenting a plan to get another candidate.


Which of these scenarios is currently playing out?
You are making the same mistake that most in the media and the DNC make. The GOP is NOT a monolithic group marching in lock step with one singular agenda ... its made up of a diverse group of people with differing opinions on how things should be run.

The "neo-cons" and RINOs have somehow taken hold of the GOP in the last 8 or so years and its time for the conservatives and the libertarian minded Republicans to take it back.

Kerry can only make a worse mess to clean up when the GOP gets back on track so thats why I don't want to see him in the whitehouse (except maybe on one of those tours ... even then with extra security watching him).

Kerry wants to ruin the US economy with foolish minimum wage increases, reversal of the tax cuts and socialized medicine (I get all that from his ads). Those things alone should have Libertarians doing everything they can to insure his defeat, but they are too busy hating Republicans to see whats really at stake. Jeebus, if Libertarians would spend half the time attacking Democrats and their socialist plans for the world that they spend trying to convince us that Republicans are going to ruin America they might actually be moving toward their own stated goals!



The only hope this country has to become more libertarian is for one of the two currently well entrenched political parties to adopt libertarian ideals. period.

You're welcome to go try to start a DLC but the Dems are farther from that goal then the GOP is.

[WonderNine]

When you realize that you no longer want to be an accessory to it in any way, shape or form.

[BigG]

1. The GOP is a bunch of lemmings who will elect what is put in front of them.
2. The GOP knows that Bush sucks as a candidate and is busily formenting a plan to get another candidate.

MoparMike: This is the same kind of forced choice H/S that the public opinion pollers put out to elicit desired responses. You don't believe in that kind of manipulation, why are you trying to pull it with us?

[The Real Hawkeye]

You are making the same mistake that most in the media and the DNC make. The GOP is NOT a monolithic group marching in lock step with one singular agenda ... its made up of a diverse group of people with differing opinions on how things should be run.

The "neo-cons" and RINOs have somehow taken hold of the GOP in the last 8 or so years and its time for the conservatives and the libertarian minded Republicans to take it back.At the state level and the US House of Representatives level, I think we can actually take it back. This is too local for the RNC "machine" to completely control at their whim. However, as for the Presidency, the "machine" has a lock on who we get to pick. They only tolerate statist/leftist candidates, and actually pick one that gets their active support. Any candidate who holds authentic conservative or libertarian views is not only trashed by the liberal media (we could survive that), but is actually trashed with full RNC resources and support. The last thing they want is another Ronald Reagan. If they can't destroy such a candidate by ignoring him and not supporting him, they will fund commercials against him, go on talk shows and spew lies against him, fund calling programs where they call you at home during your primary and ask you "If you knew that so and so was a baby molester, would you still support him for president?" The RNC machine at the national level will not allow you to have a conservative candidate for president again, even though they know that a Reagan style conservative would win in a landslide. Their tendency is to favor statism and leftism wherever possible, and this is proven by the fact that vice pres candidates are always more statist and leftist than the presidential candidate. This is because they want to make sure that the next Republican candidate for president is a statist/leftist. Even Reagan was muscled into accepting a statist/leftis vice, if he wanted RNC support for his candidacy. We will never again be allowed a conservative Republican presidential candidate. I believe in working within the system for Ron Paul type local government and US Congressmen, but you are wasting your time at the presidential level. It will never happen. They will not tolerate another Reagan style presidency, and will use the full measure of thier power to prevent it.

[Zundfolge]

Hawkeye, I see your point, however I don't believe the RNC is beyond change ... there are several factions fighting for control of the party. The RLC types gained control of the party for the whole "Contract With America" and the Republican Revolution in the legislature. I believe we can retake power within the party.

It would be easier if Libertarians would join in the fight.

Ironicaly I would say that Cheney is more conservative and to the right of GW so I'm not sure you're theory about leftist/statist VPs is 100% accurate (although I agree it was with Bush Sr. .... Bush Sr. is the main reason I considered leaving the GOP for the LP ... then I started talking to Libertarians and I figured that they had no clue how the world works ... too many people join the LP because they want to smoke pot out in the open or are just there to be "different" :rolleyes: )

[fix]

if Libertarians would spend half the time attacking Democrats and their socialist plans for the world that they spend trying to convince us that Republicans are going to ruin America they might actually be moving toward their own stated goals!

Worth repeating! :cool:

[The Real Hawkeye]

Ironicaly I would say that Cheney is more conservative and to the right of GWYou've got to be kidding me. Cheney is a true believer in statism, while George W. is just a guy who drank his way through the first half of his life, and was picked because of his name to be a good little puppet of the RNC statists. Cheney has more to do with the decision making process in the Whitehouse than Bush does, I guarantee it. He is as establishment as they come.

[Gordon Fink]

Where do you draw the line?

For me it came after the 2000 election and over a decade of trying to work within the Republican Party. My candidates never won the primaries, and then the party unconstitutionally installed the most patently unqualified President in living memory. Looking in the Republican mirror, I could no longer see my own reflection.

So what would I do? Join the Democrats? Their platform has a few merits, but I could never get behind the institutionalized poverty of their social-welfare programs. Mindless Democratic support for “gun control” and “affirmative action” didn’t appeal to me either.

Finally, I looked more closely at the Libertarian Party—actually read its platform. I discovered that it incoporates almost all of the things I liked in the Republican and Democratic platforms and excludes everything I disliked. The Libertarians are ideologically consistent, favoring individual freedom and responsibility over the casual socialism and petty fascism of the Democrats and Republicans.

Will the Libertarians win? Will the U.S. (or even the world) become a more libertarian place? Probably not—at least not in this historical cycle. Barring global disaster, though, the ideological seeds we are planting may yet germinate and bloom sometime in the future.

In the meantime, I will not be a party to the slow march back towards tyranny—even benevolent tyranny. Usually unintentionally but sometimes intentionally, that is where the Democrats and Republicans are ultimately taking the United States. I’m sure they can succeed without my help. :(

~G. Fink

[ojibweindian]

and then the party unconstitutionally installed the most patently unqualified President in living memory.

Man, you couldn't be more wrong. It was COMPLETELY constitutional. Bush got the most Electoral College votes and, per the Constitution, he became President.

As far as voting Libertarian, I'm not gonna do it this election. The lessor of the two evils (Bush) is a much better choice than the greator (Kerry).

[Gordon Fink]

Ojibwe, I don’t want to hijack the thread, but given the uncertainty involved, the 2000 Presidential election should have gone to the House of Representatives—where, yes, the result probably would have been the same. I’ll leave it at that.

~G. Fink

[ojibweindian]

It should never had gone anywhere, and the only reason it did was due to Al's whining and insistence on 45,000,000,000 recounts, etc, etc.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Ojibwe, I don’t want to hijack the thread, but given the uncertainty involved, the 2000 Presidential election should have gone to the House of Representatives—where, yes, the result probably would have been the same. I’ll leave it at that.

~G. FinkYeah, Gordon, you and I would probably agree on a lot of things, but George W. won the race in the Constitutional manner. He won more electoral votes. The Florida Supreme Court tried to hijack the system, and the US Supreme Court actually did the right thing by ruling that what the Florida Supreme Court was doing was ex post facto, and thus violated the Constitution of the United States. The Florida Supremes wanted to change the law after the election, which, first of all, courts aren't allowed to do period (i.e., legislate from the bench), but certainly not after an election applied backwards in time. G.W. is the actual president, and this by our Constitutional system for electing presidents, even though I don't like or respect the man.

[Moparmike]

MoparMike: This is the same kind of forced choice H/S that the public opinion pollers put out to elicit desired responses. You don't believe in that kind of manipulation, why are you trying to pull it with us?BigG, that was in response to a post about the GOP knowing just how much Bush sucks as a candidate for POTUS. It reflects the two choices the RNC has for this year, and the apparent course of action they are taking.



I still want to know how far a THR member has to be pushed before they will start doing the right thing and voting their principles (no matter what they might be, Green, LP, whatever) instead of being dragged downstream by the major parties. No one who already hasn't made the decision has answered the question.

[fix]

I still want to know how far a THR member has to be pushed before they will start doing the right thing and voting their principles

As soon as they feel like that is the right thing.

[Gordon Fink]

I think Mike wants to see some specific reasons. For example, some members have stated that they won’t vote for G. W. Bush if he signs an extended “assault-weapons” ban.

~G. Fink

[Moparmike]

Fix, how can doing what you believe in not be the right thing? That makes no sense.


Is supporting things you dont believe in the right thing to do? :confused: :scrutiny:

Gordon, your signature is sadly appropriate. Ever felt like Nero? All I need to do is learn how to fiddle...

[Boats]

What I'd like to see, and what no one has provided, is the answer to this:

What do you think you are really accomplishing by voting for Badnarik?

[Lone_Gunman]

What do you think you are really accomplishing by voting for Badnarik?

I will change your question a bit, and then answer it.

Change the question to "What do you think you are really accomplishing by voting for someone other than Bush or Kerry"?

I want to change it because I probably won't be voting for Badnarik either. The reasons I won't vote for Kerry are obvious, and I don't see a need to list them. Pick any topic and I am probably in disagreement with Kerry.

So the real question then is why will I not vote for Bush.

The answer is that I will not give tacit approval to a man who:

1. caused the biggest increase in social welfare since LBJ by reforming medicare to provide a drug benefit.

2. signed Campaign Finance Reform, despite saying he thought it was unconstitutional. This law limits the most important type of speech, political speech. He was sworn to uphold the Constitution, and there is no way he can justify signing a law he thinks is unconctitutional.

3. created and new level of bureacracy which does nothing that we were not already doing. This is of course the Dept of Homeland Security.

4. will not stop the flow of illegal aliens into our country, and in fact appears to encourage illegal immigration.

5. increases spending at a wild rate, while promising tax cuts. While this might be nice in the short term (it'll buy votes), eventually someone is going to have to pay for all this.

6. plays political chicken with the 2nd Amendment by saying he is for the AWB, with a wink and his fingers crossed.



Bush is one of the most liberal presidents in our history. Despite what may be good intentions, 4 years of Bush have done us more harm than 8 years of Clinton.

Kerry will be a bad president, but he will probably be at odds with a Republican controlled House and Senate. Gridlock will come to the rescue, and hopefully we won't continue to see the pee-poor stream of legislation that has come about in the last 4 years. I'd just as soon take my chances with that.

The Republican Party is scared. They know Bush has upset a lot of the conservative base. They now these people will not vote for Kerry, but they are scared they either won't go to the polls or vote for some third party candidate.

[Dbl0Kevin]

Despite what may be good intentions, 4 years of Bush have done us more harm than 8 years of Clinton.

While I definately don't agree on certain things Bush has done .....I think that's goin just a tad overboard. :what:

[Lone_Gunman]

No, its really not overboard in terms of bad legislation. Clinton made a fool of himself and the presidency by his philandering, but he produced less bad legislation than Bush has so far.

I am not trying to compare Bush to Clinton morally.

[Moparmike]

Actually, I agree with it. Its amazing what S wont HTF when gridlock is in place.


Good post Lone_Gunman.

[fix]

Moparmike, what I'm saying is that many of us take the long view. By sticking to your "principles" in the voting booth, you could well ensure that ALL of them are abandoned in the White House. The best is always the worst enemy of the good. Libertarians have spent thirty years ignoring that lesson, and probably will spend another thirty years doing the same thing.

[Lone_Gunman]

fix,

how can you feel good about voting for Bush knowing that he is willing to sign bills into law which he himself considers to be unconstitutional?

[Dbl0Kevin]

how can you feel good about voting for Bush knowing that he is willing to sign bills into law which he himself considers to be unconstitutional?

Cause Kerry would sign even MORE bills and consider them to be clearly constitutional.

[Lone_Gunman]

Not necessarily.

Kerry and the Congress, assuming it remained in Republican control, which is likely, would be less like to reach agreement on things. I think its possible that less bad legislation would get signed.

Don't get me wrong here, I am not supporting Kerry, I just wonder how much worse he could be than Bush if Congress remains controlled by Republicans.

Dbl0Kevin, I do believe you have put forth the only real idea of the Republican platform, and that is, Kerry stinks worse than Bush. Thats all the Republicans seem to be able to say to sway voters, and this is not a very enlightened platform to have to take.

[fix]

What exactly is it that the Libertarians are saying to sway voters? I'm not hearing it. Once I spit out the kool aid I came to the realization that the Libertarian Party has demonstrated absolutely nothing, and is only good at espousing certain theories...many of which I agree with. A lot of folks ask the question, "What have you done for me lately?" My question to Libertarians is, "What have you done for me EVER?!!!"

...other than insult me because I live in the real world and value action over theory and conjecture. You can talk all you want about what you will do for me, and I love some of that talk. That, however is a double edged sword, because some of the things you want to "do for me" are not acceptable at all. The same thing is true for Republicans. It makes more sense for me to work within the Republican Party to change that. Sure, I could work to change the Libertarian Party, but at the end of the day...even if I am successful...the Libertarians are not in Washington, and will not likely EVER be in any real numbers. So in the end, all I would have accomplished is changing the theory. No thanks, I'd rather see results in the real world rather than the theoretical libertarian utopia.

[Lone_Gunman]

Fix, I am not trying to pick at you, but you didn't answer the question:

how can you feel good about voting for Bush knowing that he is willing to sign bills into law which he himself considers to be unconstitutional?


Is it OK to vote for a candidate who will only repeal a little bit of the BOR?

Is repealing one amendment ok, but two amendments bad?

I am not a Libertarian. I am a orphaned conservative Republican. You ask what have the Libertarians done for you, and the answer is nothing.

But ask what the Republicans have done for you, or are promising to do in the future, and you will find nothing much there either.

[The Real Hawkeye]

My question to Libertarians is, "What have you done for me EVER?!!!"Libertarians only really want to do one thing for you, i.e., get government off your back, and keep it off. That's it.

[fallingblock]

"When do you stop voting for the lesser of two evils? "

Kerry is a disaster for RKBA.

Bush is by far the lesser of these two evils.

Sorry Mike, I got here way late.:D

[BigG]

know how far a THR member has to be pushed before they will start doing the right thing and voting their principles Obviously, YOUR "right thing" is way out of line with what I think of as RIGHT. ;) Sorry if I have about 30 years of reality training on you, son. :cool:

[dischord]

fix: I'd rather see results in the real world rather than the theoretical libertarian utopia.Changing the GOP "from within" is even more utopian than anything we Libertarians believe.


Reality<--->Redsox Win Series<--->Libertarian President <--->Tooth Fairy<----->Changing GOP

[fix]

Lone_gunman,

It IS NOT about feeling good at the voting booth. It IS about feeling good about the end result. There are two possible outcomes. I'm voting for the best one. Does that answer your question? Now as for what the Republicans have done for me lately, I consider the tax cuts a big friggin deal. When the AWB sunsets, I'm putting a good portion of that tax cut towards a little retrofitting. So regardless of what they intended to do, the Republicans just gave me more of my money back and it will be used to restore a few PC rifles to their proper evil status. Not only would Kerry actively work against my right to retrofit...or even own them in their present state, he would take more of my money away too.

dischord,

If you honestly believe that we are more likely to elect a Libertarian President than change the GOP from within then I don't know what else to say to you. :rolleyes:

[dischord]

fix: If you honestly believe that we are more likely to elect a Libertarian President than change the GOP from within then I don't know what else to say to you.You speak about rejecting utopian ideas. Take an honest and long look at the GOP, where it's going and how entrenched/deaf its power structure is. Make an honest assessment of what it will take to crack that.

Changing the GOP from within is utopian.

(Forget, for now, the debate about whether it is more utopian than LP success -- that's just my opinion anyway.)

[fix]

Make an honest assessment of what it will take to crack that.

A whole lot less than what it will take to change the Libertarian Party into something more realistic...much less get them elected!

[Lone_Gunman]

So Fix, how do you feel good about the end result knowing you voted for a man who limited free political speech by signing a law he said himself was unconstitutional?

If Bush does something unconstitutional, its just as bad as Kerry doing, despite party affiliation.

The tax cuts will not be permanent. At the rate Bush is increasing federal spending and federal bureacracy, they can't be permanet. Some one has to pay for the prescription drugs and office space for the Office of Homeland Security. He has bought some votes with the tax cuts, but sooner or later you will pay for it.

I am all for tax cuts, but at the same time, federal spending has to be cut. Bush spends money like a drunken sailor on shore leave. The next poor sap to be president will get this dumped in their lap, and will probably be the one to get the blame.

By the way, I do agree with you that change from within the Republican party is more likely to be successful than trying to turn the Libertarians Party into something useful. As long as the Libs hold on to the legalization of drugs, they will go nowhere in this country.

[dischord]

fixi: A whole lot less than what it will take to change the Libertarian Party into something more realistic...much less get them elected!Like I said, forget for now the question of which is more utopian.

Simply consider whether "changing the GOP from within" is utopian in and of itself.

You say you reject utopian ideas -- yet you embrace one.

[fix]

This is why I left the Libertarians in the first place.

:banghead:

Good bye.

[dischord]

This is why I left the Libertarians in the first place.

:banghead:

Good bye.What are you talking about? Everyone was being polite and relatively reasonable.

Anyways, please take a hard look at whether "changing the GOP from within" is utopian.

[fix]

Whatever. I'm voting for Bush.

[dischord]

Whatever. Are you saying that you refuse to consider whether your position -- changing the GOP from within -- is utopian?

[fix]

Yep, and I'm NOT voting for Bush, I'm voting against Baradnik! :neener:

Pat yourself on the back. You just swayed a voter!!! :D

[dischord]

Pat yourself on the back. You just swayed a voter!!! I wasn't trying to sway your vote. I was trying to have a conversation.

It's sad that you won't apply the same scrutiny to your position (that the GOP can be changed from within) that you apply to others' positions.

It's really sad that as soon as I ask you to scrutinize your ideas that you shut down and refuse to discuss the matter further.

[Boats]

The GOP was substantially changed one time in recent memory or does no one recall the rise of Barry Goldwater, who begat Ronald Reagan, at the expense of the Rockerfeller wing of the party, which has been in decline ever since? THe Republican Party, which used to be a really Northeast and parts of the rural midwest and mountain time zone party has become the Party of the South and West in addition to hanging onto the mountain west.

Sometimes it takes a smashing defeat to reform a party or take it in a new direction. Nothing about abject failure seems able to reform the total fecklessness of the LP.


BTW, no one has answered my question yet, save for one individual who felt the need to alter it.

What do you think you are really accomplishing by voting for Badnarik? Takers? My bet is that it boils down to some misbegotten sense of vanity masquerading as "maintaining one's self-respect," or some other canard, that diverts attention from the real world futility of the gesture.

[dischord]

boats: What do you think you are really accomplishing by voting for Badnarik? Takers? My bet is that it boils down to some misbegotten sense of vanity masquerading as "maintaining one's self-respect," or some other canard, that diverts attention from the real world futility of the gesture.If maintaining self-respect is a mockable non-accomplishment, then I won't accomplish anything by voting for Badnarik.

However, Bush has moved the GOP away from liberty. I cannot reward that with my vote.

I will not buy into the utopian fantasy that voting for someone (Bush) who has moved us away from liberty will help restore liberty.

At least I'm aware of the futility of my position. Pro-liberty Bush voters are deluding themselves into thinkig they'll slow down the slide and somehow change the party from within by rewarding the party for doing what they oppose.

[Lone_Gunman]

However, Bush has moved the GOP away from liberty. I cannot reward that with my vote.


I agree 100%.

Voting for someone who will sign things he knows are unconstitutional cannot be logically justified. The Republicans know this too, and thats why they are scared that their conservative base will not show up in great numbers to vote for Bush.


To quote Barry Goldwater:

Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue; extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice.

[Boats]

If maintaining self-respect is a mockable non-accomplishment, then I won't accomplish anything by voting for Badnarik.

Except, of course, it is worse than that. A vote for Badnarik maintains the illusion of self-respect whilst aiding the greater evil.

The communists used to call the support of those foolishly misguided about their true nature useful idiots. I imagine the Democrats are all for the growth of the Libertarian Party in a similar light as the LP amounts to little more than a vote diversion tool employed against their only viable opposition.

If maintaining a fantasy ideology gives your life meaning, by all means, imagine you are doing something that empowers you in the face of implacable apathy.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Pro-liberty Bush voters are deluding themselves into thinkig they'll slow down the slide and somehow change the party from within by rewarding the party for doing what they oppose.

Or alternatively, they realize that any group large enough to wield political power will often disagree on goals and policy. If people left a political party every time that happened, the party would never get the chance to wield power (much like several third parties). Political parties derive their power entirely from people who vote for the party even though it doesn't agree with them 100%.

This is why parties have primaries. The primary is where you express your dissatisfaction with the goals or policies being pursued by the party. If you have enough people, your side wins and the direction of the party changes. If you don't, your side loses. The primary is the place to cast the protest vote and let your dissatisfaction be known.

In the general election, the debate is over. Your party has decided how it will fight that battle and what policies it will use. At this point, you either get on the bandwagon or take your ball and go home.

Perhaps the people who are trying to change the party from within would have better luck if all of those people standing to one side and clucking at they way work is being done joined them in the work?

[dischord]

Bartholomew Roberts: This is why parties have primaries. The primary is where you express your dissatisfaction with the goals or policies being pursued by the party ... Perhaps the people who are trying to change the party from within would have better luck if all of those people standing to one side and clucking at they way work is being done joined them in the work? As I said earlier, RLC vs. LP is not necessarily an either-or option. It is possible to support both (especially in my Virginia and your Texas, where we don't register by parties). You can send money to both the RLC and the LP. You can vote in either primary, depending on which is most strategic.

If the GOP had put up a viable pro-liberty alternative to Bush in the primaries, then I'd have voted in the GOP primary. If one of the 10-or-so RLC candidates were on my ballot, then I'd likely vote for him.

But that's not the case. I'm still stuck with deciding whether I should reward Bush for moving us away from liberty.Boats: A vote for Badnarik maintains the illusion of self-respect whilst aiding the greater evil.My self-respect is not an illusion.

However, my vote for Badnarik will not help Kerry win -- he's going to lose my state (Virginia) no matter how I vote, so the "lesser evil strategy" is not a viable option for me.

I'd actually consider holding my nose and voting for Bush (yep, I'm contradicting myself and my self-respect) if I lived in, say, Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida. But I don't, so thinking that I'll help stave off a Kerry win would be just as much a fantasy as thinking Badnarak will win.

Since I don't have the option of helping Bush (or hurting Kerry), all I have left is my self respect.

[fix]

However, my vote for Badnarik will not help Kerry win -- he's going to lose my state (Virginia) no matter how I vote, so that the "lesser evil strategy" is not a viable option for me.

So you're saying that if your state was in the mix, you'd (GASP!!!) compromise your principles? Reward bad behavior? Delude yourself into thinking you'll slow down the slide into tyranny? Join me in my Republican utopia? Oh the horror...errr...hypocrisy! :o :rolleyes: :uhoh: :scrutiny: :what:

[dischord]

fix: So you're saying that if your state was in the mix, you'd (GASP!!!) compromise your principles? Yes, fix. I'm trying to be honest here.fix: Oh the horror...errr...hypocrisy! I've said many times in other threads that the "lesser of two evils" strategy has some legitimacy -- but only in the few states that are in-play.

Please do not ascribe other people's positions to me -- I've never said that principles are the only legitimate question.

I'm simply trying to explain that principles are all my vote counts for in this election.

[fix]

I've said many times in other threads that the "lesser of two evils" strategy has some legitimacy -- but only in the few states that are in-play.

You are correct. Sorry, I keep forgetting that you're the one. Unfortunately, I believe you are alone.

[Gordon Fink]

What do you think you are really accomplishing by voting for Badnarik?

I will be showing my support, however insignificant, for liberty over fascism or socialism. If that means John F. Kerry is elected, so be it. If that means George W. Bush is elected, so be it.

And, yes, I will also sleep better for it.

~G. Fink

[Lone_Gunman]

Still no Republican can answer the question:

Why vote for someone who has signed a law that he says is un-Constitutional?

So far we have heard how much Kerry would be, but we now have a sitting president who has said he thinks the campaign finance reform bill is unconstitutional, and then signed it anyway.

How can you vote for him knowing he doesn't care enough about the first amendment to stand up to political pressure and just veto it???

I have been waiting on an answer for this question for a while, and all I can get is "kerry would be worse".

[fix]

Why vote for someone who has signed a law that he says is un-Constitutional?
...
I have been waiting on an answer for this question for a while, and all I can get is "kerry would be worse".



That is the answer you have been given. Continuing to ask the question is not going to make anyone say "Gee, you're right! I'll vote for Baradnik!"

[Fred Fuller]

"The communists used to call the support of those foolishly misguided about their true nature useful idiots."

Boats, I think you are hoist on your own petard. Unless you consider it beyond the realm of possibility that there could be such a thing as Republican vs. Democrat useful idiots, some self examination might be in order.

When will I stop voting for the lesser of two evils? I stopped years ago, Moparmike, what took you so long?? ;^)

What do I think I am really accomplishing by voting for Badnarik? I am voting FOR something as opposed to voting against something else, that's what. And I don't have to hold my nose to do it, either. I am doing the only thing I see as a worthwhile option, given the degraded state of politics in modern America. I am voting for less government not more, I am refusing to make a choice between tax and spend versus spend and tax, I am not being suckered by false promises from a liar on one hand and an incumbent liar on the other.

I HAVE to vote, otherwise I couldn't legitimately b***h, and the Rs and Ds sure give me plenty to complain about. Thanks to folks who think the two parties are the only way to go, that's likely to continue for a long time.

Oh well... if voting really mattered it wouldn't be allowed anyway.

lpl/nc

[Lone_Gunman]

Fix, I am not voting for Badnarik, I am a conservative Republican. Badnarik doesnt have a chance, is kind of wierd, and doesn't really represent traditional conservative views anyway, and , so I won't be voting for him. I guess I will be sitting this one out, unless someone resurrects Reagan, Goldwater, or Nixon.

Anyway, I am certainly not trying to get you to vote for Bandarik.

But "Kerry is worse" just is a bad answer though for why someone should vote for president. Its the only thing the Republicans have to say for themselves though. They just harp on how much worse Kerry would be. It is not a very enlightening outlook.

[fix]

It is not a very enlightening outlook.

No doubt about that. If I had my way, Alan Keyes would have taken the nomination. I honestly think he had just as good a chance of beating Gore as Bush and McCain. But that didn't happen, so I'm voting for the candidate that will come closest to my views [key phrase]WHILE IN THE WHITE HOUSE[/key phrase] not just [key phrase]WHILE ON THE BALLOT[/key phrase]. Unfortunately, Bush is that candidate. I'd love for things to be different, but reality is what it is. Is he perfect? Far from it. Do I agree with what he's done? Less than half of the time. Am I willing to let Kerry (and Hillary I'm afraid) rise to power just to send GW the message that he's pissing me off? No. The best that could happen is that he would get the message and go home to Texas feeling guilty for pissing me off. The end result would be a guy who pleases me half the time sitting in Crawford while a guy who represents EVERYTHING I oppose, sits in the Oval Office. No thanks.

[Lone_Gunman]

I see your point Fix.

I don't know of much Bush has done domestically that I support. There may not be anything. A lot of the things has done are just plain bad. I voted for him in 2000, and I am very saddened by how disappointing his presidency has been. I even donated a good bit of money to his 2000 campaign. "Compassionate Conservative" has turned out to mean "fiscal liberal".

I think he has done OK with the stuff in Iraq, WMD or not. Saddam needed to go. Thats about where my support ends.

I don't want Kerry to win, for sure. But it is very frustrating to me that Bush is the only other candidate with a chance of winning.

[Boats]

Well I don't know how hung up on my own petard I am, but I know that we Republicans pretty much concede we're less than thrilled with shrub's performance. We know the true nature of compassionate conservatism now. It is a reaction to the Clinton years in that we now know what a panderer from right of center looks like. What's funny in a rueful sort of way is that after signing the "unconstitutional" CFR bill, he was proven wrong by the SCOTUS. Ergo, GWB signed a constitutional CFR bill after all.

None of that changes the reality that Kerry is a damn sight worse and sometimes voting against someone is more compelling than voting for someone. Being anti-Kerry is not fearmongering, it is rooted firmly in reality. Who makes cabinet and executive appointments. Think ou are even going to get RKBA lipservice from a Kerry admin? Likely you'll see a resumption of HUD anti-gun litigation, renewed efforts to champion an AWB, restored funding to the CDC to "study gun violence," stricter sporting interpretations from the BATFE, the list goes on and on.

Being "reflexively" anti-Kerry doesn't make me or anyone of a like mind a mindless tool for the incumbent. Rather it brands us firmly as pragmatists.

Since Badnarik has no chance and since I live in the battleground state of Oregon, I will not willingly help Kerry through the conceit that I am somehow salving my own conscience by voting for somebody. Since I am in the position to help prevent a Kerry presidency with my vote, I have to use it to maximum effect and not as a feel-good noisemaker. I am not voting for Bush so much as voting against Kerry, because there is a difference, Bush doesn't actively encourage the antis.

[Lone_Gunman]

What's funny in a rueful sort of way is that after signing the "unconstitutional" CFR bill, he was proven wrong by the SCOTUS. Ergo, GWB signed a constitutional CFR bill after all.

Boats, the SC decision notwithstanding, do you believe in your heart the CFR bill is constitutional?


Also, at the time Bush rendered his opinion that it was probably unconstitutional, there had been no SC ruling. If in his heart he believed it was unconstitutional, then he should be duty bound to veto it.

[Moparmike]

Lee, this is my first POTUS election.


Obviously, YOUR "right thing" is way out of line with what I think of as RIGHT. Sorry if I have about 30 years of reality training on you, son.So either you have no principles, or they dont matter to you. I am not telling you to vote LP. I am telling you to stop selling out what you believe in. If you saw a rape being committed, you would act to stop it, yes? All I am trying to do is ask people how much raping it takes to get them to say "no more." Sadly, it seems many here have "political" Stockholm Syndrome.

And your age has nothing to do with any of this. It has a nice elitist edge to it though. Good job.:rolleyes:

[Boats]

I'd say age has a lot to do with this debate. The old saying is "youth is wasted on the young." Why does that have the ring of truth? The young ain't wised up yet.

The LP is a petulant self-indulgence when staring a Kerry administration in the face. Whatever. You'll learn, or you'll be wearing sansabelts at some Ramada years from now arguing over which goof railing against the 16th Amendment best represents your aspirations for a presidential candidate.:rolleyes:

As for the CFR, what does it matter what I think about its constitutionality? (BTW, I think it is not). I happen to believe that any attempt to keep money away from politics is doomed to failure, constitutional or not. It does not seem to be the case that anyone has been too impaired by CFR so far. The NRA is a budding multimedia outlet now, which is an amusing unintended consequence for the proponents.

[Lone_Gunman]

It does not seem to be the case that anyone has been too impaired by CFR so far.

Republicans have attempted to block advertising for Michael Moore's Farhenheit 911 using the CFR law.

Michael Moore may be a jackass and an idiot, but he still should have protection under the first amendment.

If we use the logic that I quoted above, then we should not oppose the AWB because no one has really been impaired by not having bayonet lugs, flash hiders, and 30 round mags.

As for the CFR, what does it matter what I think about its constitutionality?

Well, if you think the First Amendment is good, and violating it is bad, then wouldn't you be against somebody who wanted to violate it?

[Moparmike]

Boats, why does my youthful opinion have less weight than yours? Just because one can happily sell his soul for pragmatism's sake does not mean that one he is "wise." And if it does, than I want no part of wisdom, thank you very little.

[The Real Hawkeye]

unless someone resurrects Reagan, Goldwater, or NixonHow in hell do you lump Richard M. - price controls - Nixon in with two great Americans like Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater? :fire:

[Lone_Gunman]

He's a distant third on the list, I admit, but better than either of the Bushes or Dole.

[cropcirclewalker]

What's funny in a rueful sort of way is that after signing the "unconstitutional" CFR bill, he was proven wrong by the SCOTUS. Ergo, GWB signed a constitutional CFR bill after all. I'm sorry, I can't agree that it's funny, even ruefully.

Dubya's handlers told him to sign the bill. Even though he claimed to think that it was unconstitutional, he signed it anyway. Sort of like Viet Nam.......Sign them all and let SCOTUS sort them out. It never works. It's not funny.

If he had the strength to veto the CFR, then congress would have had to override and SCOTUS would have been out of the picture and it would have been an UNCONSTITUTIONAL Bill.

This is our leader? We want HIM to select the next 2 or 3 supremes?

This is not funny, it's frightening.
:uhoh:

[fallingblock]

"Being anti-Kerry is not fearmongering, it is rooted firmly in reality. Who makes cabinet and executive appointments. Think ou are even going to get RKBA lipservice from a Kerry admin? Likely you'll see a resumption of HUD anti-gun litigation, renewed efforts to champion an AWB, restored funding to the CDC to "study gun violence," stricter sporting interpretations from the BATFE, the list goes on and on."
************************************************************

Kerry is a disaster-waiting-to-happen for RKBA.:eek:

Moparmike and I agreed several of these "vote your conscience and lose" threads ago that voting your conscience in a state not in play is a valid and pragmatic way to go. My state of Florida is going to need every Bush vote this year.

Any vote that could help Bush going to the LP is worse than a "wasted" vote...it is in effect a vote for the enemies of our RKBA.

Yep, I'm a single-issue voter and proud of it!:D

Australia (along with most of the world's nations) has no RKBA.
You can be deprived of yours by allowing the likes of John Kerry into the presidency.

I urge those of you who prize your Second Amendment to pick another election for that protest vote.:)

[PromptCritical]

When the right candidate stands a better chance of winning than the wrong candidate.

Example: I will vote for Bush because he stands a better chance of winning and keeping Kerry out of office.

Another way of putting it: Right candidate: great, but not likely; Bush: good, good chance; Kerry: bad, must be prevented at all costs.

[JPM70535]

I will keep on voting for the lesser of the 2 evils until there is no GREATER of 2 evils.

Let me expound on that statement just a bit. I do not consider GWB to be in any way an Evil. While his conduct of the war against Iraq leaves a lot to be desired in terms of effectiveness, his action in attacking Sadam was warranted. Time will vindicate his decision and evidece of WMD will surface.

As a rabid believer in the literal interpretation of the Constitution and in particular the Bill of Rights, I am less than enthused with GWs statement of intent to sign the AWB extention if presented to him. What I have yet to learn of is any gun control legislation ever signed by Bush. What I have noticed is the astounding increase in the number of States issueing CCLs, and the ensueing reciprocity between these states which results in my Florida permit being valid in 26 states. Wonder what it was 4 years ago? Better question, if Kerry had been POTUS over these last 4 years, what would these numbers be?

Finally, as regards Bush's handling of the economy,specifically the tax cut for "The richest 1% of the Nations taxpayers". I am glad that with a net income of considerably less than $75,000 I qualify to join the elite. The tax cut resulted in a modest tax refund for my family that I never saw under 8 years of the Klintons. With the giveaways proposed by Kerry, if that fool is elected, hell will freeze over before we see the next tax cut.

Now as to the futility of voting for a 3rd party candidate. If, and that is a big IF, one of the minor partys fielded a candidate and party platform that didn't smack of the Lunatic Fringe, he just might have a chance at being elected, if he survived the campaign without being assassinated. FYI, the last time those conditions existed, George Wallace was the candidate, rising in the Polls, and we know the outcome of that one.

Nader doesn't have a chance of pulling more than 10% and he has the largest base of any of the 3rd partys. Everyone here raves on about the Libertarian Party and if it weren't for items like the legalization of drugs, they might be viable, but with that stake in the platform firmly fixed they eliminate sizeable blocks of potential voters, myself included, so I guess I'll just keep on voting for the lesser of the evils.

[achadwick]

Why all the fuss about the LP's position on drug legalization? Nowhere in their platform do they advocate the recreational use of mind altering drugs. All they are saying is that government should not intrude into that portion of our private lives. What's wrong with that?

And no, I'm not concerned with hordes of new drug pushers on every street corner trying to convince any of my children (all pre-teen) to try drugs, for two reasons:

1. I've trained them better than that, and
2. We already have that in many inner cities today anyway.

Drug legalization would take away the profit motive so the pushers would be out of business.

And really, this War on Drugs has gotten way out of control. Innocents murdered in their own homes because our brave drug warriors got the wrong street address. Entire farms and ranches confiscated because af a few marijuana plants growing on the premises without the knowledge of the land owner. Etc., etc.

Enough already!

(Edited the subject line)

[The Real Hawkeye]

When the right candidate stands a better chance of winning than the wrong candidate.

Example: I will vote for Bush because he stands a better chance of winning and keeping Kerry out of office.Then you will gradually lose all your rights. Currently, with your approach, we are being transformed into a police state. That's not rhetoric. It's an objective fact, and it is a calculated result, i.e., it's no accident. If you are over 40, it's palpable. Young people tend to just think that things have always been this way, but it's not true. When I was a kid, the police could not do the things they do today. It was unconstitutional, and we were taught to be proud to live in a country, unlike any other, where the police could not just demand your papers, or frisk you down at will on a hunch, or confiscate your car because you didn't have your prescription on you when they found your heart medication in your glove compartment. Police didn't break a homeowner's door down with battering rams two seconds after whispering "police search warrant." When I was a kid, cops weren't allowed to randomly stop cars to see if you had your safety belt on, while using that as an excuse to snoop for something else they can use against you. The change is palpable, and it's only getting worse. It will continue to get worse until people see through the false logic of voting for the lessor of two evils, because the lessor of two evils will get worse every four years, because you send them the message that you don't mind it getting worse by voting for them every time. They don't have to do anything to earn your vote, other than promise that the other guy is even worse, so you will eventually lose no matter what, unless you stop playing the game they've set you up in.

[oldfart]

Hawkeye is right! Our enemies-- and they ARE our enemies-- have taken the longer view and are incrementally stripping us of our rights-- and not just RKBA either! Little by little, like water wearing away stone, they've changed the country I was born in to one I was taught to hate and fear.

We gunowners, on the other hand, are primarily concerned with the next four years. What will Kerry take away from us? What will Bush allow to be taken away? We sometimes refer to ourselves as "Patriots" in an effort to somehow compare ourselves to those great ones who founded our nation. Yet they didn't look simply to the next four years or even the next twenty. They planted seeds that they knew they wouldn't see bear fruit. Indeed, some of them didn't even see the seeds properly planted before the British killed them.

We have to take a longer view of this problem too. We have to stop talking about 'the next four years' or 'when Hillary runs in 2008.' We have to start looking at the next generation and what they will leave to their kids. But first we have to decide what we will leave to them. Will we show them how to give up and let evil win just because it isn't as evil as it could be, or will we spit in the eye of the evil one and show him we won't be cowed, that we won't be bought off with a smile and more political rhetoric?

I don't know who I'll vote for this time around. Bush is bad. Kerry is worse. Nader is an idiot and Badnarik couldn't win in his own house. But I must admit I'm tired of voting for the least rather than the most. Just once before I die I'd like one more chance to vote for a good guy.

[cropcirclewalker]

I was just reminded by my wife asking if I knew who the two presidents were that died on the same day.

Of course I knew..........Jefferson and John Adams both died on July 4, 1826. 50 years to the day after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Then I was saddened.

After Washington retired (2 terms was enough) the following election had no clear majority. The election was settled in the House of Representatives. Those guys had to choose between Jefferson and John Adams.

edit: No, wait, maybe it was Adams and Burr. No, it was Jefferson and Burr. Whatever. I'da taken Burr too over what we got today.

If only we had a choice like that today!
If only we had to choose between only ONE of those guys.
If only we had to choose between only 1/2 of those guys.

We're screwed, :uhoh:

[GeneC]

You know, y'all can call me crazy, but I don't think either Party will fix everything, nor will another party. This Country has evolved and both parties helped shape it to what it is today. I's thinking (and wrote a paper on it many years ago) that maybe a different system of running this Country might do the trick. It'd still a representative system, but with communications and the media like it is, I's thinking perhaps we could have 3 people in every position in Govt, a Dem, a Rep and an Indy. Then every issue'd have to be voted on, right then and the majority of the people'd be represented in every decision made.

[cropcirclewalker]

Even easier than that would be to do our legislation like it says in the constitution (before the 17th amendment). States appoint the senators and 1 representative for each 30,000 people.

That would make for 100 senators like now, but the people who buy the senators would have to bribe the state legislators AND the senator. Hillary would have had NO chance. Teddy Kennedy would have been put out to pasture long ago.

With 300,000,000 citizens, we would have a house of Representatives of 10,000 members. Who could afford to buy off 5,001 of them?

Your repersentative would be much more responsive to you as an individual. Bring politics back home to the people. I wouldn't even care who Sensenbrenner was. ;)

[The Real Hawkeye]

Cropcirclewalker said: Even easier than that would be to do our legislation like it says in the constitution (before the 17th amendment). States appoint the senators and 1 representative for each 30,000 people.

That would make for 100 senators like now, but the people who buy the senators would have to bribe the state legislators AND the senator. Hillary would have had NO chance. Teddy Kennedy would have been put out to pasture long ago.

With 300,000,000 citizens, we would have a house of Representatives of 10,000 members. Who could afford to buy off 5,001 of them?

Your repersentative would be much more responsive to you as an individual. Bring politics back home to the people. I wouldn't even care who Sensenbrenner was.Exactly! Isn't it amazing that actually doing government the way it was designed by the Founders is today considered revolutionary. They designed it that way for a good reason. It is the perfect balance between true representative government and limited constitutional republicanism. Too bad we can't have the system the Founders designed. It would solve the vast majority of the problems we are facing today.

[GeneC]

Just for the sake of discussion ( and to get ALL info on the table-1k heads are better than 2), I'm going to challenge this theory. You know Kali has the highest population, followed by New york, etc (lucky for you Fl is 5th). what's to stop ALL Demorats from moving to these cities to sway the vote? No, I think it should be something more stable than geographics. I like my idea. Plus I'd make impeachment proceedings alot easier.

[achadwick]

cropcirclewalker,

Just a nit, but the constitution does not specify one representative for every 30,000 people. It just says that the number of representatives must be no more than one for every 30,000 people. In that respect, we are within the bounds of our constitution today.

[Hack]

When Jesus Christ comes down from Heaven I'll vote for him.
I don't know any other perfect candidates.
...in the meantime
George Bush does anything and the media grabs it, twists it and the resulting negative spin brainwash is front page news until the next spin episode.
More Abu Ghraib, anyone?

George Bush has pulled a few nasty boners I'm pretty pissed about.
Hell yeah I admit it....but what if it was Al Gore instead?
How mad would you be when America apologised to osama bin laden for our buildings being in the way of those 747's?

George has also contributed more good than any president since Ronald Reagan. Nobody talks about that part. It makes George look too good, can't have that.
As far as the dreaded government being some benevolent entity never able to do harm in the good old days...what good old days were those?
Are you saying this stuff with a straight face?
All governments in the history of the world have had and exercised covert populace controls. Our government is not now and has not been exempt from this disgusting practice. Hell, 30 years ago when I was 20 I was dragged off for questioning by deputy dawg, beat up, held for three days and turned loose without so much as a sorry for something I had nothing to do with. You mean those good old days?
I'll bet I'm not the only one here with that story from the good old days.

As far as third parties, they're still a pipedream as only the entrenched political parties got/can get the $.
I hate the thought of it but that's what it takes nowadays. $ and more $.

Sad but true.
Don't waste your vote.

[Moparmike]

I urge those of you who prize your Second Amendment to pick another election for that protest vote.Not to nitpick Fallingblock, but its always another election that we should pick to do what we consider the right thing.


Hell, I would be happy if everyone would vote the "least" of the evils. Then many more would be voting for Badnarik.;)

[Lone_Gunman]

George has also contributed more good than any president since Ronald Reagan.


Give me a break. Don't you think that statement is a little dramatic? We have only had 2 presidents since Reagan. One of them was his Dad, who I admit made a pretty poor showing, and the other was Bill Clinton.

I think your statement was intended as some sort of compliment, but I am not sure it says much when you think about it.

[Hack]

Yep, you're right. Sometimes I get caught up and run off at the mouth.

Who are you voting for?

[Lone_Gunman]

I don't have a dog in the race, Hack.

I've always voted Republican, and donated money to Bush's 2000 campaign, but after he signed the Medicare Reform Bill and Campaign Finance Reform Bill, I realized that he is not a conservative, just another liberal disguised as one.

[Hack]

Sadly I agree.

How will you feel if Kerry wins because of disappointed Republicans not voting?

[Lone_Gunman]

I won't feel too bad.

I think Kerry is terrible, but I don't think he would be able to effectively implement his bad ideas, as I expect the House and Senate to remain in Republican hands.

I think gridlock may give us some well needed relief from bad legislation passed in the last 4 yrs.

[JohnKSa]

When do you stop voting for the lesser of two evils?

When you decide to throw your vote away by giving it to a third party candidate who has no chance of winning.

[Hack]

Agreed again.

I've seen the Bush administration get some pretty nasty liberal stuff rammed through republican houses like that alien amnesty nonsense and now giving up our military to world court actions. Disgusting.
One party in charge of everything is probably not the best way to go.

This God forsaken state is not like others.
I have Hillary and Schumer as senators and most everything else is socialist to where you can't have a business without everybody and his unemployed brother with their hands in your pockets.
I must vote for Republicans if for nothing else than to get those hemmorhoids off New York's ass.
That of course won't happen because the prevaling mentality up here in yankeeville is to live off the teat.

I'm tired and disgusted and I'm gonna go watch some fireworks.
see ya