Preacherman
Member
BigG, then the second technique applies - vote against the worst candidate, if you can't find a "best" one to vote for.
A dilemma
- Thread starter lionking
- Start date
- Status
Zell never ran for anything since I've lived in GA. He was appointed to fulfill Paul Coverdell's term when he took the dirt nap. Zell retired and let a rep win the seat. You can count the "good" dems like Zell on less than one hand. 
I grew tired, in '04, of voting for the lesser of two evils. I decided that if the GOP wanted my vote, they'll have to earn it and if they don't, they'll be punished.
What do we have to lose? We're on a runaway train and have little time to hope for a miracle, Superman doesn't seem to care and the GOP say's "We have nowhere else to go..."
I got news....they're wrong. I'll punch 'em in the mouth right now rather than wait till when I'm weaker. I'll give 'em a fat, bloody lip today and see if they're willing to alter their unacceptable behavior rather than put it off until we're both too weak to make a difference.
Cure the cancer or commit sideways, 'cause I ain't playin' anymore.
Biker
What do we have to lose? We're on a runaway train and have little time to hope for a miracle, Superman doesn't seem to care and the GOP say's "We have nowhere else to go..."
I got news....they're wrong. I'll punch 'em in the mouth right now rather than wait till when I'm weaker. I'll give 'em a fat, bloody lip today and see if they're willing to alter their unacceptable behavior rather than put it off until we're both too weak to make a difference.
Cure the cancer or commit sideways, 'cause I ain't playin' anymore.
Biker
Camp David
member
Biker said:
Therefore, you forfeited your vote for the greater of two evils, if that is how you see it...
Biker... I am not telling you how to vote nor would I presume such for anyone... however, your disallusionment with one party simply makes the other party stronger...
My sense is you want the guy representing the Republican Party to be all things to all issues and wish to penalize him (not voting, voting for a 3rd party, or voting for opposition party) if he doesn't do exactly what you want 100% of the time... It is perfectly acceptable to be unhappy with the party but stay with the party in hopes of a (far right/moderate/far left) occupant within that party, as opposed to switching parties, or voting for a 3rd party with no chance in hell of winning...
tegemu
Member
I agree with Preacherman and some others. None of the parties, third parties included, principles and platforms appeal to me, a lifelong Repub. That's why I am giving some serious consideration to the UNITY Party,
www.unity08.com .
www.unity08.com .
I hate having to vote for Republicans just so the Democrats won't regain power. The GOP should have made the Libertarians unnecessary, but instead, they, as a party, have been taken over by the religious right. I don't know which is worse, the evilness of Hillary, or the idiocy of Pat Robertson, et al. I don't want to be ruled by either socialists or christian ayatollahs.
K
K
DoubleTapDrew
Member
I am registered as a Repub. but seem to agree more along the lines of the Libertarians. I am in the same boat as the thread starter. It would be great to see a Libertarian win but that won't happen, not in the next election anyway. I fear voting for the party would only serve to split the conservative voters like what happened with Perot in the 92 election and we ended up with Klinton's reign of terror.
I don't know if Hillary could win but if she did the result is a terrifying thought. Hopefully the GOP will get someone in there that will speak for the right and restore faith.
I don't know if Hillary could win but if she did the result is a terrifying thought. Hopefully the GOP will get someone in there that will speak for the right and restore faith.
OP
OP
lionking
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2006
- Messages
- 3,107
as regard to thoughts of him pandering to the religious right its a fine line for me.I do believe in God,I feel more comfortable having a leader who believes as compared to one who does not which may think of themselves or the state as God and those governments tend to want to disarm its populace.It is true though that certain elements of the administration have chosen to use the government to implement certain policies toward their version of morals such as what two adults do in a bedroom that I dont believe the feds should even be involved in.
Then again I get peeved off by the whining leftists who dont want to even tolerate the mention of God.
I taped what Bush said in the primaries,in his election debates.The first 2 years he seemed to stick to that promise,but slowly drifted away from it among a variety of issues.I cannot go into detail without creating debates on too many issues,which would hijack this thread.
I voted Republican for a platform of small government,individual rights,strong military and staying the heck out of the American peoples business in other regards....on some of those issues ,actually too many I feel duped.
Then again I get peeved off by the whining leftists who dont want to even tolerate the mention of God.
I taped what Bush said in the primaries,in his election debates.The first 2 years he seemed to stick to that promise,but slowly drifted away from it among a variety of issues.I cannot go into detail without creating debates on too many issues,which would hijack this thread.
I voted Republican for a platform of small government,individual rights,strong military and staying the heck out of the American peoples business in other regards....on some of those issues ,actually too many I feel duped.
Last edited:
bogie
Member
Looks like we'll have some Democrat next election - the "Anyone but a Republican" strategy works very well.
OP
OP
lionking
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2006
- Messages
- 3,107
bogie,I sure do not want a Democrat most certainly of all Klinton ,I never expected Bush to live up to everything,some things I still support him for but there are several issues which have made me wonder hence my dilemma.
btw,thankyou for correcting my spelling of dilemma,love this forum,always learning something new.
btw,thankyou for correcting my spelling of dilemma,love this forum,always learning something new.
Autolycus
Member
I will only vote my heart from now on. Even if my vote would be the deciding factor between Hillary Clinton and Wayne LaPierre for president. Assuming he ever ran as A GOP. I will only vote Libertarian from now on.
JerryM
Member
I generally vote the candidate. I would vote for Zell Miller if he would run. However, one must decide which party, and there are only the two that have any chance of being in power, has views that most closely agree with his.
That is very simple for me, and that is the reason I vote Republican in national or state elections.
I voted for GWB, and would do it again.
Jerry
That is very simple for me, and that is the reason I vote Republican in national or state elections.
I voted for GWB, and would do it again.
Jerry
TooTaxed
Member
Regrettably, the Republican Party is the only political group that has a chance of beating the Democrats. A vote for the Libertarian or any other party will only help the Democrats take over power. I can't bear to see that happen concerning my gun ownership rights.
Although you may be disenchanted with current Republican leadership, the best plan of action is to vote Republican, and get very active in party politics to change it the way you want. Casting a vote for a minor party will gain a very temporary...and in the end, mcompletely meaningless...feeling of justification.:banghead:
Although you may be disenchanted with current Republican leadership, the best plan of action is to vote Republican, and get very active in party politics to change it the way you want. Casting a vote for a minor party will gain a very temporary...and in the end, mcompletely meaningless...feeling of justification.:banghead:
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Presidntial candidate? Well, there's passive anti-gun and activist anti-gun. And there are the appointments, including the Attorney General. Who wants another Janet Reno?
For Texans, it's not much of a problem about US Senator. They're both on our side.
To me, the present makeup of the House of Representatives is KEY to us, both this year and in 2008. The Senate as a whole (hole?) is wimpy, but the House is in our favor. I"d like to see it stay that way.
IOW, I don't understand the problem.
Art
For Texans, it's not much of a problem about US Senator. They're both on our side.
To me, the present makeup of the House of Representatives is KEY to us, both this year and in 2008. The Senate as a whole (hole?) is wimpy, but the House is in our favor. I"d like to see it stay that way.
IOW, I don't understand the problem.
Art
CasualShooter
Member
All I can say is that it appears to me that we may either have a lot of young voters on this thread or a lot of old shooters with short memories. :banghead:
A lot of people voting for a third party candidate (Ross Perot) is what brought us the first term of the first Clinton Administration.
A lot of people voting for a third party candidate (Ross Perot) is what brought us the first term of the first Clinton Administration.
CasualShooter
Member
I think that I am beginning to understand why Illinois will likely be the LAST State in the Union, if ever, to get CCW. :banghead:
DRZinn
Member
I wish you people would think, before repeating this, about what kind of system elects the president in this country. In a state like California, whose electoral votes are guaranteed to go to the Democrat, my vote for anyone but the Democrat has no impact. Why, then, would I waste it on a Republican, with whom I agree on maybe 75% of the issues (at best), when I can make a statement regarding who would really best fit the office?
There is alot of good info in this thread and certainly alot to think about. My two cents, a vote is never wasted when you vote for what you believe in. How can following my heart be wasteful? The wasted vote thing really steams me. I vote the issues which for me means libertarian mostly. After all you don't see alot of anarcho capitilist canidates! There is not a dimes worth of difference between the two major parties at the national level. We are looking at, most likely an anti gun demo and an anti gun repub. The system is rigged to favor two parties and that keeps good people out Ron paul is a great example of this.
I believe in voting for now after all you can vote against something when you go to the polls. Heck you can vote against everything. I don't want to see Hillary as the CIC but it moves us closer to something.
Regards and happy shooting,
James
There is not a dimes worth of difference between the two major parties at the national level. We are looking at, most likely an anti gun demo and an anti gun repub. The system is rigged to favor two parties and that keeps good people out Ron paul is a great example of this.I believe in voting for now after all you can vote against something when you go to the polls. Heck you can vote against everything. I don't want to see Hillary as the CIC but it moves us closer to something.
Regards and happy shooting,
James
Mark in California
Member
Played that game in 1992 and voted for Perot. We got Bill Clinton instead. I will vote against Hillary no matter who else is running against her. There are only two possible (winning) choices and if Hillary is on one side, I am on the other.
bg
Member
I believe one thing that many times is not considered when
a vote is cast is who will the person elected for Nation's
high seat, nominate for positions that are so very
important to us as gun owners, enthusiasts, etc.
For instance if Clinton somehow DOES make it to 1600 Penn
Ave, who do you think she would nominate for Atty Gen ?
How bout Chuck Schumer, Reed, or one of those who
would make it a priority to hammer at the firearms issue
right from the very start. And it wouldn't be just the Atty
Gen's seat. Remember when the 1st Clinton was in
office ? Not only did he have Janet Reno as Atty Gen,
but people like Cumo {spelling?} as Housing Sec
who was behind the S&W submission.
When one considers some of the bills passed and
signed into law by this Admin, these same new laws
could be used against US to enact a program of
firearms banishment. All one has to do
is look at my state and what it's done to firearms
mfg, law abiding gun owners, etc to see how bad
things might and will one day get ! When one looks
at things, it's not that hard to see how a rabid anti
gun Admin might look upon US as a possible domestic
"quasi-terrorist" segment of the population.
So in the long run, maybe one does have to hold one's
nose to vote, as there are so many other factors
involved when the vote comes about in 08.
I really think George Allen might end up being one of
the top 2 or 3 candidates we as a pro gun group would
have to consider. I'd love to see other candidates who
have our issue at hand, but I DON'T want another
person who plays secret games with our privacy rights,
gets us into wars when we aren't prepared for them,
as well as panders to the infernal illegal infestation
plague/invasion. Plus the fact that the present Admin
has seen to it that lawful protests have been subdued
to such an extent that people are scared to question
or voice displeasure with the current Pres. Here is
a prime example of the "working man" vs the elitist
power class..>
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060722...rTI.fCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-
We have to see the overall picture when it comes to
the future candidates and who THEY choose as a running
mate, etc. I have been less than impressed with the
current Admin in many matters, but when it comes to
a Dem for the highest office, at least as far as I'm concerned...
forget it !
a vote is cast is who will the person elected for Nation's
high seat, nominate for positions that are so very
important to us as gun owners, enthusiasts, etc.
For instance if Clinton somehow DOES make it to 1600 Penn
Ave, who do you think she would nominate for Atty Gen ?
How bout Chuck Schumer, Reed, or one of those who
would make it a priority to hammer at the firearms issue
right from the very start. And it wouldn't be just the Atty
Gen's seat. Remember when the 1st Clinton was in
office ? Not only did he have Janet Reno as Atty Gen,
but people like Cumo {spelling?} as Housing Sec
who was behind the S&W submission.
When one considers some of the bills passed and
signed into law by this Admin, these same new laws
could be used against US to enact a program of
firearms banishment. All one has to do
is look at my state and what it's done to firearms
mfg, law abiding gun owners, etc to see how bad
things might and will one day get ! When one looks
at things, it's not that hard to see how a rabid anti
gun Admin might look upon US as a possible domestic
"quasi-terrorist" segment of the population.
So in the long run, maybe one does have to hold one's
nose to vote, as there are so many other factors
involved when the vote comes about in 08.
I really think George Allen might end up being one of
the top 2 or 3 candidates we as a pro gun group would
have to consider. I'd love to see other candidates who
have our issue at hand, but I DON'T want another
person who plays secret games with our privacy rights,
gets us into wars when we aren't prepared for them,
as well as panders to the infernal illegal infestation
plague/invasion. Plus the fact that the present Admin
has seen to it that lawful protests have been subdued
to such an extent that people are scared to question
or voice displeasure with the current Pres. Here is
a prime example of the "working man" vs the elitist
power class..>
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060722...rTI.fCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-
We have to see the overall picture when it comes to
the future candidates and who THEY choose as a running
mate, etc. I have been less than impressed with the
current Admin in many matters, but when it comes to
a Dem for the highest office, at least as far as I'm concerned...
forget it !
Last edited:
- Status