Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

For those of us who don't want Bush or a Dem in office...

Discussion in 'Legal' started by seeker_two, Jan 3, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. seeker_two

    seeker_two Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,616
    Location:
    Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State (TX)
    ...there are still other options (esp. for 2A positions).

    Links to all the political parties' websites

    Find a third party & let the Republicrats & Demoncans know what you think of them... :neener:

    I'm leaning toward the Constitution Party, myself... :cool:

    Staying at home & NOT voting would be "wasting" your vote.... :(
     
  2. STONER

    STONER Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Messages:
    25
    " Find a third party & let the Republicrats & Demoncans know what you think of them."

    Seeker_two,

    I heartily agree. The absolute worst thing anyone could do would be to not vote. I am also leaning towards the Constitution Party.

    Regards, Stoner
     
  3. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,756
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    The only problem I have with 3rd parties is that weather we like it or not we have a 2 party system.

    Voting for a "conservative" type 3rd party only costs Republicans votes and gives them to Democrats ... likewise voting for a "liberal" type 3rd party costs Democrats votes and gives them to Republicans.

    We might very well have Ralph Nader to thank for Bush being in the white house, as every vote for Nader was one taken from Gore.

    The choice we have is limited to either Bush or a Democrat ... thats it ... to pretend otherwise is to delude ourselves into helping our political adversaries.


    I don't much like Bush (Jr or Sr) but I do like many of the people he's surrounded himself with (Condy Rice, Don Rumsfeld, etc) so if we get rid of Bush then we get Dean's replacements (assuming he's the Dem).


    At this point, the best bet for the preservation of freedom is for libertarian types to infiltrate the Republican party and change it from the inside, then those changes will resonate throughout government.
     
  4. 71Commander

    71Commander Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,336
    Location:
    Headin back to Johnson City
    The problems as I see it are if we re-elect Bush the younger, we get another masive dosage of Ashcroft. He scares the he*l outta me. No rights are untouchable.

    On the other side of the coin, with the Dem's, our gun rights are in jeopardy.

    This is truly Hobson's choice:confused:
     
  5. hillbilly

    hillbilly Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,166
    Location:
    Iowa
    Well, here's your answer to the Hobson's choice.

    If you keep your gun rights and guns, you can still do something about the damage to the other rights, should it come down to it.

    If you don't have your gun rights and don't have your guns, you can't do anything about the damage to the other rights.

    I know which choice I'll pick.

    hillbilly
     
  6. seeker_two

    seeker_two Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,616
    Location:
    Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State (TX)
    Only when it comes to media coverage and federal funding. Our ballots still list more than two parties. If the ballot only changes to show two parties, then we'll be up sh-:cuss: creek...:what:

    One effect that you didn't mention: After an election, each party looks to see WHY they lost votes to the third party. Despite being the "big kids on the block", the Republicans & Democrats want even more voters to support them (esp. w/ their campaign donations...;) ) This is the greatest influence to their platforms. Why do you think the Dems have become more liberal? Answer: Nader's Green Party. Why do you think that the GOP went from a moderate-sounding candidate (Dole) to a conservative-sounding candidate (Bush)? Answer: Reform Party.

    And how do you explain how the votes "lost" by one party are given to the other one? If a party loses them, they LOSE them. And they want to do what it takes to get them back.

    Here's my voting strategy for 2004:
    1. Work to reelect my conservative-voting representatives (Hensarling, Cornyn, Bailey-Hutchison).
    2. Vote against Bush in the GOP primary (hopefully voting for a REAL conservative). Hope Bush gets the message & makes some truly conservative policy decisions before the general election.
    3. If he doesn't (or I don't believe his sincerity), vote for a third-party candidate who shares my beliefs. I will also convince other conseratives to vote w/ me for said third-party candidate.

    If ENOUGH people do this, then the GOP will get the message & start moving back toward the right. If not, then the third party gets a little bigger & a little more funding for the next election...:D

    Most important: !!!VOTE!!!

    Sitting at home on Election Day just validates the major parties' opinion that the public will leave them alone to do their power plays...:uhoh:
     
  7. Balog

    Balog Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,955
    Location:
    Directly below date registered
    This is kind of a cool party. Maybe after I move I can get involved and work to have Alaska secede ;)

    The Alaskan Independence Party
    http://www.akip.org/



    Platform and Goal
    of the
    Alaskan Independence Party

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PREAMBLE
    We affirm that all political power is inherent in the people; that all government originates with the people, is founded on their will only, is instituted to protect the rights of the individual; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry; that all persons are equal and entitled to equal protection under the law. We stand on a firm constitutional foundation.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Platform
    We pledge to exert our best efforts to accomplish the following:
    1 To effect full compliance with the constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Alaska.
    2 To support and defend States' Rights, Individual Rights, and the Equal Footing Doctrine as guaranteed by the constitutions of the United States of America and the state of Alaska.

    3 To support the liberalization of initiative and referendum procedures to hold legislatures accountable to the will of the people.
    4 To call and convene a State Constitutional Convention to address the flaws in the existing State Consitution.
    5 To reinforce the unalienable rights endowed by our Creator to Alaska law, and to eliminate the use of the word privilege in the Alaska statutes.
    6 To amend the Constitution of the State of Alaska so as to re-establish the rights of all Alaskan residents to entry upon all public lands within the state, and to acquire private property interest there in, under fair and reasonable conditions. Such property interest shall include surface and sub-surface patent.
    7 To foster a constitutional amendment abolishing and prohibiting all property taxes.
    8 To institute a majority vote for each elected office at every subdivision of government.
    9 To seek the complete repatriation of the public lands, held by the federal government, to the state and people of Alaska in conformance with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, of the federal constitution.
    10 To prohibit all bureaucratic regulations and rulings purporting to have the effect of law, except that which shall be approved by the elected legislature.

    11 To oppose with rare exception, any secret activities or expenditures of funds of any government agency, state, federal or international.
    12 To preserve and protect the Alaska Permanent Fund, Permanent fund earnings, earnings reserve fund and individual Permanent Fund Dividends.
    13 To provide for the direct popular election of the attorney general, all judges, and magistrates.
    14 To provide for the development of unrestricted, statewide, surface transportation and utility corridors as needed by the public or any individual.
    15 To affirm and assert every possible right-of-way established under R.S. 2477 of July 26, 1866, before its repeal by the Federal Land Management Policy Act of October 21, 1976.
    16 To support the right of the individual to keep and bear arms.
    17 To support the complete abolition of the concept of sovereign or governmental immunity, so as to restore accountability for public servants.
    18 To support the rights of parents to privately or home school their children and to provide them individually the right to access to a proportional share of all money provided for educational purposes as an unrestricted grant for such purposes.
    19 To support the privatization of government services.
    20 To oppose the borrowing of money by government for any purposes other than for capital improvements.
    21 To strengthen the traditional family and support individual accountability without government interference or regulation.
    22 To support the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, according to their conscience.

    23 To restore the open primary.
    24 To support "Jobs for Alaskans...First!"
     
  8. Preacherman

    Preacherman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,309
    Location:
    Louisiana, USA
    I live a long way from Alaska, but I really like the sound of that platform...
     
  9. Balog

    Balog Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,955
    Location:
    Directly below date registered
    They've also got a party dedicated to California seceding from the Union. God bless 'em I say. Now if we could just get Taxachusetts and NJ to follow suit....
     
  10. PWK

    PWK Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    118
    Location:
    Pearland, TX
    Seeker-two, I also believe that the vote that really counts is the primary vote.
    However, I am afraid that in Texas there won't be a more conservative canidate on the primary ballot than Bush. In the 2000 primary I voted for Phil Gramm even though he had withdrawn just to send a message to Bush.
    It is quite a quandry who to vote for when your choice is the lesser of two evils.
    Maybe I will go with another party since Bush will most likely carry Texas which would still give him the electorial votes but maybe not the majority he would like to see in his home state.

    I don't know, it still 11 months away.
    :confused:
     
  11. Idaho

    Idaho Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    85
    Location:
    Between the desert and the mountains
    Here in Idaho, the primary pretty much IS the election (very few D's have a chance.) That allows me the luxury of voting for a third party in the election, as I know that no dem candidate will pick up Idaho's electoral college votes.
     
  12. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,233
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    "a party dedicated to California seceding "

    We tried that here a couple of years ago. :) It was very, very messy.

    JT
     
  13. Bob Locke

    Bob Locke Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    440
    Location:
    Greeley, CO
    The Democrats and Whigs used to think the same thing! ;)

    I still maintain that the most effective way to make your vote count is to deny it to a candidate and then tell them (or their party) exactly why you didn't vote for them. It is exactly like the free market system, and you can decide that you don't like any of the products offered.

    But if you continue to reward candidates when they are unfriendly to positions you hold near and dear, what do you think they will continue to do? Politicians, as a rule, will do the easy thing long before they do the right thing, and where gun rights are concerned those two are pretty much never in the same neighborhood.

    And always remember, it's always better to get screwed by your enemies than screwed by your "friends".
     
  14. mrapathy2000

    mrapathy2000 member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2003
    Messages:
    1,089
    Location:
    FrozenOver,Iowa
    like the electoral college would go with that advice. remember its theyre vote that counts to the election and not yours.

    yes the electoral college is supposed to vote for who you want but for number of elections I have seen that they do not always do what they should.
     
  15. Balog

    Balog Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,955
    Location:
    Directly below date registered
    JohnBT wrote:
    I think if Cali tried to leave the Union, most Americans would applaud. I know I would.
     
  16. dustind

    dustind Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,582
    Location:
    St. Michael, MN
  17. mrapathy2000

    mrapathy2000 member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2003
    Messages:
    1,089
    Location:
    FrozenOver,Iowa
    does alaska still have a movement of leaving the union. I remember watching show on it and mysterious death of few people that were for it. cant say that I blame them or any other state. how much tax money does the fed take and not bring back to the state any state is lucky to get half of it back.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2004
  18. James Bondrock

    James Bondrock Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    423
    Location:
    Henderson, NV
    The whole state does not have to secede, just Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area. I would be OK with that. ;)
    (former California resident)
     
  19. LynnMassGuy

    LynnMassGuy Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    842
    Location:
    People's Commonwealth of Massachusetts
    I'm really liking the Constitution Party's platform. Of course, I really like the Constitution.:)
     
  20. dischord

    dischord Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    937
    Location:
    Virginia
    OK, assuming that Bush is less anti-rights than the Dem nominee:

    Bush will win my state (Virginia) regardless of how I vote, so why should I waste my vote on a Republican when it could have more value in upping the Libertarian numbers?

    Rabidly anti-gun Moran will win my House district regardless of how I vote, so why should I waste my vote on a Republican when it could have more value in upping the Libertarian numbers?

    At the extreme ends state voting patterns, Bush will win Wyoming and will lose Massachusetts, so why waste your votes on him in those states? If recent elections are an indication, half or more of the states will be "out of play," so why waste your vote attempting to affect what you cannot affect?

    This notion of not wasting votes on 3rd party canditates because somehow it helps the worse candidates holds water only in tightly-contested states or districts.
     
  21. BowStreetRunner

    BowStreetRunner Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,185
    Location:
    North Florida
    Zundfolge,
    i like your take on it,
    i grew up with republican blood in my body, but I am sorely disapointed by some things that have happened when they have been in charge the past few years.....but I will NOT vote for a democrat at the national level unless zell miller runs again or he has a clone made because a vote for a Democrat congresscritter/senator or president is a vote for the overall control of the government by the democratic party who wants guns out of my hands

    if you doubt that a vote for the dems is a vote for gun control, consider this:
    (from their website on their 2000 platform)

    ::::::They stood up to the gun lobby, to pass the Brady Bill and ban deadly assault weapons - and stopped nearly half a million felons, fugitives, and stalkers from buying guns.:::::::

    :::::::We can't surrender to the right-wing Republicans who threatened funding for new police, who tried to gut crime prevention, and who would invite the NRA into the Oval Office.::::::::

    :::::: Democrats believe that we should fight gun crime on all fronts - with stronger laws and stronger enforcement. That's why Democrats fought and passed the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban. We increased federal, state, and local gun crime prosecution by 22 percent since 1992. Now gun crime is down by 35 percent.

    ::::::::Now we must do even more. We need mandatory child safety locks, to protect our children. We should require a photo license I.D., a full background check, and !!! a gun safety test to buy a new handgun in America.!!! We support more federal gun prosecutors, ATF agents and inspectors, and giving states and communities another 10,000 prosecutors to fight gun crime.::::::::
    :fire:

    remember that when you vote for a democrat to be put in congress or the senate, thats one more democrat towards a majority in either house and increased capabilities to carry out their anti-gun agenda

    im not in love with the GOP anymore, but they are lesser evil and starting tomorrow im going to do something about it and write my congressman, the repuplican national committee, and my senators, and try my best to change it
    BSR
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page