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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with Boats.....

"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.:)
 
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.
 
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.
 
The LP's position on drug legalization - I'll take a stab at it...

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)
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
What OldFart said.

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:
 
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.
 
Mr. GeneC

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. ;)
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
The lesser of two evils?

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


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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
How Do You Vote?
Replies
23
Views
675
45Frank
45Frank
M
  • Locked
How to make our votes count...
Replies
12
Views
502
Bubbles
B
J
  • Locked
Reforming the voting system to protect your gun rights.
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
Jim March
J
R
  • Locked
Third party candidates
2
Replies
33
Views
928
General Geoff
General Geoff
R
  • Locked
Voter disaffection an opening for third party?
2
Replies
45
Views
1K
The Real Hawkeye
T
Back
Top