KriegHund
Member
cz75bdneos22-
Ive been fortunate enough to never experience such thing, so ill take your word on it.
Ive been fortunate enough to never experience such thing, so ill take your word on it.
Why dont we vote 3rd party?
- Thread starter KriegHund
- Start date
- Status
The Real Hawkeye said:
I would postulate that people whose political platform starts with a three-paragraph affirmation of Christian faith would be unable to accurately divine the difference. When I held their beliefs, I wouldn't have, and no one else I knew would have, either. Given their political platform, how could a rational, intelligent person give them the benefit of the doubt in this important matter?
Straw man. Find this in the platform of the Libertarian party, since that's what's being discussed.
Furthermore, 2nd Amendment advocates, Free Speech advocates, Due Process advocates ALL agree that the power of the Federal government can and ought to be used to impose Constitutional rights on all States.
The Real Hawkeye
member
I said "proabortion libertarians." Just check out what the ACLU would like to do regarding abortion.ArmedBear said:
True, but I don't, and a strict constructionist wouldn't. There are many strict constructionists among the ranks of the Constitution Party. We believe in the rule of law, rather than men.
Combat-wombat
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,683
Assuming the choices for Democrat and Republican are as crappy as predicted, I'm definitely voting LP. If it turns out to be something like Giuliani vs. Clinton (God forbid- although it's a real possibility), what would you have to lose?
I also believe that the LP is backing away from their completely open border stance, just as a side note.
I also believe that the LP is backing away from their completely open border stance, just as a side note.
GoRon
Member
Giuliani vs. Clinton would drive this Republican to vote third party.
cropcirclewalker
member
I think we have finally devolved to the point where many more Republicans can actually understand the concept of the futility of voting for the lessor of two evils.
You feel about Giuliani vs. Clinton like I feel about Kerry vs. Bush.
Yes, now we are getting somewhere.
The Real Hawkeye said:
This has nothing to do with the thread, then. Chat with an ACLU member, not an LP member, about the ACLU. While sometimes I coincidentally agree with one of their positions (e.g. against McCain-Feingold, along with the NRA et al.), I have little to say in their defense.
This is false.
Amendment XIV, Section 1: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
The Federal Constitution does not allow States to make laws that take away the rights guaranteed to American citizens away from their residents. It is the Federal role to enforce the Federal Constitution.
The argument in Roe v. Wade (which was a lousy opinion, IMO, and not because I object to the outcome, but rather because it departs from the Constitution) is that there is a Constitutional right that leads to a right to abortion. This is the strict constructionist objection to Roe v. Wade et al. The strict constructionist question is, "Where in the Constitution can you find THAT?" It is not a State's Rights issue, per se.
The Real Hawkeye
member
Please tell me how this bears a different meaning from Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution, viz.ArmedBear said:
The Bill of rights is not a list of general privileges and immunities, but a list of things the Federal Government cannot do. If the US Constitution imparts any privilege to the citizens of the United States, that privilege is to self-government within the boarders of their States. If it imparts any immunity, it is against Federal interference with that privilege. Let's see you incorporate those.
Governments can neither create nor take away rights. They can only make laws which are either consistent with, or in violation of, our rights. The Federal Government is legally barred from making laws which violate the rights referenced in the Bill of Rights. The States are barred from violating rights referenced in their respective constitutions. That's the way the system was designed to work, and the Fourteenth Amendment did not have the legal effect of turning that system on its head, even if the incorporation doctrine had that de facto effect.
Once again I feel compelled to remind someone of Federalist No. 45. School children should be required to recite it from memory before they advance to the next grade each year. Viz.
The Founders did not envision the Federal Government created by the Constitution as a guarantor of our liberties. They envisioned it as a very real threat to those liberties, so they bound it up in the chains of the Constitution, and left us to be the guarantors of our own liberties at the State level, where we can actually hope to have an influence on those who govern us.
GoRon said:
That's insane.
Republicans and Democrats are merely taking slightly different routes to hell.
As has been mentioned - they're both gun-grabbing nuts.
Many of us vote 3rd party, not in hopes of actually getting them elected, but in trying to persuade the incumbant morons that we're not happy with their course of action - on either side of the aisle.
chas_martel
Member
rick_reno said:
>In May of 1986 the Republicans controlled Congress and passed the Firearms >Owner Protection Act - which protected firearm owners from having to fill out >BATF paperwork and registering a machine gun made after May/86. They might >be pro-gun.
I think you slightly misunderstand what the FOPA did to machine
gun ownership. It DOES NOT allow us to register them after May 1986.
Only LE/MIL may do that now, prior to May '86 you and I could, but
no longer. That is the "problem" with the FOPA. It was a dark
day for gun owners, yet most don't seem to care.
Ronnie was just another gun grabber doing whatever was
expediate in his eyes. Screwn the Republican party, they are no
friend of the gun owner.
>In May of 1986 the Republicans controlled Congress and passed the Firearms >Owner Protection Act - which protected firearm owners from having to fill out >BATF paperwork and registering a machine gun made after May/86. They might >be pro-gun.
I think you slightly misunderstand what the FOPA did to machine
gun ownership. It DOES NOT allow us to register them after May 1986.
Only LE/MIL may do that now, prior to May '86 you and I could, but
no longer. That is the "problem" with the FOPA. It was a dark
day for gun owners, yet most don't seem to care.
Ronnie was just another gun grabber doing whatever was
expediate in his eyes. Screwn the Republican party, they are no
friend of the gun owner.
zerosignal
Member
How about we abolish the existance of "parties" in general, and vote for candidates based on their qualifications and voting record?
Voting for someone because they are either Republican or Democrat isn't much different than voting for them because they are black or white.
Voters can learn to trust an individual to represent them, a party will stab you in the back in the end.
Voting for someone because they are either Republican or Democrat isn't much different than voting for them because they are black or white.
Voters can learn to trust an individual to represent them, a party will stab you in the back in the end.
cropcirclewalker
member
Abolishing the existance of parties sounds like something a tyrant would do. Definitely not freedom oriented.
Better to abolish the nearly insurmountable barricades and ballot access laws that the ruling elites have erected for their job security.
Badnarik, as much as many try to ignore, was the candidate of an "approved" party. The LP jumped through the hoops, filled out the petitions and surmounted the ballot access barricades, then the managed media (who really decide who wins) wouldn't let him debate with the two losers that the ruling party (the duopoly) put up.
Yes, some here would call him a crazy. Probably because they work for .gov and would have to get a real job if an LP got elected but he would have chewed up the two managed media groomed losers in a debate on constitutional arguments.
Better to abolish the nearly insurmountable barricades and ballot access laws that the ruling elites have erected for their job security.
Badnarik, as much as many try to ignore, was the candidate of an "approved" party. The LP jumped through the hoops, filled out the petitions and surmounted the ballot access barricades, then the managed media (who really decide who wins) wouldn't let him debate with the two losers that the ruling party (the duopoly) put up.
Yes, some here would call him a crazy. Probably because they work for .gov and would have to get a real job if an LP got elected but he would have chewed up the two managed media groomed losers in a debate on constitutional arguments.
By the way, which is it, the back or the end?
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
rick_reno said:In May of 1986 the Republicans controlled Congress and passed the Firearms Owner Protection Act - which protected firearm owners from having to fill out BATF paperwork and registering a machine gun made after May/86. They might be pro-gun.
Actually, the Democrats controlled the House and the Republicans controlled the Senate by a small margin. The part you are vociferously protesting was added by the Democrats on a last minute voice vote in the House. The other parts that do add a lot of genuinely good things that protect firearms owners (removal of ammo registration, allowing gun owners to travel across state lines without being arrested by locals, importation of milsurps, mail order sales of ammo, limiting ATF to one inspection of FFLs per year, and specifically excluding private citizens from the definition of "doing business selling firearms) were passed by a coalition of Republicans and pro-gun Democrats.
The reason the amendment was not stripped out in the Senate was that it would go to a conference committee where the bill would once again die (just as it had the previous seven times it had been introduced). So the Republicans and gun groups opted to accept the good with the bad.
jefnvk
Member
Bartholomew Roberts said:
Kinda the way the manufacturer immunity bill went through with te trigger lock amendment.
Not saying it is right, just how it is. It would be impossible to pass a bill that you wanted that did good to you, without someone attaching something bad (to you) on it.
I love these threads, Hilliary Clinton's negatives are so high that she CAN NOT win a two way race against ANYBODY.
You can vote Republican in 08 or Democratic, a 3rd party vote is a vote for Senator Clinton.
If you vote 3rd party to "send a message" or out of "principle" fine,but a least be honest enough (with your self) to admit who you are in fact "really" voting for.
FWIW I do think there's a lot of room for improvement in the GOP.
You can vote Republican in 08 or Democratic, a 3rd party vote is a vote for Senator Clinton.
If you vote 3rd party to "send a message" or out of "principle" fine,but a least be honest enough (with your self) to admit who you are in fact "really" voting for.
FWIW I do think there's a lot of room for improvement in the GOP.
cropcirclewalker
member
Do I understand, therefore, that you are endorsing Guilliani?
Attala_County
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2005
- Messages
- 45
I voted for Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party for president.
The Libertarian,Constituion,and Green Party candidates got arrested last presidential election because thay broke through police lines in an attempt to join the presidential debates.
Next campaign they will have one thing in thier favor that the reps and dems don't have.They will have thier patriotism to show.
One question people should ask themselves:Would our president and the other major candidates have the courage to make a true sacrifice like this for our country?
The Libertarian,Constituion,and Green Party candidates got arrested last presidential election because thay broke through police lines in an attempt to join the presidential debates.
Next campaign they will have one thing in thier favor that the reps and dems don't have.They will have thier patriotism to show.
One question people should ask themselves:Would our president and the other major candidates have the courage to make a true sacrifice like this for our country?
Flyboy
Member
Yup. A Republican party that was at odds with the President, and thus motivated to demonstrate their commitment to conservative principles.
Bush wins two elections, and you get what you have: a Republican party that doesn't seem to know squat about fiscal responsibility or small government.
zerosignal
Member
cropcirclewalker said:
How so? Parties do nothing but trample a mans freedom "for the good of the many" I'm not advocating getting rid of parties as something that a dictator like Castro might do.
A political party isn't much more than a glorified labor union, and we all know how much good those have done for our freedom. They start out with a great line, saying they want to organize us and protect us from those who will exploit us, but in the end they do much more harm than good.
In my view, the absence of party affiliation for candidates will force the voter to look at what a politician says and does, rather than being able to fall back on a BS party line that they have no intention of keeping.
All a party does is make it hard to tell who you can and can't trust. True "wolves in sheeps clothing"
If you don't know who to trust in a party that supposedly all stands for the same thing, then all you end up with are representatives that quickly learn how easy it is to manipulate the voter.
The Drew
Member
yucaipa said:
That is complete and utter BS...
You clearly have NO concept of reality... Last time I checked, we vote FOR a candidate... And NO candidate is going to get MY vote based on their party. So MY vote is not a default republican vote.
So there is NO vote that is FOR Clinton... The GOP has left me, I haven't left them, They no longer deserve my vote. The problem with the parties is that they truly ignore their constituents... they rely on the "we're entitled to so many votes from these people" This attitude is causing the downfall of politics in the US. The saddest thing of all is that they've convinced a vast majority of the voting public that it is true. That they're entitled to your vote no matter what they've done. This is complete and utter BS. They reinforce their tactic with fear and doubt. Voting for one candidate because you are really voting AGAINST another is exactly what THEY (the ruling parties) want yout to do.
All you people who are rabidly against voting 3rd party, are little more than GOP automatons...
Wake up and smell the constitution being used at toilet paper...
No more status quo!
Things HAVE to change in Washington! I plan to do my voting to help that change come about. I will NOT vote for ANYONE presently in office!
We need change!
No more Dimwit-ocrats and no more Repuke-licans...we need some 3rd party that is independent-minded, partiotic, that believes in state-level power, government's nose out of our lives and no (ZERO) "snooping" about by the neo-iron curtain paranoids.
Doc2005
Things HAVE to change in Washington! I plan to do my voting to help that change come about. I will NOT vote for ANYONE presently in office!
We need change!
No more Dimwit-ocrats and no more Repuke-licans...we need some 3rd party that is independent-minded, partiotic, that believes in state-level power, government's nose out of our lives and no (ZERO) "snooping" about by the neo-iron curtain paranoids.
Doc2005
- Status