Post by: Desertdog on June 26, 2008, 06:48:35 AM
Do you wonder why not? Why do I make such a strong statement?
It is very simple why he cannot win. The last time I checked, not long ago, the Libertarian party is on the ballot of 28 of the 50 states. And the Constitutional Party is on 20 states.
How can a Libertarian candidate win when they are not on the ballot in every state?
Run to be a Congressman or Senator and I will vote for you if you are in my district.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 26, 2008, 06:51:00 AM
In the last Presidential election they were on the ballot in 48 states, and in all 50 in the previous two elections.
Wiki is your friend.
Post by: Dntsycnt on June 26, 2008, 07:22:46 AM
Not not not not not.
It's about voting for who you think would best do the job.
Post by: Desertdog on June 26, 2008, 07:49:55 AM
Quote
It's about voting for who you think would best do the job.
If you know they are not going to win why not vote for the person that comes nearest to what you like, as compared to helping the person you really son't want.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 26, 2008, 08:07:57 AM
Casting your vote is not about voting for who will win.
Not not not not not.
It's about voting for who you think would best do the job.
Not not not not not.
It's about voting for who you think would best do the job.
In this case, it'd be wasting your vote and giving it to Obama. What good would that solve?
You'd feel better? Oh, goodie. Then enjoy President Obama.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 26, 2008, 08:21:02 AM
Post by: Dntsycnt on June 26, 2008, 08:27:42 AM
I understand the temptation to vote McCain so that the earth doesn't rend in two and everyone fall into a black hole and die, but when you're just buying time every election, electing the same old crooks, nothing ever gets done. You might slow down the erosion of our rights, but some of us are looking to be around for another fifty years, and will feel the effects of that erosion. At some point, people have to take a stand, and say, "These are not the kind of people we want representing us."
I don't want a President Obama, but your way has been sliding us nowhere but downhill.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 26, 2008, 08:29:33 AM
OR, we could vote the way we want, and not enjoy president Obama - the same way we would not enjoy president McCain.
No, you won't enjoy it at all when an Obama administration taxes you heavily and comes for your guns. But you'll have helped it happen...
Post by: Dannyboy on June 26, 2008, 10:02:16 AM
Post by: Balog on June 26, 2008, 10:53:03 AM
I don't want a President Obama, but your way has been sliding us nowhere but downhill.
Exactly.
OR, we could vote the way we want, and not enjoy president Obama - the same way we would not enjoy president McCain.
No, you won't enjoy it at all when an Obama administration taxes you heavily and comes for your guns. But you'll have helped it happen...
And when McCain signs Kyoto and cap-n-trade (massive taxes, destroys American industry), enacts registration under the gun show loophole, shreds the 1st even more under the guise of "Campaign finance reform" and "reaches across the aisle" to his good friends the progressives to help him select judges, you'll still be on here yelling "Obama would've been worse!"
Post by: anygunanywhere on June 26, 2008, 10:53:54 AM
Today's SC decision obviously illustrates the importance of this executive responsibility.
I too gag when I think about voting for McCain. He spouts his supposed constitutional knowledge about the 2A being an individual right like the 1A when his McCain-Feingold 1A muzzle is now law.
Say what you will about voting third party. I thought about it, but really, McCain is the only option, unless you really want BHO as your comrade premier.
If BHO hits Washington with the dems in control of bith houses and appoints a few justices, well, I just can not imagine what retirement is going to be like.
I probably will not have one. So close, I was so close.
Anygunanywhere
Anygunanywhere
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 26, 2008, 10:59:30 AM
Okay, I accepted your notion that we must support (and those of the posters on this board who can vote, must vote for) McCain.
But that won't improve the situation.
How do we IMPROVE the situation?
Post by: Desertdog on June 26, 2008, 11:03:30 AM
Quote
If BHO hits Washington with the dems in control of bith houses and appoints a few justices, well, I just can not imagine what retirement is going to be like.
Not just the Justices, but all Federal appointments, Global Warming, no oil explorations or drilling, and anything and everything the government sticks their finger in.Micr0
Quote
How do we IMPROVE the situation?
Start runnming and electing good Conservative Senators and Congressmen.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on June 26, 2008, 11:09:24 AM
How do we IMPROVE the situation?
The biggest reason McCain is the Republican nominee (and thus the only general election candidate worth voting for) is that the conservative vote was split up among a handful of people during the primaries. None of the good candidates got enough votes on their own ti win the nomination, allowing McCain to win almost by default.
Post by: Brad Johnson on June 26, 2008, 11:21:42 AM
Quote
You are stranded on a cliff. You have the choice of three ropes.
The first rope looks good but you know it has a rotton core and will give way at the first tug.
The second rope looks shoddy but you know it will probably hold your weight long enought to reach the top.
The third rope is perfect in every way but is coiled at your feet, unattached to anything.
The first rope looks good but you know it has a rotton core and will give way at the first tug.
The second rope looks shoddy but you know it will probably hold your weight long enought to reach the top.
The third rope is perfect in every way but is coiled at your feet, unattached to anything.
Assuaging your conscience by voting for a candidate that has no realistic chance of winning is like choosing the third rope. You get exactly what you want but you still lose in the end. Only in this case, you take the rest of the country with you.
Brad
Post by: Dntsycnt on June 26, 2008, 11:27:41 AM
Argument by analogy is weak at best.
Post by: Brad Johnson on June 26, 2008, 11:32:03 AM
How about you attach the good rope to something? You'd be pretty freaking stupid to trust yourself to a bad rope.
You presume that by choosing the good rope you will suddenly have that option available to you. You do not.
The analogy stands.
Brad
Post by: Nick1911 on June 26, 2008, 11:40:49 AM
Quote
You are stranded on a cliff. You have the choice of three ropes.
The first rope looks good but you know it has a rotton core and will give way at the first tug.
The second rope looks shoddy but you know it will probably hold your weight long enought to reach the top.
The third rope is perfect in every way but is coiled at your feet, unattached to anything.
The first rope looks good but you know it has a rotton core and will give way at the first tug.
The second rope looks shoddy but you know it will probably hold your weight long enought to reach the top.
The third rope is perfect in every way but is coiled at your feet, unattached to anything.
Assuaging your conscience by voting for a candidate that has no realistic chance of winning is like choosing the third rope. You get exactly what you want but you still lose in the end. Only in this case, you take the rest of the country with you.
Brad
The analogy falls apart because in real life - republican or democrat, we end up at the same place. Let me revise it for you:
Quote
You are stranded on a cliff. You have the choice of three ropes.
The first rope looks good but you know it has a rotton core and will give way at the first tug.
The second rope looks shoddy but will fail halfway down the cliff.
The third rope is perfect in every way but is coiled at your feet, unattached to anything.
The first rope looks good but you know it has a rotton core and will give way at the first tug.
The second rope looks shoddy but will fail halfway down the cliff.
The third rope is perfect in every way but is coiled at your feet, unattached to anything.
Option 1: you die immediately.
Option 2: you die, but it takes a little longer.
Option 3: you live if you can make it work, else you die.
Post by: Brad Johnson on June 26, 2008, 11:44:28 AM
You cannot change the candidates to suit your personal whims. One person will win. You choice is one of how effective your vote will be on the outcome of that particular contest. Choosing a candidate you like but that has no real chance of winning (short of a sudden, radical shift in public opinion or complete government overthrow) is a throwaway vote. You chose your perfect candidate but the vote was still wasted.
Again, the analogy stands as written.
Brad
Post by: Nick1911 on June 26, 2008, 12:09:34 PM
The analogy is not open to revision just to satisfy a particular slant on the subject, or to insert a wish for what will not be.
You cannot change the candidates to suit your personal whims. One person will win. You choice is one of how effective your vote will be on the outcome of that particular contest. Choosing a candidate you like but that has no real chance of winning (short of a sudden, radical shift in public opinion or complete government overthrow) is a throwaway vote. You chose your perfect candidate but the vote was still wasted.
Again, the analogy stands as written.
Brad
You cannot change the candidates to suit your personal whims. One person will win. You choice is one of how effective your vote will be on the outcome of that particular contest. Choosing a candidate you like but that has no real chance of winning (short of a sudden, radical shift in public opinion or complete government overthrow) is a throwaway vote. You chose your perfect candidate but the vote was still wasted.
Again, the analogy stands as written.
Brad
And the other option is...?
Choose McCain; watch the government grow, taxes climb, and liberties be eroded so that Obama won't have a chance to grow the government, raise taxes, and erode liberties? How is choosing the slow road to hell over the fast lane not "wasting my vote"? It's a lose-lose situation. Voting for a third party won't help, but what do I have to lose? Some a-hole will get elected; but at least I can show support for the political body I consider ideologically correct. People won't consider the libertarian party as serious contenders until they get some good percentages in the polls. And that won't happen until people start voting for them!
I believe that the "lesser of two evils" is a failed policy.
Post by: Brad Johnson on June 26, 2008, 12:36:27 PM
And the other option is...?
Choose McCain; watch the government grow, taxes climb, and liberties be eroded so that Obama won't have a chance to grow the government, raise taxes, and erode liberties? How is choosing the slow road to hell over the fast lane not "wasting my vote"? It's a lose-lose situation.
Choose McCain; watch the government grow, taxes climb, and liberties be eroded so that Obama won't have a chance to grow the government, raise taxes, and erode liberties? How is choosing the slow road to hell over the fast lane not "wasting my vote"? It's a lose-lose situation.
Okay, vote for someone who doesn't have a snowball's chance at actually winning. You'll still see either McCain or Obama in office.
Vote Your Conscience does not necessarily equal Vote Responsibly. Voting for someone with no realistic chance of winning pulls a vote away from someone who does have a chance to win. Then you have a very real chance of the single worst candidate being the winner even though a huge majority of voters didn't vote for them. Clinton's second term is a perfect example of that. Clinton won even though 56.36% of the voting public did NOT vote for him. All because H. Ross Perot, who had about as much chance of winning as Mickey Mouse, pulled in 18.91% of the vote. If even half the people who voted for him had voted for Bush, Bush would have won by a comfortable 4% margin.
So, yes, voting for someone who doesn't have a chance of winning IS throwing away your vote. And it's a slap in the face to those who vote realistically. Even though they have a candidate they much prefer, they know there are only two who have a chance at winning, and they know that one of those candidates WILL be the winner no matter how much they wish otherwise. So they do the responsible thing. They vote for the candidate who, in their view, will have the least negative impact on the country. It is neither pleasant nor enjoyable. It is, however, real life.
Brad
Post by: Dntsycnt on June 26, 2008, 12:44:06 PM
Quote
So, yes, voting for someone who doesn't have a chance of winning IS throwing away your vote. And it's a slap in the face to those who vote realistically. Even though they have a candidate they much prefer, they know there are only two who have a chance at winning, and they know that one of those candidates WILL be the winner no matter how much they wish otherwise. So they do the responsible thing. They vote for the candidate who, in their view, will have the least negative impact on the country. It is neither pleasant nor enjoyable. It is, however, real life.
I suppose I should warm up my slapping hand, then, because those people have been working hard for a while now to destroy our nation. Those third party candidates aren't viable only because of the people who "vote realistically."
Post by: Brad Johnson on June 26, 2008, 12:47:02 PM
I suppose I should warm up my slapping hand, then, because those people have been working hard for a while now to destroy our nation. Those third party candidates aren't viable only because of the people who "vote realistically."
If you want to make them viable, join their campaign and get the word out. Make it so people want to vote for them.
It still stands that a vote for someone who has no realistic chance of winning is a wasted vote no matter how righteously indignant you may feel.
Brad
Post by: Dntsycnt on June 26, 2008, 12:52:11 PM
Post by: Brad Johnson on June 26, 2008, 12:58:28 PM
It is not wasted. A vote is beyond the means of getting a certain person into office. It is a statement.
So is screaming at people from a street corner. About as effective, too.
Brad
Post by: Dntsycnt on June 26, 2008, 01:01:41 PM
Post by: Brad Johnson on June 26, 2008, 02:17:42 PM
Once that hurdle is cleared you can start seeing things for what they can become, and how you can most effectively make that happen.
Brad
Post by: Desertdog on June 26, 2008, 02:55:08 PM
McCain is a Presidential candidate because there were more than 2 candidates for the Republican primary election, thus splitting the votes 3 ways. McCain ended up with less votes than the 2 running against him.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 27, 2008, 12:00:29 AM
Quote
The reason Bill Clinton was elected the first time was because of a 3rd Party Candidate split the Republican vote.
Which resulted in the biggest cuts in the welfare rolls in the history of America. What's your point?
Post by: Desertdog on June 27, 2008, 04:34:30 AM
Quote
The reason Bill Clinton was elected the first time was because of a 3rd Party Candidate split the Republican vote.
Which resulted in the biggest cuts in the welfare rolls in the history of America. What's your point?
A third party vote for the Libertarian Party or Constitutional Party is a vote for Obama. A vote for the Green Party is a vote for McCain. Which resulted in the biggest cuts in the welfare rolls in the history of America. What's your point?
The biggest cuts in the welare rolls was passed by the Republican Congress, not Wiley Willie.
Post by: thebaldguy on June 27, 2008, 01:29:09 PM
If I vote third party, that means that the other two monopoly parties have failed to convince me to vote for them.
Post by: lupinus on June 27, 2008, 02:06:40 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on June 27, 2008, 11:16:20 PM
no it means you are an idealist who would rather charge the trenches and die gloriously then walk through the mud for awhile while you march around for a flanking maneuver
Exactly.
In the real world, sometimes you have to make unpleasant choices to avoid an even more unpleasant outcome.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 28, 2008, 12:39:48 AM
God forbid, you should ever choose to make freedom a reality.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 28, 2008, 01:23:31 AM
no it means you are an idealist who would rather charge the trenches and die gloriously then walk through the mud for awhile while you march around for a flanking maneuver
So what's your flanking maneuver?
Post by: lupinus on June 28, 2008, 04:12:24 AM
Quote
So what's your flanking maneuver?
We suck it up and choose the guy who will screw the country up less. In this case, McCain. It will be McCain or Obama, there is no other realistic choice and a vote for Barr or anyone like that is a vote for Obama. See deal with walking through the mud for awhile rather then charging the trench for a glorious death.Then, rather then waiting for the last minute pick our next candidate early, throw united support behind him, and get a real republican and note a rino next time.
We had good prospects this time around, but to much support was divided. If everyone who went for Huckabee, Romney(yes, Romney is a RINO, I know this, the voters apparently didn't), Paul, Thompson, etc put their support behind one good candidate McCain would have been a memory and we would have a good candidate right now.
Then once we have said good candidate out of the primaries initiate flank.
Post by: macadore on June 28, 2008, 04:33:24 AM
IMO the Libertarian party should focus on Congress rather than the Presidential campaigns. If they had a substantial part of Congress they could do more with a smaller part of the electorate than they can with a failed Presidential campaign. If they had ten percent of the seats in Congress, neither of the other parties could pass legislation without the approval of the Libertarians. That would go a long way to prevent government meddling in our private lives.
Post by: seeker_two on June 28, 2008, 05:24:42 AM
Quote
So what's your flanking maneuver?
We suck it up and choose the guy who will screw the country up less. In this case, McCain. It will be McCain or Obama, there is no other realistic choice and a vote for Barr or anyone like that is a vote for Obama. See deal with walking through the mud for awhile rather then charging the trench for a glorious death.Then, rather then waiting for the last minute pick our next candidate early, throw united support behind him, and get a real republican and note a rino next time.
We had good prospects this time around, but to much support was divided. If everyone who went for Huckabee, Romney(yes, Romney is a RINO, I know this, the voters apparently didn't), Paul, Thompson, etc put their support behind one good candidate McCain would have been a memory and we would have a good candidate right now.
Then once we have said good candidate out of the primaries initiate flank.
Looks good on paper.....but just on paper......
If we support a RINO now, all we'll get from the GOP in the future are RINO's ("it's what the people want...").
If anything, we should find out who will be going to the Republican convention (as well as our current Republican representatives in DC and each state) and let them know that, if they nominate McCain, that the GOP will never get a vote or a dollar from us again. That kind of pressure will affect what happens on the floor and may get conservative ideas guaranteed if not a better candidated (at this point, I'd settle for Huckabee or Romney).
To go with your analogy, flanking maneuvers didn't work so well in trench warfare.....unless you send in the sappers after dark first.....
Post by: Desertdog on June 28, 2008, 05:46:25 AM
Quote
We had good prospects this time around, but too much support was divided. If everyone who went for Huckabee, Romney(yes, Romney is a RINO, I know this, the voters apparently didn't), Paul, Thompson, etc put their support behind one good candidate McCain would have been a memory and we would have a good candidate right now.
I think we need to have 2 primary elections. The first would let anybody that wants to to run for Presdent. The top 2 candidates from the 1st primary would be the only 2 to run in the Big Primary, not 5, or 6, or 10 to split the vote so that somebody like McCain would be the one running for president.If you took all of the votes that did not go to McCain and gave them to one candidate, I believe McCain would not be running now, it would be Hucabee or Romney
Post by: AJ Dual on June 28, 2008, 06:21:44 AM
If a third party gets a substantial percentage of the votes, both political parties will move in that direction to try and capture those votes (e.g., Ross Perot and the balanced budget).
IMO the Libertarian party should focus on Congress rather than the Presidential campaigns. If they had a substantial part of Congress they could do more with a smaller part of the electorate than they can with a failed Presidential campaign. If they had ten percent of the seats in Congress, neither of the other parties could pass legislation without the approval of the Libertarians. That would go a long way to prevent government meddling in our private lives.
IMO the Libertarian party should focus on Congress rather than the Presidential campaigns. If they had a substantial part of Congress they could do more with a smaller part of the electorate than they can with a failed Presidential campaign. If they had ten percent of the seats in Congress, neither of the other parties could pass legislation without the approval of the Libertarians. That would go a long way to prevent government meddling in our private lives.
So who in either party has made a huge push for balanced budgets that wasn't already due to Perot?
Thought so.
Both parties response to the third-party spoilers is to close their eyes, cross their fingers, and pray 'those freaks' don't show up to spoil the party again in four years.
As others have said, use the primary process to turn the incumbant bums out. Case in point, the guy in Utah who had a nearly 99% "A rating" from whatever Conservative think-tank who rates such things, except he was for illegal amnesty. He got turned out with a 60/40 landslide in the primary.
I know it's a catch-22 but the corollary to "nothing changes if you vote third-party" is that the other party you really hate cleans up, laughing all the way to victory, and nothing changes either, or it gets worse.
This is where the "Let the Libertarians run for dog-catcher first" argument comes into play. If you want policy/platform changes, you need to get your third party that represents your ideals a significant block in the legislature FIRST, then both dominant parties will have to modify their legislation and policy to woo the other voting blocks to get majorities.
Constantly focusing on executive branch elections to debate the "third party catch-22" is not very productive. The biggest effects the next POTUS is going to have on America is foreign policy and Federal Judges. Otherwise, all he will be doing is signing or vetoing the bills that Congress sends him.
The loss of stature and weakness internationally we'll suffer from Obama, (I somewhat ascribe to the more pissed off the rest of the world is, the better we're doing theory...) and the ultra-liberal justices he'll appoint who'll serve for decades will have a much longer lasting effect than just the four/eight year election cycle. Even if America, the Republicans, or whoever, "wake up" and start running your dream candidates, those bad changes will not be something he/she will be able to undo in your lifetime. Legislation can be reversed within an election cycle. 30 years of a SCOTUS Justice, or a complete shift in the geopolitical power balance, not so easy...
Ultimately, protest votes for executive office are LAZY. Because you can go down with the ship, striking a moral pose, and wash your hands of what happens next, even when in a way it's partially your fault. Whereas trying to run your third-party candidates for legislative races, where local involvement is higher, and maybe that lesser of two evils executive only gets bills that are ones you like, just starts sounding a bit too much like "work"...
So YES, you vote for the "lesser of two evils" in the Executive races, and you make your principled stand at the local/legislative level.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 28, 2008, 06:48:59 AM
Quote
Even if America, the Republicans, or whoever, "wake up" and start running your dream candidates, those bad changes will not be something he/she will be able to undo in your lifetime.
I for one don't really care for international status. I'd rather live in a free country than in a world superpower that isn't free. Russia was a world power and my parents moved out.
Post by: freakazoid on June 28, 2008, 06:55:23 AM
Post by: macadore on June 28, 2008, 09:30:45 AM
So who in either party has made a huge push for balanced budgets that wasn't already due to Perot?
Thought so.
Bill Clinton
Post by: lupinus on June 28, 2008, 11:48:08 AM
We have a choice thats the primaries. If you don't like the primaries all we can do after that is damage control.
Next primary is where we can shine.
Post by: Jamisjockey on June 28, 2008, 12:54:43 PM
Bob Barr may be a great candidate and I would love to vote for him, but he cannot win as a Libertarian or any other 3rd party candidate.
Do you wonder why not? Why do I make such a strong statement?
It is very simple why he cannot win. The last time I checked, not long ago, the Libertarian party is on the ballot of 28 of the 50 states. And the Constitutional Party is on 20 states.
How can a Libertarian candidate win when they are not on the ballot in every state?
Run to be a Congressman or Senator and I will vote for you if you are in my district.
Do you wonder why not? Why do I make such a strong statement?
It is very simple why he cannot win. The last time I checked, not long ago, the Libertarian party is on the ballot of 28 of the 50 states. And the Constitutional Party is on 20 states.
How can a Libertarian candidate win when they are not on the ballot in every state?
Run to be a Congressman or Senator and I will vote for you if you are in my district.
The answer is simple. It tells both parties that thier candidates aren't acceptable to a large number of people. If they want to start thinking about how to win an election, they'll start taking third party competition seriously.
Oh, and I'd rather vote my concious than a "winner". I have no need to win. I do have the need to be rightous in my decision making. McCain is a RINO. Big spending and big debt. Probably going to be a WarMonger and get us into a fight with Iran.
Obama.....yeah....hammer and sickle....
No matter who wins the election, I have to look at myself in the mirror in the morning afterwards. I cannot in good concious vote for either of those asses.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 28, 2008, 02:15:26 PM
5-4.
McCain would likely put a conservative on the Supreme Court.
Obama would put a hard-left liberal, as hard left as he can find.
Heller will be back in the form of additional lawsuits brought against cities and in the form of national concealed carry and the like.
If you want it to be 5-4 liberal NO next time, or 6-3 liberal NO!, then, by all means, vote third party.
I am NOT WILLING TO RISK THAT.
Post by: macadore on June 28, 2008, 03:22:01 PM
You saw Heller, right?
5-4.
McCain would likely put a conservative on the Supreme Court.
Obama would put a hard-left liberal, as hard left as he can find.
Heller will be back in the form of additional lawsuits brought against cities and in the form of national concealed carry and the like.
If you want it to be 5-4 liberal NO next time, or 6-3 liberal NO!, then, by all means, vote third party.
I am NOT WILLING TO RISK THAT.
5-4.
McCain would likely put a conservative on the Supreme Court.
Obama would put a hard-left liberal, as hard left as he can find.
Heller will be back in the form of additional lawsuits brought against cities and in the form of national concealed carry and the like.
If you want it to be 5-4 liberal NO next time, or 6-3 liberal NO!, then, by all means, vote third party.
I am NOT WILLING TO RISK THAT.
Excellent point!
Post by: Balog on June 28, 2008, 03:56:26 PM
Quote from: Manedwolf
McCain would likely put a conservative on the Supreme Court.
I doubt it. He'd likely put a pro-illegal, anti-free speech, global warming kool-aid drinker in.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 28, 2008, 04:04:14 PM
Quote from: Manedwolf
McCain would likely put a conservative on the Supreme Court.
I doubt it. He'd likely put a pro-illegal, anti-free speech, global warming kool-aid drinker in.
and Obama would put who in?
The only choices for who is going to put the next justice in are McCain and Obama. That's it.
Post by: Balog on June 28, 2008, 04:07:07 PM
Post by: seeker_two on June 29, 2008, 03:24:01 AM
So how are McCain's liberal nominees better than Obama's?
Best. Question. Ever. Asked.
Post by: Desertdog on June 29, 2008, 05:54:36 AM
Quote
So how are McCain's liberal nominees better than Obama's?
It's like the difference in "might" and "will".McCain "might" appoint liberal judges, or "might" not appoint liberal judges.
We know Obama "will" appoint the most liberal, progressive judges he can find/
Post by: anygunanywhere on June 29, 2008, 08:33:01 AM
So who in either party has made a huge push for balanced budgets that wasn't already due to Perot?
Thought so.
Bill Clinton
Oh, please. At what cost to the social security fund? The only push Bill CLinton did was......never mind.
I suppose your man BHO will continue Clinton's economic course?
Anygunanywhere
Post by: macadore on June 29, 2008, 08:51:58 AM
So who in either party has made a huge push for balanced budgets that wasn't already due to Perot?
Thought so.
Bill Clinton
Oh, please. At what cost to the social security fund? The only push Bill CLinton did was......never mind.
I suppose your man BHO will continue Clinton's economic course?
Anygunanywhere
Straw man arguments? Is that all you have? Would you care to justify your, your man BHO comment?
Let me make this simple. Ross Perot campaigned on the need for a balanced budget. He lost but Bill Clinton balanced the budget.
Post by: Silver Bullet on June 29, 2008, 09:43:46 AM
From http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/02/11/politics/fromtheroad/entry3819847.shtml
Quote
There are estimates and, I dont know if theyre true or not, that there are going to be a couple of vacancies on the Supreme Court in the next presidential term. I am proud to have played a role in the appointment of some great justices to the Court. I am very proud to have played a role in the appointment, nomination of two great Supreme Court justices Roberts and Alito," McCain said.
I tell you I will nominate only people who have a clear, complete adherence to the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench. Thats who Ill nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court
I tell you I will nominate only people who have a clear, complete adherence to the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench. Thats who Ill nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court
From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-kendall/fearing-the-mccain-suprem_b_87101.html
Quote
A close look at John McCain's Senate voting record on judicial confirmations makes it painfully clear that progressives need to ignore the rantings of the Ann Coulter crowd and believe John McCain when he says he will listen to Sam Brownback and appoint judges like Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia. On judges, McCain's no moderate: if given the chance, he will appoint justices that move an already conservative Supreme Court sharply to the right.
Indeed, one looks in vain for a judge who is too ideologically conservative for McCain: he voted to confirm Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and, unless I've missed something, every other Republican judicial nominee voted on in his 22 years in the Senate.
Even more tellingly, as part of his negotiation in 2005 of what has been dubbed the "Gang of 14 Deal" (more on this later), McCain pushed, hard, for the confirmation of both William Pryor and Janice Rogers Brown, the two hardest-edged conservatives appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush.
Indeed, one looks in vain for a judge who is too ideologically conservative for McCain: he voted to confirm Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and, unless I've missed something, every other Republican judicial nominee voted on in his 22 years in the Senate.
Even more tellingly, as part of his negotiation in 2005 of what has been dubbed the "Gang of 14 Deal" (more on this later), McCain pushed, hard, for the confirmation of both William Pryor and Janice Rogers Brown, the two hardest-edged conservatives appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush.
Quote
No one thinks John McCain would nominate ethically-challenged judges. But there is every reason to think that he will nominate ideological conservatives to the Supreme Court and lower federal courts.
From the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120209536777639949.html
Quote
In fact, there is no reason to believe that Mr. McCain will not make excellent appointments to the court. On judicial nominations, he has voted soundly in the past from Robert Bork in 1987 to Samuel Alito in 2006. His pro-life record also provides a surety that he will not appoint judicial activists.
Post by: anygunanywhere on June 29, 2008, 12:18:21 PM
So who in either party has made a huge push for balanced budgets that wasn't already due to Perot?
Thought so.
Bill Clinton
Oh, please. At what cost to the social security fund? The only push Bill CLinton did was......never mind.
I suppose your man BHO will continue Clinton's economic course?
Anygunanywhere
Straw man arguments? Is that all you have? Would you care to justify your, your man BHO comment?
Let me make this simple. Ross Perot campaigned on the need for a balanced budget. He lost but Bill Clinton balanced the budget.
My "your man BHO" comment stands. My avatar has a handgun, yours has BHO, unless my eyes are really deteriorating rapidly. Bill Clinton did not balance the budget. Have some more Kool-aid.
Anygunanywhere
Post by: macadore on June 29, 2008, 12:39:38 PM
So who in either party has made a huge push for balanced budgets that wasn't already due to Perot?
Thought so.
Bill Clinton
Oh, please. At what cost to the social security fund? The only push Bill CLinton did was......never mind.
I suppose your man BHO will continue Clinton's economic course?
Anygunanywhere
Straw man arguments? Is that all you have? Would you care to justify your, your man BHO comment?
Let me make this simple. Ross Perot campaigned on the need for a balanced budget. He lost but Bill Clinton balanced the budget.
My "your man BHO" comment stands. My avatar has a handgun, yours has BHO, unless my eyes are really deteriorating rapidly. Bill Clinton did not balance the budget. Have some more Kool-aid.
Anygunanywhere
The budget was balanced during the Clinton administration. You may be in denial about that, but it happened.
Here is what I find interesting about my avatar.
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-Hitler11cx.jpg
http://listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/adolf-hitler-biography-2.jpg
Do you see the similarities?
Post by: anygunanywhere on June 29, 2008, 02:10:44 PM
Post by: anygunanywhere on June 29, 2008, 02:12:09 PM
So who in either party has made a huge push for balanced budgets that wasn't already due to Perot?
Thought so.
Bill Clinton
Oh, please. At what cost to the social security fund? The only push Bill CLinton did was......never mind.
I suppose your man BHO will continue Clinton's economic course?
Anygunanywhere
Straw man arguments? Is that all you have? Would you care to justify your, your man BHO comment?
Let me make this simple. Ross Perot campaigned on the need for a balanced budget. He lost but Bill Clinton balanced the budget.
My "your man BHO" comment stands. My avatar has a handgun, yours has BHO, unless my eyes are really deteriorating rapidly. Bill Clinton did not balance the budget. Have some more Kool-aid.
Anygunanywhere
The budget was balanced during the Clinton administration. You may be in denial about that, but it happened.
Here is what I find interesting about my avatar.
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-Hitler11cx.jpg
http://listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/adolf-hitler-biography-2.jpg
Do you see the similarities?
He may have been in the white house but he had maybe a little more to do with balancing the budget as I did.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5656
Post by: macadore on June 29, 2008, 06:02:15 PM
He may have been in the white house but he had maybe a little more to do with balancing the budget as I did.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5656
And none of this was due to Ross Perots Presidential campaign? It was just coincidence?
Post by: erictank on July 03, 2008, 10:44:47 AM
Vote Your Conscience does not necessarily equal Vote Responsibly. Voting for someone with no realistic chance of winning pulls a vote away from someone who does have a chance to win.
I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again: Voting your conscience ***IS*** voting responsibly. Neither of the Big Two candidates own my vote - and neither of them have done one frakking thing to earn it. Since a vote for the (R) candidate tells the RNC, "Yes, I'm COMPLETELY HAPPY with not only the direction your party has taken this country in, but with ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING the current candidate has ever done.", and a vote for the (D) candidate sends the same message to the DNC, what's that leave for someone who does NOT believe that the Big Two have ANYTHING worthwhile to offer the country between them?
Then you have a very real chance of the single worst candidate being the winner even though a huge majority of voters didn't vote for them. Clinton's second term is a perfect example of that. Clinton won even though 56.36% of the voting public did NOT vote for him. All because H. Ross Perot, who had about as much chance of winning as Mickey Mouse, pulled in 18.91% of the vote. If even half the people who voted for him had voted for Bush, Bush would have won by a comfortable 4% margin.
So, yes, voting for someone who doesn't have a chance of winning IS throwing away your vote. And it's a slap in the face to those who vote realistically. Even though they have a candidate they much prefer, they know there are only two who have a chance at winning, and they know that one of those candidates WILL be the winner no matter how much they wish otherwise. So they do the responsible thing. They vote for the candidate who, in their view, will have the least negative impact on the country. It is neither pleasant nor enjoyable. It is, however, real life.
Brad
So, yes, voting for someone who doesn't have a chance of winning IS throwing away your vote. And it's a slap in the face to those who vote realistically. Even though they have a candidate they much prefer, they know there are only two who have a chance at winning, and they know that one of those candidates WILL be the winner no matter how much they wish otherwise. So they do the responsible thing. They vote for the candidate who, in their view, will have the least negative impact on the country. It is neither pleasant nor enjoyable. It is, however, real life.
Brad
Thanks to the circular reasoning you present, we'll never HAVE any valid challengers to the Big Two, will we?
And as a result, we get to wonder why we always have such morons, idiots, and would-be-tyrants elected to office - well, it's because thanks to "voting for the lesser of two evils", THAT'S WHAT THEY THINK WE WANT! Keep voting for the same sort of jerks all the time, you'll keep GETTING the same sort of jerks all the time.
Anyone insisting that I "owe" my vote to any particular politician, for the best of reasons or for any reason at all - well, I think you know where you can stick it.
Brad, you may consider this the slap to your face you mentioned in your post.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 03, 2008, 10:49:26 AM
Vote Your Conscience does not necessarily equal Vote Responsibly. Voting for someone with no realistic chance of winning pulls a vote away from someone who does have a chance to win.
I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again: Voting your conscience ***IS*** voting responsibly. Neither of the Big Two candidates own my vote - and neither of them have done one frakking thing to earn it. Since a vote for the (R) candidate tells the RNC, "Yes, I'm COMPLETELY HAPPY with not only the direction your party has taken this country in, but with ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING the current candidate has ever done.", and a vote for the (D) candidate sends the same message to the DNC, what's that leave for someone who does NOT believe that the Big Two have ANYTHING worthwhile to offer the country between them?
5-4 Heller.
Keep thinking about that one.
Post by: Desertdog on July 03, 2008, 11:16:41 AM
Quote
Thanks to the circular reasoning you present, we'll never HAVE any valid challengers to the Big Two, will we?
I have said it before and I will say it again, have your candidate get a title of one of the major parties and then we can vote for him for president with a POSSIBILITY of winning.There is nothing that says a Libertarian cannot run as a Republican, remember Ron Paul, or as a Democrat.
I believe that if a Catholic, Morman, Baptist, Athist or whatever can run for president as a Republica or Democrat, there is no reason a Libertaian or a Constitutional party member can't run for the presidency as a Republican or Democrat, with a better chance of winning than running as a 3rd party candidate
The other choice, and possibly better choice, is to run for the Congress or Senate. Remember that the house is replaced every 2 years and 1/3 of the Senate runs every 2 years.
I will vote for a Libertarian Party candidate for Congressman or Senator under their party lable, but not for President under theirparty label.
Post by: erictank on July 04, 2008, 02:27:16 PM
5-4 Heller.
Keep thinking about that one.
Keep thinking about that one.
Concurring opinions in Heller:
Justice Antonin Scalia - appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. - appointed by Republican President George W. Bush.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy - appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan.
Justice Clarence Thomas - appointed by Republican President George H. W. Bush.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. - appointed by Republican President George W. Bush.
Dissenting opinions in Heller:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg - appointed by Democratic President William Clinton.
Justice Steven Breyer - appointed by Democratic President William Clinton.
Justed David Souter - appointed by Republican President George H.W. Bush.
Justice John Paul Stevens - appointed by Republican President Gerald Ford.
Hmmm. Half of the dissenting Justices in Heller were appointed by two different Republican Presidents.
What were you saying, again?
Post by: stevelyn on July 04, 2008, 02:44:11 PM
Quote
The reason Bill Clinton was elected the first time was because of a 3rd Party Candidate split the Republican vote.
No. The real reason Clinton won was because GHW Bush turned out to be a *expletive deleted*bag and real conservatives voted for Perot who more ideally represented our views.
The party kool-aid drinkers stayed with the sinking Bush ship instead of doing the right thing and we ended up with Bubba.
Quote
So how are McCain's liberal nominees better than Obama's?
They're not. And it's going to be compounded by leftist control of the Senate. So we're screwed any way we turn.
Post by: Desertdog on July 04, 2008, 02:49:18 PM
Quote
Hmmm. Half of the dissenting Justices in Heller were appointed by two different Republican Presidents.
True, but all of the pro-second amendment judges were nominated by Republican presidents.Quote
They're not. And it's going to be compounded by leftist control of the Senate. So we're screwed any way we turn.
Not if we can vote out enough of the a**ho**s in the Senate and House.
Post by: Silver Bullet on July 04, 2008, 05:13:10 PM
Quote
So how are McCain's liberal nominees better than Obama's?
Quote
They're not. And it's going to be compounded by leftist control of the Senate. So we're screwed any way we turn.
stevelyn, I just posted several references that show why McCain's nominees will be better than Obama's. In essence, the authors referred to McCain's voting record in the matter of Federal judges. I find his voting record very convincing evidence. Do you have any evidence that McCain's nominees will not be better than Obama's ?
Post by: erictank on July 04, 2008, 11:06:01 PM
Quote
Hmmm. Half of the dissenting Justices in Heller were appointed by two different Republican Presidents.
True, but all of the pro-second amendment judges were nominated by Republican presidents.One of whom also gave us one of the dissenters in Heller. Point is, not one but TWO (R) Presidents gave us Justices casting dissenting votes in Heller. McCain is offered as a panacea against "bad" SCOTUS Justices, because he has an (R) next to his name on the ballot - well, it demonstratedly ain't so. McCain's record does not inspire me to confidence that he would be *ANY* better in that regard. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Post by: Desertdog on July 05, 2008, 05:21:58 AM
Quote
McCain is offered as a panacea against "bad" SCOTUS Justices,
Do you think there is any possibity that an Obama nominated judge would vote pro second amendment? How do you think an Obama judge would uphold any of the Amendments. Do you think an Obama judge vote for or against the "Fairness Doctrine."
Post by: Silver Bullet on July 05, 2008, 09:57:49 AM
Quote
McCain's record does not inspire me to confidence that he would be *ANY* better in that regard. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Considering that McCain's record on federal judges has been very solidly on the conservative side, what part of his record makes you think he would be worse than Obama ?
Post by: xavier fremboe on July 05, 2008, 11:31:54 AM
If your pocket book can stand the sunset of the tax cuts, the lifting of the SS cap, sunset of the estate tax and a rollback of the capital gains taxes, vote your conscience. BHO has promised me a pay cut, and I don't intend to take it. As far as I'm concerned, idealism be damned this year. I'm going to pull the lever for Johnny Mac and sleep like a baby.
Post by: stevelyn on July 07, 2008, 06:43:03 PM
Quote
So how are McCain's liberal nominees better than Obama's?
Quote
They're not. And it's going to be compounded by leftist control of the Senate. So we're screwed any way we turn.
stevelyn, I just posted several references that show why McCain's nominees will be better than Obama's. In essence, the authors referred to McCain's voting record in the matter of Federal judges. I find his voting record very convincing evidence. Do you have any evidence that McCain's nominees will not be better than Obama's ?
No, I admit I never looked at McCain's voting record on fed judges or even thought about it. Perhaps you do have good reasons to be optimistic on McCain justice nominations. But the reality is they will still have to make it past a democratically controlled senate and he may end up nominating less than desireable judges just to get them on the bench.
Post by: xavier fremboe on July 08, 2008, 04:11:47 AM
Quote
So how are McCain's liberal nominees better than Obama's?
Quote
They're not. And it's going to be compounded by leftist control of the Senate. So we're screwed any way we turn.
stevelyn, I just posted several references that show why McCain's nominees will be better than Obama's. In essence, the authors referred to McCain's voting record in the matter of Federal judges. I find his voting record very convincing evidence. Do you have any evidence that McCain's nominees will not be better than Obama's ?
No, I admit I never looked at McCain's voting record on fed judges or even thought about it. Perhaps you do have good reasons to be optimistic on McCain justice nominations. But the reality is they will still have to make it past a democratically controlled senate and he may end up nominating less than desireable judges just to get them on the bench.
Post by: seeker_two on July 08, 2008, 07:45:20 AM
Quote
So how are McCain's liberal nominees better than Obama's?
Quote
They're not. And it's going to be compounded by leftist control of the Senate. So we're screwed any way we turn.
stevelyn, I just posted several references that show why McCain's nominees will be better than Obama's. In essence, the authors referred to McCain's voting record in the matter of Federal judges. I find his voting record very convincing evidence. Do you have any evidence that McCain's nominees will not be better than Obama's ?
No, I admit I never looked at McCain's voting record on fed judges or even thought about it. Perhaps you do have good reasons to be optimistic on McCain justice nominations. But the reality is they will still have to make it past a democratically controlled senate and he may end up nominating less than desireable judges just to get them on the bench.
Does anyone here believe that McCain is made of the "sterner stuff" that Reagan had to do that?......
Post by: Desertdog on July 08, 2008, 08:07:34 AM
Quote
Does anyone here believe that McCain is made of the "sterner stuff" that Reagan had to do that?......
That is an unknown even if most of us think not. But I, personally, believe he will nominate better judges than BO. Then it is up to the Senate to approve or reject his nominations. If the Senate rejects McCain's we start raising so much hell with the Senators that they do start passing his nominations.Remember, they work for us, and we can fire them.
Post by: seeker_two on July 08, 2008, 01:21:57 PM
Remember, they work for us, and we can fire them.
That was true.....until the McCain-Feingold "Incumbent Protection" Act......