mspgunner
Regular Member
Consider the options, vote smart:
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
2A/OC Pure partisan politics though
- Thread starter mspgunner
- Start date
SovereignAxe
Regular Member
And voting Republican Party is a suicide pact with Romney (or should I say Wrongney?). What's your point?
Marc
Regular Member
I think the point is choose the lesser of 2 evils. Obama has already stated that he don't believe citizens should own guns. Romney has some left views when it comes to gun control, but he has Ryan as his running mate to keep him in check. Romney has no intentions of outright trying to erase the 2nd amendment, Obama does. Altho both are bad choices, voting for someone other than Romney is just throwing a vote away and leaving Obama with an extra vote that does not get cancelled out. Thats the point.
mspgunner
Regular Member
Ah, a post by an informed citizen!
The NRA has straightened Romney out, he is the best choice. Just as in Missouri politics, money talks abd B/S walks, it's the natural order, like it or not.
I just spent and hour with the next speaker of the Missouri House and the wife of Dave Spence the next Governor of the State of Missouri.
We need to get our ducks in a row, 2013 may be the year for Missouri OC rights, better than a "flash" bill!
The work has begun by a very dedicated group of OC advocates, sorry no previews.............Stay tuned, January through May 2013 is a long way away.
davidmcbeth
Banned
Thanks for the post Mr. Ryan (lol) ... now, tell me why I should vote for YOU, not vote against another person.
Ya can't? Too bad. Johnson is getting my vote.
Willard should be the one in the car in the pic ... that's what his candidacy is doing to the country.
Ya can't? Too bad. Johnson is getting my vote.
Willard should be the one in the car in the pic ... that's what his candidacy is doing to the country.
SovereignAxe
Regular Member
I'm sorry, but I'm not a one issue voter, so I will not get sucked into this two party trap that we've been in for about a century now. I'll be voting for who's best for the country on as many issues as possible-not just gun rights.
Redbaron007
Regular Member
So who are then voting for?
If third party, how do think they will be able to influence, make the change you want to see? If King Obama, why is the better choice over Romney? Saying they are both equal is a cop out and is not true and very disingenuous.
In advance.....thanks for your information.
SovereignAxe
Regular Member
I'm still undecided, but I can tell you it won't be Nobama or Wrongney. And you're right, they're not equal. Obama is bad for some things (fiscal responsibility, civil liberties), Romney is bad on others (other civil liberties, energy policy). Who's worse? It doesn't matter. If I don't like their policies, I'm not voting for them. It's pretty simple.
Festus_Hagen
Regular Member
So in other words, your just wasting your vote .....
SavageOne
Regular Member
Funny thing about choosing the lesser of 2 evils, the end result....EVIL. See, believe it or not, there are some American citizens, who think that voting against your conscience is an even greater evil the allowing the existing system(i.e. two party monopoly) to strong arm us into playing by their rules and not the ones championed by the Founders.
Case in point, during the RNC a voice vote was taken, to make it almost impossible for delegates for minority candidates(ala Ron Paul) to leverage their votes for changes in the party platform and positions, by changing rules and centralizing the party power in Washington DC. Now I don't know about you, but I call the disenfranchising of grassroots movements by a centralized party leadership, evil. In your book, is this disenfranchisement of it's party's members a big enough evil to equal the disenfranchisement of everyone by the opposition? For many of us, it is.
I have a theory as too why so many seem to love the two party system. It is simply the "us vs. them" mentality. With a two party system you don't have to bother actually being informed about any topic, all you need to know is what side "we" take. That automatically means that "they" are wrong. The idea that there might be different and valid views need not be considered. It's very similar to the national obsession with sports. It's just "your" team against the other guys. When they win, you win. When they lose, well it was probably bad calls or that POS coach who keeps making all those stupid calls, that you would never make.
So while many of you may think those who choose to vote for either of the two majority candidates are wasting their votes, they are in fact voting their hearts and convictions. That used to be called the American Way.
SixGunCowboy
Regular Member
"A "no vote" is a preferable option when either of the other two options would be the incorrect options anyway. So, a "no vote" is not wasted when there is no other viable option presented. And I know what you would say about "trying." But, when the option of trying is not enough, there can be no other "responsible" option than.
Superlite27
Regular Member
I'll be voting for the candidate I believe will be the best choice to lead our country.
Other folks will be voting for "the lesser of two evils".....a candidate they don't even like....... in order to reinforce the two party system so that "the other side" doesn't maintain control of the presidency.
Even though my candidate has absolutely no chance of winning.....
.....which one of us is really WASTING their vote?
I'm not the one who will be voting for a newly crapped P.O.S. because it's fresher and has fewer germs than a day old P.O.S.
davidmcbeth
Banned
Write in "George Bush" ... that'll send a message ...
Would that be a waste of a vote?
OC for ME
Regular Member
Yes. See the 22nd Amendment.
Redbaron007
Regular Member
I know several who like to state they are voting for the candidate (presidential) that best represents there beliefs and politics....usually 3rd party.
Well, that is a nice warm, fuzzy feeling...but getting past that is the hard part. There is no 3rd party candidate out there that has any chance of winning the WH. So this brings me to my question, why do people vote because of the selfish warm/fuzzy feeling instead of the broader view?
I will agree, neither are the best choice, but the reality is, that is all we have...so it becomes the lessor of two evils. Oh, by the way, this is nothing new...it's happened in politics for many years, locally to federal.
With a higher propensity for the next POTUS to appoint Supreme Court Justices; I'll take my chances with Romney rather than with King Obama. In addition, I believe Romney (and a repub congress) has a better chance to repeal/reduce Obamacare's devastating economical burden on our economy.
That's my $.02.
Well, that is a nice warm, fuzzy feeling...but getting past that is the hard part. There is no 3rd party candidate out there that has any chance of winning the WH. So this brings me to my question, why do people vote because of the selfish warm/fuzzy feeling instead of the broader view?
I will agree, neither are the best choice, but the reality is, that is all we have...so it becomes the lessor of two evils. Oh, by the way, this is nothing new...it's happened in politics for many years, locally to federal.
With a higher propensity for the next POTUS to appoint Supreme Court Justices; I'll take my chances with Romney rather than with King Obama. In addition, I believe Romney (and a repub congress) has a better chance to repeal/reduce Obamacare's devastating economical burden on our economy.
That's my $.02.
Superlite27
Regular Member
I agree. There is no third party candidate out there that has any chance of winning the WH.
As far as voting for a "selfish warm/fuzzy feeling" rather than your broader view.....
Since when did how I vote become your perogative? Since when did my individual vote have to adhere to your definition, or be considered wrong? It's mine. Casting it how I desire is considered "selfish" if it doesn't fit your view of the current state of politics? Here are some options I have with MY vote:
1) I can simply not vote, whatsoever.
2) I can vote for Obama.
3) I can vote for Romney
4) I can vote for a third party.
5) I can write in the person I'm going to vote for.
Hmmmmm. Glad to know you've narrowed my choices down to #3.....or being "selfish" with something that belongs to me: My vote. Simply for not casting it in the same manner, and for the exact reason you choose to cast yours.
Do I feel good about it? Nope. You're right. The person I am going to vote for will not win. Am I aware of the consequences? Yes. There is a lot riding on the next president's shoulders. Supreme Court picks are one of them.
But I'm not going to sacrifice my principles and vote for someone I never supported simply because he isn't the person I don't want to win.
I vote FOR the person I want. That's what I do. That's how I cast my vote.
If I wanted a warm/fuzzy feeling, I'd W***E myself out and vote for Romney simply because of the impending DOOM forcast if he is defeated.
But I'm not a W***E. Voting for my candidate fails to give me a warm/fuzzy feeling you say it does. So be it. Maybe the Republican party should have nominated him if they wanted me to vote for their candidate. After all, I vote for candidates because of their values, the opinions they hold, how they govern and legislate, the kind of personality they have, and a myriad other reasons.
I do NOT vote for candidates simply because they're NOT the crap we're accustomed to. I do NOT vote for candidates because they're the "lesser of two evils". I do NOT follow the rest of the lemmings taking us over the cliff's edge and vote for their reasons.
I vote for my own reasons, and for my own candidates. If everyone else did so, maybe this country would start heading in the right direction.
Until then, keep enjoying the fresh turds you keep electing for for everyone else's reasons.
Redbaron007
Regular Member
So you vote based upon your warm/fuzzy feeling. That's ok....as I stated above....that is the hard part (see bold), getting over the warm fuzzy feeling of 'my principal'.....many do not. Voting is each one's own prerogative....correct. Although, from the many I have spoken with and have read on interweb forums, they have stated the very same thing you have espoused...'i vote my principal', which it's usually a for a vote third party candidate, one with zero chance of affecting change...which usually helps the most liberal candidate. True? Or Not?
Which brings me to my next question, Why would one sacrifice a country's future for selfish desires? Would you not agree this election is very important....especially for our future? Would you agree, if King Obama remains in office, our country will not be better off in four more years? If you answer, no, our country will be better off in 4 more years with King Obama; then let us conclude the conversation.
However, if you say it probably won't be better off, then why vote for a candidate who has no chance of changing the future for the better; all along allowing the more worse candidate to succeed?
If we were speaking during the primary times; then I fully support 'I vote my principle' thought. However, this is when the big picture thinking comes in....a different thought process....just FYI, there is no federal right to vote for president.....so when it comes to selecting a commander in chief, it usually boils down to two, picking a third doesn't help the whole US.
As I have stated before, Romney wasn't my 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd choice...I didn't vote for him in any primary...but the thought of the very liberal King Obama appointing more Supreme Court Justices, forcing more Obamacare onto folks, further re-distributing wealth to those who don't earn it, concerns me greatly. Just those three things alone should trigger something in many peoples minds, that...it is a big picture when voting for the POTUS. Could Romney do somethings similarly...sure, but doubtful, if he wants possible re-election in 2016.
'nuff said. I climb down from my lil soapbox.
Festus_Hagen
Regular Member
You are .
You say yourself your candidate has no chance of winning, yet you will throw that vote away .
Some people can maybe stand Obama in the WH another 4 years so he can take away more rights and run the country in the ground some more. I'm not one of those. I'll do whatever is best for the cause and the country to get that SOB out of office . Others kinda like him, I don't judge.
You will essentially be throwing another vote for the Big Zero .
I won't.
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
You guys make me laugh. You'd vote for nancy pelosi if she changed her blue undies for red and you put a R an in front of her name.
Just think about what your going to do, vote for a man who signed a permanent AWB into law, raised fees for gun owners by 400% and invented Obamacare. Not to mention did nothing for the economy of his state.
That's who you will inflict on the American people? Ugh.
A vote for Obamney is damn near traitorous.
Just think about what your going to do, vote for a man who signed a permanent AWB into law, raised fees for gun owners by 400% and invented Obamacare. Not to mention did nothing for the economy of his state.
That's who you will inflict on the American people? Ugh.
A vote for Obamney is damn near traitorous.
OC for ME
Regular Member
I hardly think that the Mittster's "record" in MASSACHUSETTS is a harbinger of things to come for the other 56 states if he is elected president.