Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Mar 19, 2006.
Even President Clinton made the case that it was more "compassionate" in the long run to get people off welfare and into jobs.
Calling Bush the new LBJ is an understatement.
Bush is no conservitave. What he calles compassionate conservitive I call conservitive librelisem.
Clinton made alot of talk to get elected, dident he.
We agree here.
Please, we read opinion places all day long.
What does KenH think?
I do not respect the opinion of this
opinionjournal writer; i respect the opinion of
KenH. Thank you for your kind consideration.
Right on Galation,
Lyndon Baines Bush, notice they are both from Texas. Time for a change folks. Rememeber in the 2004 election, and all the grief Lady Eagle took over defending the US Constitution Party candidate over Bush? Egg on your face now, huh? If you have any doubt as to how much money we are spending, go here http://www.toptips.com/debtclock.html
I would love to vote for a third party. But what if I voted for the Constitution Party canidate and ,,,whats his name,,, oh ya Kerry got elected president by one vote.
I couldent live with myself.
Lyndon Baines Bush, I like it. I have heard him called George Deleno Bush also, by Vox Day.
Until the law is changed to require a majority to win, a vote for a third party is a vote against your second choice.
A vote for a third party candidate is a chance to vote with a totally clear conscience. In the last election I could not in good conscience for either of the major candidates. My choice was to vote according to clear Bible principles (in my mind), or not vote at all. I chose the former.
I could not in good concience cast a vote for John Kerry by voting for anyone other than the other candidate; there may as well be only two candidates.
If the laws were changed to require two things, then a third party candidate would be viable:
1st - Make all states like Nebraska and Maine; make states so they are not winner take all.
2nd - The two electoral votes for the senate would go to the majority (not plurality) of top votes in the state, and the representative electoral votes would go for the majority in each district.
Requiring only a plurality permits candidates to win with only 43% of the vote or even less; making the states all or nothing theoretically puts the power in the hands of the five largest cities in the US.
I did not vote for John Kerry - full stop. This is perhaps the most baseless charge levelled at those who choose to vote their absolute conscience.
I did not vote for a man who has a record of appointing homosexuals and supporting gay civil unions. I did not vote for a man who supports even a few abortions. I voted my conscience, I did not vote pragmatically.
I am extremely disappointed in President Bush's large widening of the deficit with the help of the GOP-controlled Congress.
It is that kind of attitude that goes a long ways towards allowing the two major parties to maintain their near monopoly on politics in the U.S.
The law is what keeps two parties in a monopoly. If a majority were required to win, that would change. That's how Clinton was re-elected with 43% of the popular vote.
You have your choice. You can be idealistic and vote for the person who shares every value with you and never win. You will make a statement, but not a real difference.
Or you can be realistic and realize that in the 2004 election either GW or Kerry is going to be prez 100% certenty. My vote for GW was a vote against Kerry. I looked at the real possability of Kerry becoming prez and decided that anybody would be better, and I need to vote for somebody who can beat him.
Why not just write in youself as a write in canadate, then you know you share your own values. Would be just a productive.
I guess if one considers pragmatism a viable voting method, then you all have a point.
It's not about who will win. Bush has done more damage to our economy and has increased the size of the federal government more than Clinton or any other liberal Democrat has in the past. Conservatives are saying that it will be bad if Hillary wins in 2008 because she is a Socialist and will work to bring Socialism to America, all she has to do is put the icing on the cake that Bush has baked for her. Both of the major parties are working to destroy our Constitutional Republic, so it's not about who will win, but about standing by your principles even if you stand alone, God will still be in control in the end, and one day we will all answer to him for our choices we make in life, including those choices made in the ballot box.
Two great John Quincy Adams quotes:
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”
“Duty is ours; results are God's”
Shocker! Hillary Clinton is a Goldwater Girl
perhaps a moderate Republican today.
Without the electoral college the president would be elected by New York, Illinois, Texas, and California.
If it feels good to vote your conscience, then a write in vote for The Lord may fill that particular need. It would be a totally wasted vote, because The Lord isn't running and if elected, won't serve.
I haven't voted and felt good about it in since Reagan, and even then I looked for more.
A vote for anything but a reasonably suitable conservative Republican will be a missed opportunity to fulfill your resposibility to God. If McCain is the nominee, then we have the freedom to vote for any 3rd or 4th party we want.
This is a very harsh, judgemental statememt.
How about this? "A vote for a man who supports gay civil unions is an abomination in the sight of God."
Both of these statements are unjust and judgemental.
What would the two partiests do if your choice was Clinton and Giuliani?