In case you want to write in a presidential candiate in general election

In Oklahoma we have Rule #2.

In fact, if there is other races along with the Presidential, writing in another presidental name might invalide the ballot & one would loose their vote for say: U.S. Senator.

 

Why waste votes on someone who has no chance of winning???

 

I may think very shallowly but my post, in no way, was disrespectful to the men who have died for our freedom to vote.

Obviously, you don't know me very well, or you wouldn't have even said a ridiculous thing like that about me.

While we're on the subject of loyalty...I have not switched candidates since this all started. How many times have you switched?

My point is (because I guess you missed it the first time), you can vote for whomever you like, but I doubt it will be counted if it is a write in, and if it is counted, a write in candidate will not win.

Who do you think will gain the advantage from THAT?

 

My brother is talking about writing in Ronald Reagan to protest the leftward drift of the GOP. While I still support McCain, and plan to vote for him in the fall, I can't say that he is my first choice. Bob Barr is an interesting option. Who knows, if it looks like McCain can't win in the fall I might switch over to Barr as a protest vote.

 

No vote is ever a waste if one is able to vote for the candidate of their choice. Better to write in an unknown than violate my scriptural convictions in any way.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

 

So is the write in candidate, unless it is Jesus.....

 

If there were enough write in votes it may very well cause one side to lose. But it will have its effect. It would send a message that a change of position needs to be made. If the GOP were to win it would just encourage them to continue to go down the liberal road they are currently on.

 

Absolutely right, Roger! There is no way I could vote for any of the top three candidates running right now. Thank God I still have the right to write in my choice.

love,

Sopranette

 

Boy!!!! That will show em!!!!

 

You do have a very good point.

After the Clinton's left the white house (I understand that they vandalized it and stole lots of things as well when they moved) I thought that alot of folks had finally come to understand that they really werent liberals at all, and I thought that it would be a long time before a Democrat would have a chance at the white house again. I thought that the damage that the Clintons did to our country would not be forgotten so quickly. But it looks to be the other way around.

In this election it appears that the public is not as much for the liberals as they are against the republicans. And perhaps, as you alluded to, it might be good for our country if the Dems win, and the republicans are forced to regroup and reform the party back to the "Grand Ole Party"

I just have a fear of the unknown when it comes to Obama, and wonder just how much social damage he can do in 4 years.

Either way this election goes, it is a dire time for the US.

AJ

 

I'm of the opinion that time is too short, and that the next 2 presidential election cycles is of the utmost importance, and that to "teach the GOP" a lesson, or "teach the DNC" a lesson is too big a gamble, but looks like we'll get what we get.

 

==That is a stunning statement for two reasons. 1) It was not too long ago that you were a hardcore supporter of Obama. Now you tell us that he is too much like McCain? Come on Ken, try to be consistant! :laugh: 2) There are massive policy differences between McCain and Obama.

 

Ken's sole issue is the war on terror in Iraq. Always has been and for that he is consistent.

 

Actually he is not. When the abortion issue comes up he claims he is not a single issue voter. So the consistency gets lost even in this.

 

Iraq is indeed a front in the war on terror.

Saddam Hussein was a marked supporter of terror for the following reasons.

1. He invaded his neighbors Iran and Kuwait.
2. He used chemical and biological weapons on his own people, the Kurds.
3. He repeatedly resisted the no fly zone established as a result of his defeated take over of Kuwait.
4. He repeatedly challenged allied aircraft that monitored the no fly zone.
5. He was not forth coming regarding UN inspections.
6. He harbored Terrorists including
   Abu Abbas, After the Achille Lauro hijacking, under immense political pressure from the United States and Italy, Tunisia expelled Abu Abbas from the country. He fled to Baghdad, where Saddam Hussein sheltered him from extradition to Italy. He remained in Iraq and commanded the P.L.F. (reunited in 1989) until Saddam was deposed by coalition forces in 2003.
7. He gave aid and support to Hamas.