Peroutka bombed on Medved

To make a statement like that you would have to be assuming that the person voting for a third party candidate would have voted for a Republican or Democrat if those were the only choices. From what I have read from most of the Constitution Party supporters on this board, I would assume that they would either not vote or leave the presidential vote blank on the ballot if that were the case. If that is true, then it isn't taking a vote from anyone. As Ken said, you have to define who the "opposition" really is. </font>[/QUOTE]This is my thought. I’ve been to Peroutka website briefly and read some of his Issues, some I agree with, others I don’t, but his stand on issues are a lot more conservative than that of Kerry.

The only problem is that Peroutka doesn’t have a snowballs chance in November of winning the election. Fact is, it’s going to come down to Bush or Kerry. Kerry, whose voting record is more liberal than that of both Ted Kennedy and Hillary, would like nothing more than for you to vote for himself or Peroutka, but not Bush. If a small percentage of votes are taken away from Bush by voting for Peroutka, that means a closer race at the polls between Kerry and Bush.

But hey, Kerry took some rice pellets in his buttocks for our freedom to vote. I’m just thinking of the consequences a little before I cast my vote. So someone as liberal on the issues as Kerry, is someone I don’t want running our country. So my vote has to go to Bush.

 

A vote for a third party candidate is a vote wasted no matter what side of the fence you're on. In other words:

A vote for a third party conservative (for example, Peroutka) takes a vote away from Bush, thereby being a vote for Kerry.

A vote for a third party liberal (for example, Nader) takes a vote away from Kerry, thereby being a vote for Bush.

Get it?

 

Debby, that is only true if those votes were going to go to Bush or Kerry in the first place. I can see where your argument would have "some" truth to it, if someone who was going to vote for one of the major party candidates changed their mind and voted third-party, but that still doesn't mean the vote belonged to the major party candidate, they vote always belongs to the voter.

In 1996, I left the Presidential area of my ballot blank, as I didn't know about third-parties, in 2000 I voted for a third-party and will be doing the same in November. My vote is not taking a vote away from Bush or Kerry, because I have no intentions of voting for Bush or Kerry.

If the 8 to 12 million registered voters who didn't vote in 2000 stay home again in November, are they taking votes away from one of the major party candidates?

 

With you feeling that way, and being in Philly, I am assuming that you will be voting for liberal, pro-abortion Arlen Specter for US Senate?

 

OOOOHHHHH! I get it!
We should all, like, vote for Nader! That is so totally kewl, thanks for pointing it out.
Ok Bush supporters, please tell me you're all voting for Nader.
Gina

 

With you feeling that way, and being in Philly, I am assuming that you will be voting for liberal, pro-abortion Arlen Specter for US Senate? </font>[/QUOTE]I guess . But to loosely quote Michael Medved, "He may be a jerk, but he's our jerk." I certainly don't want Hoeffel. And not voting is a waste too.

BTW, Michael Medved is originally from Philadelphia.

 

Posted by NP

No NP, your not the only one your just in a very, very small percentage of those that remember it and will admit it!

Remember Ron Paul's speech...NEO-Conned?

The liberals just changed their "D' to "R" got elected to high offices and kept right on legislating socialism and collectivism into a government based on individual freedom.

Remember freedom?

 

Debby,
If you believe (as some on this board do) that Bush is almost as liberal as Kerry would be and that it would only get worse during a second Bush term, then it would be a "wasted vote" to vote for Bush (assuming the voter is conservative).

I do not feel that way and still plan to vote for Bush in November. If I changed my vote to Peroutka then it would in effect be "taking a vote" away from Bush. For Ken and NetPublicist and several others here to vote for Peroutka takes nothing away from Bush because I don't think they would vote for Bush if he and Kerry were the only two on the ballot. Even if Peroutka has no chance to be elected, it doesn't make it a "wasted vote". Voting for someone who doesn't reflect your values and beliefs would be the only "wasted vote" in my opinion.

 

What counts (pardon the pun) on election day is the numbers, not the intent of each voter.

Perhaps instead of voting FOR one candidate, we should be asked to rank all candidates in order of preference. That would put people you positively don't want at the bottom of the list. And the one at the top of your list would be the one you find "the least ojectionable." Kind of like voting AGAINST the others rather than FOR one.

Then there's the UK method. Elect the party, and the party makes its choice. Then we would be voting on issues as presented by the party, not just one person.

But whatever you do or how it's done, vote. Better than not voting.

 

For me, it's not about the "numbers" that count on election day, but how I will answer to God if I compromise my principles by voting for someone who stands for what I don't believe in.

We have discussed "Approval Voting" here before:
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/18/1737.html

And even have an 2004 Presidential Poll set up here using the "Approval Voting" method:
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/18/1786.html

 

I agree whole-heartedly. We need some Gideons in the church today. People who will stand for right because it is right, even if the majority don't see it that way. Integrity is doing what's right just because its right. Utilitarianism leads to choosing the lesser of two evils---but choosing an evil none the less.

Bro Tony

 

Well, then, someone should form the "Judeo-Christian Values Party," that was for protecting the unborn, preserving biblical marriage and recognizing God's laws as the basis for our own (Republician "stuff"), AND taking responsibility for the poor and providing healthcare and jobs (Democratic "stuff"), and then maybe we'd have a real choice.

But they still would only get my vote if they really had a chance of winning. Otherwise, I would vote to keep the greater of the two evils out.

 

You know Debby, maybe they would stand a chance of winning if everyone who said "I won't vote for them because they don't stand a chance of winning" would vote for them.
Welcome to Christianity. Almost everything you believe in has no chance of winning in this world, aggravated by the fact that people who believe in good will STILL stand for evil when they think it has a better chance of standing on its own than good, and isn't quite as evil as the next evil.
There is ALWAYS a worse option. You can live your life taking the middle ground and thinking you're doing ok by choosing the lesser of two evils on any topic, but that's a life of compromise and fear, a life with many moments wasted trying to suppress that nagging feeling you get when you know you could have stood stronger and had more faith.
You know, I don't have much to say to those that truly believe Bush is a great candidate full of Christian values. That's their choice. In fact, I admire them for doing so. But...I really can't stand it when people don't seem to really think so, but will vote for him anyway because they think something better doesn't have a chance. Reach down in you and find the strength to take a strong stand and stick with it despite adversity. Be trustworthy and loyal to your beliefs. That doesn't go for this election only, but for most anything in life!
Gina

 

There are some who will vote for Bush because they truly feel he is more conservative or better represents their views. I respect that and agree with others who have said, "more power to them." I do not, however, agree on their premise that Bush is conservative in any respect. Therefore, I cannot in good conscience join with that group that does. I do not happen to see one ounce of difference between Kerry and Bush.

There are others who will vote for Bush not because they think he's the best choice but because they are afraid of a Kerry presidency. Their motivation appears to me as more out of fear than out of conviction. I wish they would not be so afraid that God might lose control of the universe if the "wrong" guy gets in but I can't help that they are. Rest assured, if Kerry wins, God will still be ruler of the universe. I'm sorry that some seem to disagree and keep appealing to this fear to try and get others to vote their way. Its not a good reason to vote no matter who it is you're voting for.

By the same token, voting for Michael Peroutka will not solve all America's problems and usher in an era of world peace - I hope most other CP folks would agree with me there. But, that's just the point, it isn't so much about the outcome as it is about standing for your convictions. God is not a pragmatist (a very American philosophy where the ends imply the means) - far from it. We should not be voting on pragmatic princples but on conviction and let God take care of the outcome. Like the young men in the firey furnace - we know that God *can* save us, but even if he chooses not to, we still hold to our convictions. Pragmatism never enters the equation of a Christian when it comes to a matter of conviction.

 

Gina, Stratiotes,

You hit the nail on the head. Pragmatism over principle seems to be the rule of the day for many Christians in this debate.

I think that many have made an unfortunate assumption that God and His Word do not bear on political choices in the same way that they do on other areas of our lives.

F'rinstance, suppose some of the "lesser evil" citizens were faced with a similar choice in their churches. The pastor leaves, and their pulpit committee gives them a choice between a man who denies the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection, and a man who holds to both but denies the future second coming of Christ. I'd bet they'd fight or leave, rather than proudly choosing the second as the "lesser evil".

Why do Christians insist on groveling for a place at the table to get a few stale crumbs instead of insisting that Christ owns the table?

Why not do right and leave the results to our al-powerful God?

 

Debby,

What chance would you have given David against the Philistine? With whom would you have sided?

Would you have been one of the scoffers as Noah took a hundred years to build a ship with no sign of rain?

What chance would you have given Sarah, at a hundred years or so, of bearing a child?

Would you have stuck with Mary, as did Joseph, or would you have been too wise to believe such a thing?

How about the Martyrs over the centuries...what losers! Wouldn't simply saying a few words have been "lesser evil" than being killed?

Do we talk and sing about undying loyalty to Christ, yet are unwilling to vote for a man whom He has raised up who is CLEARLY a more godly choice, because we will stick with an EVIL "WINNER"?

That's how I see it.

 

If we re-elect the "lesser" evil Bush and Specter, what kind of men do you think the GOP will give us to replace them next time?

A) Men who will stand up and demand a stop to abortion and runaway government

or

B) Men who will run on the proven-successful political formula?

 

CMG,

Like other Bush Zombies, you refuse to differentiate between Iraq and "terror". It is absolutely, truly, and completely DIOSHONEST to claim that someone against the Iraq war does not think we should be fighting "terror".

Bus I know that you don't care, and won't correct your rhetoric, because it has ben pointed out many times and you refuse.

It amounts to a lie, bearing false witness, a violation of God's law. Do you even care?