Threatening to Vote Thrid Pary?

Well said. I am sure that if some of the founding fathers were running there would be issues we would disagree with them on. Its all about pride. They better cross every "t" and dot every "i" or I will take my vote and go home. And then we end up with Hillary. But you will hear some disingenuous libertarian try to tell you that Giuliani or Huckabee or Tancredo would be worse than Clinton. Its PRIDE!

 

So, where to draw the line?

I don't think this election would be the time to vote third party, but if 30-40 years ago Christians would have, then "Conservatives" may have gotten the message and stayed conservative. The Republican you vote in will do things that Democrats of the 70's would have only dreamt about.

So nowadays the madman choice #2 is worse than the madman choice #1 was back in the day. Are we making progress here? When do we take our soapbox out and make our position and wishes clear? When its too late and we don't have the influence we once had? Do we vote for someone who is pro-abortion because the candidate who is pro-life has no chance? If we vote Conscience, the Pro-lifer might have a chance next time. If we cave to Republican Back-roomers, are we tightening our downward spiral? If we draw the line at abortion, which is a moral issue, why don't we draw the line at unfair taxation/socialisticprograms, which are a political issue, but just as detrimental to our society?

 

==That is not a fair, or in this election cycle, or accurate comparison. It is more like the madman gave us two options on how to kill the child. So there are no good choices. Both the mainstream democrats and republicans are destroying this country with their unconstitutional, anti-founders, agendas/plans.

==No, its not. As I said, it is MUCH worse.

==If voting for someone because they can win means that you are voting for someone who disagrees with your core values then winning hardly seems important. When it comes to matters of importance, I don't believe we can afford to be pragmatic. We have to stick with the truth.

==Wrong. Most likely those guys would do the exact same thing Bush has done. Get elected pretending to be a small government, pro-life conservative. Once elected turning and growing the size of government and largely ignoring the life issue except when they feel like throwing the pro-life folks a bone just to keep them happy. When are conservatives going to get with the program? These guys are out to gain power and they will say or promise anything to get it.

==I would like to have someone with the morals of Graham (etc) but I would want someone who had more experience in government and business than those folks.

==In other words, you believe it is our duty to vote republican even though the republican party is going in the same direction as the democratic party and even though the republican candidate will most likely be a big government, pro-choice, liberal. Is that what you are really saying?

==I don't have to think I am right or prove that I am right, the past 15 or so years have done that for me.

==And that is why I refuse to vote for a big government, pro-choice, republican.

==I have the mental ability to examine the issues and determine which candidate is the best fit. I have enough mental ability to know that going with the crowd is rarely a good idea. And I have enough mental ability to know that winning is not important when you have compromised most everything you believe in order to win.

 

What did Ross Perot voters gain?

 

That is pure baloney. If your standards and expectations for this nation are so low as to vote for a pro abortionist (Giuliani), or an abortionist and gay rights advocate who lies about it (Romney), then your standards are no better than the Democrats.

To say a third party has no chance is a strawman. Again, baloney. Half of the American people are not registered that could vote. On the best day, half of those show up. 43% of the members of both parties are sick and tired of their party, its inept and self indulgent leadership and would vote for a third party at the drop of a hat. Of the ones who do vote, at least a third are already independent. Don't tell me that a third party cannot win. The numbers are there. It would take a real leader to inspire the American people.

This mindset is exactly why we have a moderate liberal President now, elected by conservative voters.

 

Democrats who flip-flop into the Republican Party do so because they know that the Christians will vote for them just so a Democrat does not win. Every Candidate Dem or Rep caters as much as his platform allows to the Crhistian Conservatives because they know that we will sway the election. Leesw is right--many Republicans should not even be in that party. They are liberals in sheep's clothing.

 

Personally, I vote for the person that I want to win an election - regardless of whether the person is a member of a major party, a minor party, or an independent candidate.

 

You sound pretty smart for a Cowboys fan.

 

Thank you.

The best and the brightest support America's Team.

 

Well written, and I agree. Perot, as third party spoiler, gave the election to Clinton. Though it's open to debate, it was close enough for illustration. Currently the Dem's love third parties.

 

I do understand the "vote your conscience" and in the primaries I do that, but not in the general.

 

Yes, it is. The evidence I have seen show that Perot did not cause George H.W. Bush to lose in 1992.

 

Which is why conservatives/libertarians are not able to stop the march down the socialist path in these United States. In the final analysis they end up voting for either socialist or socialist-lite.

 

It is beyond my comprehension how anyone on this board could vote for pro abortionist, gay rights Giuliani, or Romney in the same catagory except he is not truthful about it for the sake of voting Republican.

 

I'd like to see this evidence just for sheer curiosity.

 

Okay. I'll have to find it again, Tom.

 

Anyone care for a Cuban cigar????