It's Over Guys....
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Hmmm.. Each time I am tempted to vote D, I always remember Patsy Schroeder, get ill and vote third party... I won't be voting for Ds anytime soon, and I'm done with the religious right.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Ah, Patsy Schroeder. I remember her. I was disappointed I never got the chance to vote for her for president.
You are both willing to allow a single person ruin an entire national party's chances of getting your vote???
*sigh*
As if you search for Rs to vote for... You too said you were going third, not suddenly R.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I won't be voting for Ds anytime soon, and I'm done with the religious right.
I think you are cutting your nose off to spite your face. Being they are diabolically opposed to liberalist anti-religious immorality, the RR catch hell from the liberals. In a democracy, the RR has as much right to lobby for what they believe as the Atheists, abortion rights, gay rights, or socialist viewpoints do.
The RR and Conservatism are joined at the hip, inseperably married for life. The people who happen to have strong religious beliefs and conviction, simply have to vote for someone, and who else would you suggest they support? If they all decided to start voting for Libertarians, are you going to switch parties again because of the influence?
I understand, libertarians do not support the government being involved in personal or individual decisions. The fundamental problem with this view, is the fact that America is not disciplined enough with enough personal responsibility, to make pure libertarianism work, without utter chaos.
The RR tend to be fiscal conservative, just like you are, and they tend to favor less government involvement in our personal life, just as you do. The fundamental difference between the RR and you, is their spiritual mandate to uphold certain values and principles in the society which they live. Just as someone who is an environmentalist, might vote for the Green Party, the RR is driven and motivated by their own convictions, just as someone who favors drug legalization supports the libertarians, these people have legitimate purpose and justification for supporting a particular party.
You will never live in a society where the RR do not have a political voice. With 95% of this country identifying themselves as 'spiritual' in their beliefs, we can't pretend our spiritual consciousness doesn't exist as a nation. We've never elected a true social liberal as president, the closest we've come is probably Clinton, and he was not able to effectively push the liberal social agenda. There is a reason for this, and it's not the fault of the RR.
I don't always support the RR, but I do believe they have every right to an opinion on the political stage, and I certainly don't oppose a party, simply because the RR supports them. Now, if Republicans start adopting legislation to make us all go to church and read the Bible daily, I might change my mind, but from where I sit, I don't see what all the RR has been able to accomplish, given all the political power they've obtained. Abortion is still legal, they are euthanizing retarded people, and stripping 'God' from everything in the public domain.... so what have the RR been able to accomplish, other than becoming the target of bitter hatred from the left?
I think you are cutting your nose off to spite your face. Being they are diabolically opposed to liberalist anti-religious immorality, the RR catch hell from the liberals. In a democracy, the RR has as much right to lobby for what they believe as the Atheists, abortion rights, gay rights, or socialist viewpoints do.
The RR and Conservatism are joined at the hip, inseperably married for life. The people who happen to have strong religious beliefs and conviction, simply have to vote for someone, and who else would you suggest they support? If they all decided to start voting for Libertarians, are you going to switch parties again because of the influence?
I understand, libertarians do not support the government being involved in personal or individual decisions. The fundamental problem with this view, is the fact that America is not disciplined enough with enough personal responsibility, to make pure libertarianism work, without utter chaos.
The RR tend to be fiscal conservative, just like you are, and they tend to favor less government involvement in our personal life, just as you do. The fundamental difference between the RR and you, is their spiritual mandate to uphold certain values and principles in the society which they live. Just as someone who is an environmentalist, might vote for the Green Party, the RR is driven and motivated by their own convictions, just as someone who favors drug legalization supports the libertarians, these people have legitimate purpose and justification for supporting a particular party.
You will never live in a society where the RR do not have a political voice. With 95% of this country identifying themselves as 'spiritual' in their beliefs, we can't pretend our spiritual consciousness doesn't exist as a nation. We've never elected a true social liberal as president, the closest we've come is probably Clinton, and he was not able to effectively push the liberal social agenda. There is a reason for this, and it's not the fault of the RR.
I don't always support the RR, but I do believe they have every right to an opinion on the political stage, and I certainly don't oppose a party, simply because the RR supports them. Now, if Republicans start adopting legislation to make us all go to church and read the Bible daily, I might change my mind, but from where I sit, I don't see what all the RR has been able to accomplish, given all the political power they've obtained. Abortion is still legal, they are euthanizing retarded people, and stripping 'God' from everything in the public domain.... so what have the RR been able to accomplish, other than becoming the target of bitter hatred from the left?
maineman
Banned
I long for the day when the republican party was represented by folks like Ev Dirksen, Margaret Smith, Bill Cohen, Ed Brooks, Nelson Rockefeller and the like...
back in those days, the parties legitimately worked to find consensus.....now the right has become this theocratic neoconservative bunch of unreasonable assholes.
back in those days, the parties legitimately worked to find consensus.....now the right has become this theocratic neoconservative bunch of unreasonable assholes.
No, But Ive never ever said that because of GWB I cant vote Republican, and GWB was a president and is responsable for Iraq. Was PS ever president or THE highest elected official in the Democratic Party?
No, you just pretend that you would vote republican, but say differently. Others are more honest with themselves. You never once said that you would vote R, you said you would avoid it and vote Third Party just as others said. We don't need sanctimony from somebody who said the same thing as we did, just in a "kinder gentler" way. Patsy is the example of what you get from long-term control of the Democratic Party...
I would vote Republican, in fact I have.
I said, and stand by it, that if the Democrats were out of control and not governing well and the Republicans nominated someone I could stand, Not a Religous Right Bush type.. I would vote for that person.
LOL. And yet previously in this thread you made it a point to mention that you would not vote R, but third party. It was the same thing I said, just with an example of why I would avoid voting for the Ds on a national level. It's all good. I've voted D before, as you know, yet I still stand by my statement.
When you said you would vote Third Party you made no suggestion that you would vote R. In fact you said specifically that you would vote Third Party over R. Pretending that just because I gave an example of what I believe to be the extreme that I didn't say much the same as you did when suggesting that I was likely to vote third party is pretense.
Because you registered that way. Not a great mystery.
I was offering a likelihood, not a real certainty. I will not vote for another "conservative" that is only "conservative" in religious views. I will tolerate a religious person if their other views coincide with mine. I would certainly vote for a more conservative D over a religious R, but would be more likely to vote Libertarian as a "protest" vote.
The R Party cannot presume that they have my vote because of how I registered.
You mean when I said this?
"My current thinking is that in the next election, as Bush will be out anyway, I will vote third party. Unless it is a clear Bush type clone running for president, then Ill vote for the most likely to beat him."
Because that is very different than saying Ill never vote for a Republican.
"My current thinking is that in the next election, as Bush will be out anyway, I will vote third party. Unless it is a clear Bush type clone running for president, then Ill vote for the most likely to beat him."
Because that is very different than saying Ill never vote for a Republican.
No, it's just a kinder, gentler way of saying what I did. If it is a solely religious conservative I will vote third party... I just added an example of why I don't want a huge majority of D and why I won't vote for them at this time...
But heck, you can pat yourself on the back for avoiding the R and voting Third Party and get all holy on me because I mentioned Patsy as a reason I wouldn't currently vote D.... Instead of mentioning "Bush"...
But heck, you can pat yourself on the back for avoiding the R and voting Third Party and get all holy on me because I mentioned Patsy as a reason I wouldn't currently vote D.... Instead of mentioning "Bush"...