Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please don't vote for Hillary if you are a fiscal conservative. How do you think she is going to pay for universal fill in the blank. Vote libertarian.
Here's the deal with Hillary: With her you get the Devil you know. With the Obama, you get the Devil you don't know. With McCain, who knows? He's switched positions with the wind and I personally think he's really liberal too, particularly fiscally and militarily.
Please don't vote for Hillary if you are a fiscal conservative. How do you think she is going to pay for universal fill in the blank. Vote libertarian.
Why vote Libertarian? When you vote, you must be realistic, that means Republican or Democrat, make your vote count don't throw it away.
republicans are bad and dems are worse? this is just your ideology vs other percieved ideologies... fact is.. many people are independent... they don't claim to be dem or republican.. or buy into any ideology.. Dems are addressing the real issues that are important.. and addressing them in ways many people are agreeing with... that is why dems are doing well...its as simple as that... someone that subscribes to an ideology (conservative or liberal) would immediately assume someone of another party is distrustful and dishonest without going out and listening and being openminded to change... I think for the most part.. most voters are open minded and don't buy into this us vs them.. conservative vs. liberal mentality... if McCain is the republican nominee.. I certainly would not think of him as a conservative AT ALL... so you have to ask yourself.. why did he win?
Why vote Libertarian? When you vote, you must be realistic, that means Republican or Democrat, make your vote count don't throw it away.
Because if your voting for someone you dislike slightly less than who you dislike, there is no real point in voting is there? You really can't throw vote away unless you vote for someone you dislike. In my eyes if it came down to Clinton vs. McCain its no win for me. Althought a third party won't win I'll have a clear conscience, and then when whoever wins screws up I can say, "Don't look at me dammit, I didn't vote for him/her."
republicans are bad and dems are worse? this is just your ideology vs other percieved ideologies... fact is.. many people are independent... they don't claim to be dem or republican.. or buy into any ideology.. Dems are addressing the real issues that are important.. and addressing them in ways many people are agreeing with... that is why dems are doing well...its as simple as that... someone that subscribes to an ideology (conservative or liberal) would immediately assume someone of another party is distrustful and dishonest without going out and listening and being openminded to change... I think for the most part.. most voters are open minded and don't buy into this us vs them.. conservative vs. liberal mentality... if McCain is the republican nominee.. I certainly would not think of him as a conservative AT ALL... so you have to ask yourself.. why did he win?
I'm not closeminded, I've probably watched more dem debates than rep debates. There is just to much in the dem platform on the national level I can't agree with. On a local level I voted almost straight ticket democrat in 2006. I duno, I just can't understand how people can change there mind on issues every four years, as the issues typically don't change. Dems are always gonna be pro-choice, pro-welfare, anti-states rights, raise taxes etc. And the republicans will always have essentially the same agenda they have now. Right now both parties agendas are warped, and I think most people would at least agree on that. But I might be way out of line, I'm one of those "loony" Ron Paul guys. I'll acknowledge my views are not necassarily mainstream.
Conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan supports Obama. He used to support Ron Paul but realized how futile Paul's campaign is. Sullivan represents many of those in the Republican party who are disenchanted with the crop GOP of candidates and see in Obama an incarnation of Ronald Reagan.
It is not farfetched for Republicans to vote for Obama. Given all the choices, Obama is the more acceptable candidate. For one to label Obama as an extreme liberal is just plain wrong. Just look at his health care plan. It is actually more market-friendly than Hillary's.
And his embrace of immigrants is actually very libertarian, a stance that free market and pro-business advocates would favor. If Ronald Reagan can grant amnesty to illegals and still be considered a conservative, why should Obama's position be considered more abominable?
Another thing: during the debate the other night, Barack was asked about the danger of exposing children to violent and sexually-charged movies. His answer was quite conservative. He said that it is the parents' job to regulate what their children can and cannot see, and that the entertainment industry and the government should merely cooperate to provide parents with the tools (eg software) to block the unwanted shows. That's a conservative position. That doesn't strike me as coming from someone who is extremely socially liberal (or libertine may be the correct word). He did not call for big government to censor these shows. He acknowledged the importance of parental responsibility in raising children.
It seems to me that the Republican party is all about winning and not about issues. Why else would Pat Robertson endorse Guliani and not Mike Huckabee? Guliani sits almost completely opposite to what Pat Robertson believes.
It seems to me that the modern day republican party has made winning this election so paramount that they have forgotten their conservative base and just assume that they will have support. Not this time !!
Hillary is a liberal,no doubt, and probably not even the most liberal there is. It has always bothered me that she could win the presidency. I never wanted her in office. But the truth is, she is not the Devil that they are making her out to be, there are many worse people in this country.
I believe that the modern day republican party would run Satan on a ticket if they thought he could beat Hillary-- and that is sad.
I can not support Romney with any good conscience, I can barely support McCain. I can support Mike Huckabee, but both the liberal media and the Republican Elite has tried to push him out of the way.
In protest of the republican party, I may do something I have never dreamed of doing, I may just vote for Hillary, even if it is just a protest vote.
. Romney is a fiscal conservative but has no chance in hell of converting the Christian evangelicals in the Republican party who don't consider Mormons to be true Christians. Romney's defeat was sealed in Iowa when the evangelicals flocked to Huckabee instead.
Nonsense! I am an evanglical Christian and I am voting for Romney! Huckabee is too soft for those of us who are Conservative across the board!
Because if your voting for someone you dislike slightly less than who you dislike, there is no real point in voting is there? You really can't throw vote away unless you vote for someone you dislike. In my eyes if it came down to Clinton vs. McCain its no win for me. Althought a third party won't win I'll have a clear conscience, and then when whoever wins screws up I can say, "Don't look at me dammit, I didn't vote for him/her."
you probably voted for bush? do you consider that throwing your vote away?
I don't understand where you're coming from...if I absolutely hated clinton and mcCain.. I wouldn't vote...taking the time to actually stand in line and go physically vote when you hate the inevitible...only to chuck your vote at a third party seems like an act of throwing a fit and saying screw the system... unless of course that third party guy is someone you actually have studied up on and agree with.... by your own statement.. that doesn't seem to be the case.. you're more concerned with making your statement with your vote.. rather than making it count for something productive... we can't have everything we want 100 percent in a democracy.... it just isn't feasible.. nor is it going to ever happen... so this notion of "voting for the lesser of the two evils" comes into play for almost 99 percent of voters.. not just you... eventually you have to come to a personal compromise in backing the candidate that MOST resembles what you'd like...
throwing your vote away to make a statement of "screw the system".. just shows you don't know how come to a compromise within yourself.. and I'd be willing to bet your ideologies keep you from doing so in your life as well...
its not to bag on you or anything.. i think it comes down to personality types.. because my dad is the same way... and as much as we talk and talk it seems we never can see eye to eye.. so we agree to disagree...
interesting nonetheless
Conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan supports Obama. He used to support Ron Paul but realized how futile Paul's campaign is. Sullivan represents many of those in the Republican party who are disenchanted with the crop GOP of candidates and see in Obama an incarnation of Ronald Reagan.
It is not farfetched for Republicans to vote for Obama. Given all the choices, Obama is the more acceptable candidate. For one to label Obama as an extreme liberal is just plain wrong. Just look at his health care plan. It is actually more market-friendly than Hillary's.
And his embrace of immigrants is actually very libertarian, a stance that free market and pro-business advocates would favor. If Ronald Reagan can grant amnesty to illegals and still be considered a conservative, why should Obama's position be considered more abominable?
Another thing: during the debate the other night, Barack was asked about the danger of exposing children to violent and sexually-charged movies. His answer was quite conservative. He said that it is the parents' job to regulate what their children can and cannot see, and that the entertainment industry and the government should merely cooperate to provide parents with the tools (eg software) to block the unwanted shows. That's a conservative position. That doesn't strike me as coming from someone who is extremely socially liberal (or libertine may be the correct word). He did not call for big government to censor these shows. He acknowledged the importance of parental responsibility in raising children.
We must not confuse Conservative with Republican!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
