Who will you vote for and why

[Hoot Gibson]

Not a wasted vote at all! This is the same rhetoric that keeps Dempublicans in power and allows the current crop of poor candidates that they present to us. Plus, if Barr is able to get the needed percentage of votes Libertarians will be recognized on KY ballots and won't have to waste money attempting to get ballot access. This way you will be able to say that you were part of the solution and not part of the problem.

 

Finally, in KY a vote for either Dempublican is a wasted vote. Either you are going to help McCain win a little bit more or help Obama lose by a little bit less. Either way, KY is locked up for sure!

These are the best reasons for casting a protest vote. I do not live in a state that is "safe" for McCain. An Obama presidency will mean an almost certain resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine, a dimunition of the rights of gun owners, a dramatic liberal shift in the US Supreme Court, and an even more corrupt federal government.

 

I cannot afford to cast a protest vote this year and with Palin on the ticket I am no longer tempted to do so. Hopefully, Palin's conservatism will survive four-year's worth of McCain's influence.

 

If McCain loses Kentucky, it will be a very long night for him. John Fund believes there is a one in three chance that voter fraud by ACORN and other Obama support groups and the 9,000 Obama lawyers will result in an election "month" instead of an election day. I hope that voters in battleground states resist the temptation to protest their choices with a third-party vote. A vote for Obama in a swing state like Ohio will be a vote for voter fraud.

[Jim Schue]

I won't vote this year.

 

I don't feel there is a candidate worth my time at the polls and the gas money it would cost me to get there.

 

Same here. I can't even justify turning out to vote in the Senate race, either. Just awful candidate choices, and I'm tired of it.

[formerkywrestler]

These are the best reasons for casting a protest vote. I do not live in a state that is "safe" for McCain. An Obama presidency will mean an almost certain resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine, a dimunition of the rights of gun owners, a dramatic liberal shift in the US Supreme Court, and an even more corrupt federal government.

 

I cannot afford to cast a protest vote this year and with Palin on the ticket I am no longer tempted to do so. Hopefully, Palin's conservatism will survive four-year's worth of McCain's influence.

 

If McCain loses Kentucky, it will be a very long night for him. John Fund believes there is a one in three chance that voter fraud by ACORN and other Obama support groups and the 9,000 Obama lawyers will result in an election "month" instead of an election day. I hope that voters in battleground states resist the temptation to protest their choices with a third-party vote. A vote for Obama in a swing state like Ohio will be a vote for voter fraud.

I still believe you are missing the point a little. A vote for a third party candidate doesn't have to be a protest vote. There are good reasons to vote third party, for instance perhaps you like that candidate the best. I have trouble believing that all the Ross Perot votes were protest votes. I actually hope that Libertarians and any other third party followers stick to their guns and vote for the candidate that best suits them regardless of party or closeness of the race in there state. If I voted in Ohio I would still vote for Bob Barr.

 

I agree with the problems Obama will bring, but I'm now convinced that McCain, version. 2.0, will bring an equal amount of problems. The good thing is, the continual downward spiral of Dempublican candidates can only lead to a change in the system, or so I hope.

[Hoot Gibson]

I still believe you are missing the point a little. A vote for a third party candidate doesn't have to be a protest vote. There are good reasons to vote third party, for instance perhaps you like that candidate the best. I have trouble believing that all the Ross Perot votes were protest votes. I actually hope that Libertarians and any other third party followers stick to their guns and vote for the candidate that best suits them regardless of party or closeness of the race in there state. If I voted in Ohio I would still vote for Bob Barr.

 

I agree with the problems Obama will bring, but I'm now convinced that McCain, version. 2.0, will bring an equal amount of problems. The good thing is, the continual downward spiral of Dempublican candidates can only lead to a change in the system, or so I hope.

I understand your points, I just do not agee with them. A dramatic shift toward socialism will make it harder for third parties like the Libertarians to gain a foothold in this country.

 

The best way for third parties to grow is to elect more people to school boards and other local offices. Until the Libertarian Party has a strong presence in local and state government, votes for Libertarians for national office will be nothing more than protest votes.

 

This area has a pretty active Libertarian Party and if I have a chance to vote for Libertarians for local offices next month, I will do so as I have done in the past. However, I will not help B. Hussein Obama into the White House by casting a vote for a life-long Republican running for president as a Libertarian.

[formerkywrestler]

I understand your points, I just do not agee with them. A dramatic shift toward socialism will make it harder for third parties like the Libertarians to gain a foothold in this country.

 

The best way for third parties to grow is to elect more people to school boards and other local offices. Until the Libertarian Party has a strong presence in local and state government, votes for Libertarians for national office will be nothing more than protest votes.

 

This area has a pretty active Libertarian Party and if I have a chance to vote for Libertarians for local offices next month, I will do so as I have done in the past. However, I will not help B. Hussein Obama into the White House by casting a vote for a life-long Republican running for president as a Libertarian.

 

Until Libertarian party candidates have automatic ballot access, a vote for a national race just goes to help that, so IMO it isn't a protest. But I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on that one.

 

I agree with you totally, that they have to start off locally and within the state. The group I am involved in believes those things and that is where our efforts are going to be.

 

I thank you for those votes and hope you continue to do. I think here lies our difference. I believe McCain will be equally bad and his vote for the biggest piece of Socialist legislation in my lifetime leads me to believe that he lies in the same bed Obama does.

 

Finally, myself and others were life long Republicans who have seen the light, or actually got left and discovered there was a party who actually shared there beliefs. The Republican party is a complete mess and they only have themselves to blame.

[Hoot Gibson]

Until Libertarian party candidates have automatic ballot access, a vote for a national race just goes to help that, so IMO it isn't a protest. But I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on that one.

 

I agree with you totally, that they have to start off locally and within the state. The group I am involved in believes those things and that is where our efforts are going to be.

 

I thank you for those votes and hope you continue to do. I think here lies our difference. I believe McCain will be equally bad and his vote for the biggest piece of Socialist legislation in my lifetime leads me to believe that he lies in the same bed Obama does.

 

Finally, myself and others were life long Republicans who have seen the light, or actually got left and discovered there was a party who actually shared there beliefs. The Republican party is a complete mess and they only have themselves to blame.

I half agree with the bolded passage. I agree that McCain voted for the biggest piece of socialist legislation of our lifetime. However, Obama's supporters such as ACORN are attempting to totally steal this election through voter fraud and intimidation. ACORN has been indicted in 15 different states for voter fraud and Obama once served as ACORN's lawyer and also trained many of its community agitators.

 

A McCain presidency will not do the same kind of structural damage to our nation as an Obama presidency will. That is where we will have to disagree. Obama is a Chicago street thug wearing a nice looking suit who uses an Ivy League vocabulary. McCain is a moderate Democrat running as a Republican. We have survived presidents like McCain before but this country has never suffered through four years like an Obama presidency would bring.

 

Have you thought about what would happen if Bob Barr were actually elected president? How well do you believe he would be able to change the system virtually zero support in Congress? I believe that a third-party president with no support in Congress would ensure the end of third party movements for decades.

[formerkywrestler]

Have you thought about what would happen if Bob Barr were actually elected president? How well do you believe he would be able to change the system virtually zero support in Congress? I believe that a third-party president with no support in Congress would ensure the end of third party movements for decades.

 

Yes I have. The Dempublicans who are ruining this country would realize that the American people are tired as hell of their crappy policies and continual interference into our lives. Such a drastic move would make a lot congress realize they better shape up unless they want to be unemployed.

 

He wouldn't get support for all of his policies, that happens, but it would send the message and congress would finally realize that they serve the people, not the other way around. It would be a clear mandate for change and congress would have to accept it. You have to remember that most of these people like their jobs, if a Libertarian was elected the Dempublicans would realize that quite a few of ther constiuents like those principles. I don't think Bob Barr would have to change the system. By electing Bob Barr the American people would have changed the system.

 

I do agree with your last statement about it causing the end of the third party movements. However, instead of the third party movement, it would have to be renamed the fourth party movement.

 

Finally, I'm a realist, I know that Bob Barr has a snowball's chance of winning KY, though only slightly less than Obama. But I think with enough people voting for him it let's people know that the voice is there. But most importantly if he can get enough percentage of the vote Libertarian candidates can stop wasting money on ballot access and it will help more people learn about the party. This in turn could lead to wins in future local, state, and maybe even national races. I could see there being a time fairly soon when Libertarians have a few seats in congress, they basically already have one. States like Nevada, Texas, and New Hampshire have a lot of Libertarian leanings and I don't think it is out of the scope of things, especially if someone like Ron Paul or a celebrity turned politician such as Drew Carrey were to run.

[The Scribe]

I still don't know

[Hoot Gibson]

Yes I have. The Dempublicans who are ruining this country would realize that the American people are tired as hell of their crappy policies and continual interference into our lives. Such a drastic move would make a lot congress realize they better shape up unless they want to be unemployed.

 

He wouldn't get support for all of his policies, that happens, but it would send the message and congress would finally realize that they serve the people, not the other way around. It would be a clear mandate for change and congress would have to accept it. You have to remember that most of these people like their jobs, if a Libertarian was elected the Dempublicans would realize that quite a few of ther constiuents like those principles. I don't think Bob Barr would have to change the system. By electing Bob Barr the American people would have changed the system.

 

I do agree with your last statement about it causing the end of the third party movements. However, instead of the third party movement, it would have to be renamed the fourth party movement.

 

Finally, I'm a realist, I know that Bob Barr has a snowball's chance of winning KY, though only slightly less than Obama. But I think with enough people voting for him it let's people know that the voice is there. But most importantly if he can get enough percentage of the vote Libertarian candidates can stop wasting money on ballot access and it will help more people learn about the party. This in turn could lead to wins in future local, state, and maybe even national races. I could see there being a time fairly soon when Libertarians have a few seats in congress, they basically already have one. States like Nevada, Texas, and New Hampshire have a lot of Libertarian leanings and I don't think it is out of the scope of things, especially if someone like Ron Paul or a celebrity turned politician such as Drew Carrey were to run.

As long as Liberatarians cannot elect a single state governor, US Senator, or representative, the party has zero chance of electing a POTUS. That is the real world. No matter what you think, there are tangible differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

 

The Libertarian Party should form alliances with other third parties and fight for the common cause of removing roadblocks for getting third pary candidates on state ballots. My perception of the party is that its approach is so intolerant of dissent that it cannot effectively affect meaningful change in the system.

 

If the party would stop demonizing people who agree with 90 percent of its core positions it would find it much easier to find good candidates who would push the ball down the field. The legalization of drug use or opposition to the war on Islamic terrorists should not be litmus tests for becoming a Libertarian. Personal liberty and economic freedom are values that the majority of Americans believe in and those should be the values promoted first and foremost by the Libertarian Party. Demonizing potential allies by calling them Republicrats or Demipublicans is not good politics and that attitude will keep the Libertarian Party on the fringe of American politics, IMO.

[Dlbdonn]

McCain because of his anti abortion stance . I'll probably go down to the clerks office tomorrow and vote .

Edited October 5, 2008 by KyTmcNcc

[formerkywrestler]

As long as Liberatarians cannot elect a single state governor, US Senator, or representative, the party has zero chance of electing a POTUS. That is the real world. No matter what you think, there are tangible differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

 

The Libertarian Party should form alliances with other third parties and fight for the common cause of removing roadblocks for getting third pary candidates on state ballots. My perception of the party is that its approach is so intolerant of dissent that it cannot effectively affect meaningful change in the system.

 

If the party would stop demonizing people who agree with 90 percent of its core positions it would find it much easier to find good candidates who would push the ball down the field. The legalization of drug use or opposition to the war on Islamic terrorists should not be litmus tests for becoming a Libertarian. Personal liberty and economic freedom are values that the majority of Americans believe in and those should be the values promoted first and foremost by the Libertarian Party. Demonizing potential allies by calling them Republicrats or Demipublicans is not good politics and that attitude will keep the Libertarian Party on the fringe of American politics, IMO.

I agree that the party currently has no chance of electing a POTUS right now. You had just asked me if I thought about what would happen if Barr was elected and I think that such an upset would change so many things with the current political landscape. But anyways, I think you will find that I agree with you on way more than I disagree with you on, especially regarding the LP. I do think there are differences between Republicans and Democrats, unfortunately what runs is some kind of mix between the two with only a few differences here and there. But occasionally there is one still that I will gladly support from one of the two parties (Anne Northup for instance). They have became surprisingly similar and as a Libertarian I usually find equal amounts to disagree with on both sides.

 

I totally agree, I think Bob Barr skipping Ron Paul's event and falling out of favor with him was a mistake, he should stay in favor with the most notable spokesperson for libertarian beliefs and promote 3rd parties. If you'll notice, for the most part I actively promote people voting for ANY party except the donkey's or elephants. Because honestly if someone truly likes the Green Party, there is no good reason for me to try and convince them to vote for Barr, just as it would be futile for them to try and get me to support McKinney.

 

The group I'm involved with feels that same way. We aren't a Libertarian Party group, we are for the promotion of libertarian ideas no matter where they come from. Our main goal is to get a local influence, not really trying to elect any Libertarian candidates right now. I have always found it very silly that a lot of Libertarians will eliminate someone if they don't agree with all of their platform. For instance, I don't agree with their stance on the Iraq War, I supported it from day one and still do, I think we may have taken a detour, but we are doing the right thing. With my friends and associates I have convinced several people to consider Barr and some have told me they are going to vote for Barr. I don't think any of those people agree with all of the party's platform. I just let them know the core principles and if I knew a certain issue they really liked, I informed them that the LP shared that belief.

 

Now for the last part, that's just silly, this is an internet message board, and I do this for fun. It is fun to joke around and make up names such as Dempublicans, we all do those things, aren't you one who refers to Obama as B. Hussein Obama? I don't see that going on out in the non-internet world. The Dempublican label is a creative way for me to get across the point that I don't see much of a difference between a lot of the current crop of candidates that the two major parties are sending out. I don't think I am turning off anyone that is still undecided, because if you are undecided at this point I'd say you aren't feeling to strongly about either one. I realize that a lot of the Libertarian Party's support going forward will have to come from people registered D and R and the work I actually do is geared to getting that support.

[HHSDad]

I've decided to voter for Bob Barr for president and Lunsford for senator. I really wish Ron Paul was on the ballot. As far as Lunsford goes, its time to start throwing out politicians that just don't get it.

[Hoot Gibson]

I agree that the party currently has no chance of electing a POTUS right now. You had just asked me if I thought about what would happen if Barr was elected and I think that such an upset would change so many things with the current political landscape. But anyways, I think you will find that I agree with you on way more than I disagree with you on, especially regarding the LP. I do think there are differences between Republicans and Democrats, unfortunately what runs is some kind of mix between the two with only a few differences here and there. But occasionally there is one still that I will gladly support from one of the two parties (Anne Northup for instance). They have became surprisingly similar and as a Libertarian I usually find equal amounts to disagree with on both sides.

 

I totally agree, I think Bob Barr skipping Ron Paul's event and falling out of favor with him was a mistake, he should stay in favor with the most notable spokesperson for libertarian beliefs and promote 3rd parties. If you'll notice, for the most part I actively promote people voting for ANY party except the donkey's or elephants. Because honestly if someone truly likes the Green Party, there is no good reason for me to try and convince them to vote for Barr, just as it would be futile for them to try and get me to support McKinney.

 

The group I'm involved with feels that same way. We aren't a Libertarian Party group, we are for the promotion of libertarian ideas no matter where they come from. Our main goal is to get a local influence, not really trying to elect any Libertarian candidates right now. I have always found it very silly that a lot of Libertarians will eliminate someone if they don't agree with all of their platform. For instance, I don't agree with their stance on the Iraq War, I supported it from day one and still do, I think we may have taken a detour, but we are doing the right thing. With my friends and associates I have convinced several people to consider Barr and some have told me they are going to vote for Barr. I don't think any of those people agree with all of the party's platform. I just let them know the core principles and if I knew a certain issue they really liked, I informed them that the LP shared that belief.

 

Now for the last part, that's just silly, this is an internet message board, and I do this for fun. It is fun to joke around and make up names such as Dempublicans, we all do those things, aren't you one who refers to Obama as B. Hussein Obama? I don't see that going on out in the non-internet world. The Dempublican label is a creative way for me to get across the point that I don't see much of a difference between a lot of the current crop of candidates that the two major parties are sending out. I don't think I am turning off anyone that is still undecided, because if you are undecided at this point I'd say you aren't feeling to strongly about either one. I realize that a lot of the Libertarian Party's support going forward will have to come from people registered D and R and the work I actually do is geared to getting that support.

:thumb:(x 95%)

 

FWIW, one of my biggest problems with McCain is the total disrespect that he demonstrated toward Ron Paul during the Republican debates. Ron Paul embodies more of Ronald Reagan's beliefs than any candidate who ran for the Republican nomination. I disagreed with his stance on the Iraq War but there was no reason for McCain to have laughed at him openly during the debates. McCain may live to regret insulting Dr. Paul and his supporters in such a childish manner. Ron Paul certainly deserved more respect that B. Hussein Obama and McCain was very courteous toward Obama in their first debate.

[formerkywrestler]

My BB won't let me edit my response for some reason.

 

I want to add, as far as demonizing tactics, I think the conservatives are far more demonizing with their constant smear campaigns that they run, that aren't geared remotely towards policy. You don't have to believe me but I know of several undecided people who became Obama supporters just because of the constant smearing of Obama and lack of providing any reason why they should vote for McCain instead of Obama. In fact someone on this website said that the McCain supporters led them to Obama. You can take it for what it's worth. I know politics and human nature warrants that you are going to occasionally diss the other candidates, I have defintely dissed them both several times, but mine are generally against a policy of theirs and not some "supposed" connection to a person, religion, org., etc. In this day and age people want the truth and they really want to vote FOR someone they believe in, not a vote against someone. I know I would rather vote for someone in the Senator race, not just against Mitch.

[formerkywrestler]

:thumb:(x 95%)

 

FWIW, one of my biggest problems with McCain is the total disrespect that he demonstrated toward Ron Paul during the Republican debates. Ron Paul embodies more of Ronald Reagan's beliefs than any candidate who ran for the Republican nomination. I disagreed with his stance on the Iraq War but there was no reason for McCain to have laughed at him openly during the debates. McCain may live to regret insulting Dr. Paul and his supporters in such a childish manner. Ron Paul certainly deserved more respect that B. Hussein Obama and McCain was very courteous toward Obama in their first debate.

Agreed, I am very interested in what lies ahead for Dr. Paul. I think in the interest of threadjacking we probably need to leave it at that...

:lol:.