Do you ignore certain parts of platforms?

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

So you're voting Libertarian, right?

I did last election... but I don't like Barr. Secondly, I don't believe in having no civil rights laws for the private sectors. Discrimination should be outlawed. I also believe in freedoms such as free trade... but I think we need limitations and control in order to not kill the economy (BUT, this is not my speciality, and I often have conflicting views that turns me to the extreme Laissez-faire capitalism), ... AND I was a little misleading in my last post... I believe in gun control. I believe a citizen has the right to control the gun, if the government can determine that he is able to use it safely. Our guns should be treated like our cars, esp. since guns are even more so a lethal weapon.

AND, I dont want to TOTALLY waste my vote by voting libertarian. I talk and campaign for it, but really, there is only two parties up for the spot, red or blue...

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

AND, I dont want to TOTALLY waste my vote by voting libertarian. I talk and campaign for it, but really, there is only two parties up for the spot, red or blue...

Not to pick on this point, but I don't understand this concept of "wasting" a vote. I would think that not showing up at the polls at all is "wasting" your vote, since you as a person have the right to vote. However, each vote, no matter how small in comparison to the total, sends some sort of message; either for one of the two major parties, or, by voting for a third party candidate, it shows a distaste for the Dems and Republicans, or at least for their platforms.

Then again, I voted Republican while living in Boston, so maybe I'm not the person to talk about "wasting" votes...

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Not to pick on this point, but I don't understand this concept of "wasting" a vote. I would think that not showing up at the polls at all is "wasting" your vote, since you as a person have the right to vote. However, each vote, no matter how small in comparison to the total, sends some sort of message; either for one of the two major parties, or, by voting for a third party candidate, it shows a distaste for the Dems and Republicans, or at least for their platforms.

Then again, I voted Republican while living in Boston, so maybe I'm not the person to talk about "wasting" votes...

You send a message, but unless you can put together a historic movement, you can't expect that your vote will contribute to the kind of government you'll see in action in the next few years, really. This didn't keep me from voting Libertarian in 1992, but I can't see myself doing it again because I see foreign policy differently now. (I certainly might vote Libertarian at the state and local level, depending on a couple of issues that vary among candidates in the party and the likelihood that the office I'm voting for would address them.)

Sure, if enough people voted Libertarian, the other parties might recognize they needed to change their own platforms to appeal to these voters, but when you're talking less than 1% of total voters, it's hard to see how it's going to play out that way.

Like your signature says, sometimes you decide you're better off trying to vote for the major party candidate who you think will screw it up a little less.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Not to pick on this point, but I don't understand this concept of "wasting" a vote. I would think that not showing up at the polls at all is "wasting" your vote, since you as a person have the right to vote. However, each vote, no matter how small in comparison to the total, sends some sort of message; either for one of the two major parties, or, by voting for a third party candidate, it shows a distaste for the Dems and Republicans, or at least for their platforms.

Then again, I voted Republican while living in Boston, so maybe I'm not the person to talk about "wasting" votes...

Idealism is swell and all Ksigkid, but I def. have an opinion of who I want in the McCain vs. Obama battle... I voted for Ron Paul this year, because he is someone I absolutely believe in, (and I knew my state was going towards the candidate I wanted in both parties) and he was garnering more than 1%, so his impact makes a difference, he did say something in the primaries, and still is... Barr, well, the man is totally off the radar.

Of course, if people complain about the candidate I DO vote for, if I vote for Barr, I could just throw my hands in the air and say, "Hey, I didnt vote for him."

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

AND I was a little misleading in my last post... I believe in gun control. I believe a citizen has the right to control the gun, if the government can determine that he is able to use it safely. Our guns should be treated like our cars, esp. since guns are even more so a lethal weapon.

Ooooohhh. I LIKE that. Since I've always felt gun control means hitting your target.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by DGTess

Ooooohhh. I LIKE that. Since I've always felt gun control means hitting your target.

yes, well, my fear is what the target is... you end up on the wrong side of the gun and you will find your view on gun control a little different as well as a warm wet sensation running down your leg...

[nittanyalum]

Interesting, from swtx's signature, I googled and found the Baldwin site -- for all those arguing that who is elected President could ultimately have no direct effect on the abortion issue, this from the Baldwin issues link:

"I will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to demand that Congress enact Dr. Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act which would set forth that every unborn child is a 'person' under the Constitution, entitled to equal protection of the law and therefore, no unborn child could be killed without due process of law."

In addition to guaranteeing the legal person hood of the unborn, Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act, which I wholeheartedly support, would strip the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of abortion in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2. This would mean that Roe v. Wade would immediately pass away as any legal authority on this issue. There would be no need to worry about putting a Supreme Court on the bench that might eventually make the right decision on this issue. We can, therefore, end legal abortion immediately upon enactment of the Sanctity of Life Act. ... Under my administration, we could end legal abortion in a matter of days, not decades. And if Congress refuses to pass Dr. Paul's bill, I will use the constitutional power of the Presidency to deny funds to protect abortion clinics. Either way, legalized abortion ends when I take office.

Not saying this would happen (lots of politics would come into play), but it makes the point that it COULD happen.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Interesting, from swtx's signature, I googled and found the Baldwin site -- for all those arguing that who is elected President could ultimately have no direct effect on the abortion issue, this from the Baldwin issues link:


Not saying this would happen (lots of politics would come into play), but it makes the point that it COULD happen.

It could if more than a fraction of one percent of the population were willing to vote for Baldwin and that if elected he could actually make that change.

It would be a losing proposition for any elected official to vote for it unless we had a really clear and somewhat limited definition of what unborn meant.

As much as I'm anti-abortion, I recognize that it's a really small segment of the population who wants to insist on absolutely no abortions for any reason from the moment of conception on. Even many people who personally believe life begins then recognize that it's not a standard that the public at large would be willing to live with. (For instance, I think the number of people who think that IVF or the storage of embryos for IVF is wrong is TINY, and yet if you grant any conceived embryos legal rights IVF gets weird really fast). So is unborn person any implanted embryo? Any month-old, implanted embryo? And unless they could find the terms on which a consensus could form, they'd likely be voted out and the act repealed with the next congress.

Or so I think.

I'm not throwing this accusation at you Nitty, but doomsday scenarios can be powerful motivators, but it doesn't mean that it's a reasonable or rational motivator. A coat hanger and "we won't go back" doesn't seem reasonable to most people. It's almost the intellectual equivalent of the mangled fetus pictures from Pro-Lifers. Even if Baldwin says he wants to go back, we won't.

[DGTess]

"I will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to demand that Congress enact Dr. Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act which would set forth that every unborn child is a 'person' under the Constitution, entitled to equal protection of the law and therefore, no unborn child could be killed without due process of law."

I wonder does he mean the one with 4 cosponsors (HR 1094), or the one with 5 (HR 2597), since he introduced the same act twice in one session and couldn't convince the other 429 to agree with him. How's his "pulpit" going to overcome that?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DGTess

I wonder does he mean the one with 4 cosponsors (HR 1094), or the one with 5 (HR 2597), since he introduced the same act twice in one session and couldn't convince the other 429 to agree with him. How's his "pulpit" going to overcome that?

Right and being President isn't likely to change that, I don't think. But if you are super pro-life you can feel really good about voting for him.