Stare At The Sun

Alright, so, its your job to convince me who to vote for this fall. This is open to all parties. How I feel about the issues;

Economic Policy- I'm not really sure how to describe this. I think that we get taxed way to much as it is. I am against outsourcing jobs. I think we need to get the manufacturing jobs back in our country they are our backbone.

Gun Control - Very against it. I think guns are something that everyone should own. Not only for protection, but because its our responsibility to own a gun. That way, the government can never get to out of control.

Abortion- Simply put, pro choice.

Border Control/Aliens - Keep em out, is basically how I feel.

War in Iraq - I don't think we should be there, nor do I think we should support Israel, so I don't think thats going to change. and hence, a moot point.

Healthcare - It's definatly an issue, perscription costs are way to high, and something needs to be done. Insurance and coverage needs to be more accesible.

Gay Marriage- for it.

Affirmative Action - Against it

I also think the federal gov should be as small as possible and stay out of my life.

If you have any questions, just ask, but this is my first time voting, and take the duty fairly seriously. I want to be informed, and I figure this is the best way to do it. So, inform me!

matthew330

what's that dude's name? Badnarik or something?

meepa

It seems like generally you're fiscally conservative while socially liberal. If anything, that lines up with the libertarians. If however you're trying to decide between Kerry or Bush, you basically have to decide which group of those issues is more important to you. The republicans if you like money or democrats if you like freedoms. But then, the republicans if you want freedom for guns... But democrats if you want health care... But then green party if you want to be able to breathe... Or blue party if you like smurfs. Ah hell you're screwed.

Paradise Lost

To my knowledge, the only guy who cares about your economic policy is Ralph Nader.
I would love to vote for this man 270,000 times during election day, but unfortunately,
we get one vote, and voting for him, while it may be the 'right' thing to do, is anything,
if not the dumb thing to do.

Right now your real choice would be Kerry.

And the last candidate (that won) who seriously opted for a small centralized government was
George Washington.

__________________
"Marino could do it."

pan6467

Meepa you have it down to a science there.

Stare,

Everyone here can offer an opinion and someone else will name call and tell you why you shouldn't vote that way.

I can sit here all night telling you why to vote for Kerry.

Someone else will come along and say I'm full of shit you need to vote Bush.

Then someone else will come along and tell you to vote Badnarik (whom, I am sure is qualified).

And you may get someone wanting you to vote Nader.

Vote your heart man. READ, LISTEN, WATCH, figure out who stands closest to what you want and just vote your heart. As long as you do that, noone can condemn you.

If you vote for someone because someone talked you into it, you voted for the wrong reason.

Whomever you vote for Stare, I can guarantee 1 thing, You can stand proud and in my eyes (for what it's worth) you are truly a great American, because you voted your heart.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Scipio

You seem to care about the issues. The best non-partisan advice I can give you is to try and see through the smokescreen of bogus attacks, anything to do with vietnam, and media hype. Go to the candidates' websites and read about their issues. Think about what they say they'll DO, then think about what's actually going to happen. Think about the supreme court. Who do you want in the driver's seat when some justices drop in a few years? Do you like Scalia/Thomas/Rehnquist, or do you like Ginsburg/Souter/Breyer/Kennedy? I guess O'Connor's in the middle. Be aware that GWB is generally quite conservative on social issues. That won't change. Kerry is probably going to try and do something about the deficit. Although it's probably the responsible thing to do, something's going to have to give, be it taxes, or be it service cuts.

As a partisan, on Kerry's behalf, I'd put it to you like this. GWB is a bad CEO. He talks a good game, and says things that make you nod your head, but throughout his whole life, he's left a trail of screw-ups behind him. His presidency is no different. Mabye he made the right call to go into Iraq. I'm not going to argue that, but it's evident now that the execution has been a serious failure. The military won't even go into Fallujah anymore. Attacks are on the rise, and the insurgency is intensifying. And, if you can tell me two great things he's done domestically besides pass tax cuts we can't afford (especially as they're being made permanent), I'll say a few bad things about Kerry for ya.

But it's not really about Kerry. As I said, ignore the hype, the spin, and the Republican talking points. Anyone who looks at Kerry's record of service to his country, and at his experience can see that he's up to the job. To me, it's high time we fire the bad CEO that lives in the White House right now, and let someone else try.

__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

OpieCunningham

I will present the pro-Kerry position:
Taxes: you're probably Middle Class, which means you've likely recently received a pittance of a tax refund or cut. You won't receive anymore over the next 4 years regardless of the President. You might get your small tax cut reversed if Kerry is President - but you're likely to get the same thing from Bush because the gov't is too far in debt with no end in sight. Off-shoring will continue. With Bush, it is part of the conservative lassiez-faire capitalism: if it's good for business, it's good for you. Kerry intends to close some of the loopholes which not only enable off-shoring but encourage it. He also intends to create tax cuts for businesses which create jobs here in the States. He will only succeed a little because off-shoring is inevitable. Manufacturing is NEVER coming home. The economy is moving towards brokerage, manufacturing was soooo 1970's/1980's. The '90's were service - but that is starting to go too. The next stage is brokering.

Kerry is more likely than Bush to enact any gun control laws. But he likely will not do much in that area because the pressure has dropped as crime has dropped across the country.

Simply put: Don't go anywhere near Bush if this is important.

Not much is going to happen here. Bush soldout conservative ideals by offering a poor excuse for amnesty to all current illegal immigrants from Mexico. Conservatives secretly love illegal immigration because it's a boon for business.

Almost moot. Kerry and Bush differ on the war(s), regardless of all the people that would like to tell you differently. Neo-cons, which make up most of Bush's advisors, are adamantly pro-Israel (more correctly, they're pro-Likud). Kerry is more similar to Clinton in regards to Israel.
By nature, conservatives are anti-state-sponsored health care. Liberals are not. And Bush's record shows that very well.

Don't go anywhere near Bush if this is important.

Don't go anywhere near Kerry if this is important. Though I would suggest researching this topic further.

Neither candidate is going to make the federal gov't small. If this is important, you're looking for a Libertarian candidate. Bush's fiscal policies are a mockery to everything a conservative holds dear (unless you're a religious conservative, in which case money doesn't matter and the gays can go to hell.)

Good show.

Mephisto2

I'm not going to weigh in here on who you should vote for, but I can't resist commenting on this one topic.

On one hand, you're against someone telling you that you can't own a weapon, yet in the next you're tell me I should have one?! WTF?!! If I don't want a gun, are you going to come round my house and make me hold one?!

With the greatest respect, it's this kind of illogical, ill thought out position on guns that makes me almost afraid of their strong proponents. I tell you what our responsibilitiy is. It is our responsibility to follow the laws of the country and the social norms of the society in which we live.

It is not our responsibility to "take up arms" just because some gun nut thinks we should. [/sarcasm]

Having said that, I have the greatest respect for you SATS, and enjoy your posts. I just think you're waaaaaaayyy off on this one.




Mr Mephisto

PS - I know I said I wouldn't, but vote for Kerry! Heheh... Seriously though, it sounds like to me that you are a "liberal Republican" or a "Republican with a heart". GASP! If Colin Powell was running, I'd bet you'd vote for him. It really depends upon what you think is the major issue of the election. If it's NOT Iraq, and you think it's social issues, then go Democrat.

Ustwo

It comes down to where you rank the importance of your items.

About my only comment is Democrats and healthcare. They talk about healthcare but they don't mean it. Hilarycare from 92, was just god awful and is a big part why they lost control of the house in 94. As a doctor myself, having worked with other docs from around the world, all I can say is socialized medicine sucks. People don't understand how good we have it here, and nothing is 'free'. If Democrats gave a rats ass about health care they would stop blocking tort reform and not allow themselves to be bought off by the trial lawyers such as John Edwards. In many states doctors in high risk specialties are basically fleeing the state, my state is one of these, and the lack of caring from the Democrats on this is down right sick. No TFPer can defend it, and it has basically been ignored when I brought it up in the past. If you like QUALITY health care, don't vote Democrat. Luckily I am in a field where insurance and lawyers play almost no part so it doesn't effect me as a doc, but it does effect me as a soon to be father when the ob/gyns are leaving the state in droves.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Mephisto2

That's an interesting topic Ustwo, and I'd like to see a thread on it.

BTW, social medicene does work in other countries, but I'm sure you're more familiar with the US system and what challenges there are there.

Mr Mephisto

Ustwo

Not really as when I go to international meetings I spend quite a bit of time talking to docs under the socialized systems.

Also I had the benefit of being in a world renowned program which meant I listened to speakers from all parts of the globe almost daily. We would not only talk about conditions in their country medicine wise, but I would see the quality of the work done there.

About the only thing I'll give the socialized medicine people credit on is their human experimentation work. Since its basically impossible to do work on humans in the US if it doesn't involve possible benefit to the patients most basic research like that is done in European countries. Sweden being one of the best at it since they have a very genetically similar population and don't seem to mind if you put a bunch of metal screws into the heads of children to see how their bones grow and the like. BTW this was a true study, its a famous study, its a great study really, but we couldn't do it in the US legally. On the other hand, the US did fund it, and socialized systems have less safe guards on experiments like this.

While it would make a good topic, I think its a bit to advanced for TFP at this time. Maybe after the election.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Mephisto2

Fair enough.

By the way, the populations of the United Kingdom, Ireland, probably most of Europe and Australia, would disagree with you that socialised medecine "doesn't work".

It patently does, as it allows many people access to a good quality medical system at state subsidized rates. But if you don't agree with it on political grounds that's OK. Both sides of the political spectrum (ie, everyone) supports it in the UK, Ireland and Australia (the three places I'm specifically familiar with), and to oppose it would be political suicide.

As you say, maybe after the election.


Mr Mephisto

Stare At The Sun

Lol, i'm no gun nut, I just really think that if all american citizens don't have firearms that eventually the government won't be afraid to do whatever they want. They could control us a lot easier w/o guns. I don't want to sound like some tin foil hat guy, but thats what the 2nd ammendment is really all about. I don't think we need to "take up arms" now, but that option always needs to be there.

Just my .02.

Other than that, thanks for the input. I would be more interested in hearing about the libertarian candidate from someone that really knows their shit. THanks for the replies again!

smooth

<g>Mr. Mephisto, you might want to remind Ustwo where you live

Opie, I have no idea what you are referring to when you claim we are moving toward a brokerage economy--that's news to me. My understanding is that service oriented jobs are here for the run, but I don't know what a brokerage job would look like, so maybe we would agree after explication.

SATS, I agree with Opie that manufacturing jobs are not coming back. You may do better to look at candidates who promise to help us make the transition to whatever economy we are entering. I heard that kerry has a higher education plan that speaks to this issue--Bush does not. Bush believes that the free market will create impetus for educational opportunities and such. I am wary of any person claiming to bring our jobs back--it's not going to happen, even though we may be able to stem the tide of them flowing out.

Nader may have something to say on this, too. But I would bet libertarians would not, since they are more prone to believe the market will produce education opportunities or necessary worker training without external intervention.

People don't respond to Ustwo's claims regarding tort reform probably for two reasons: he claims to be an expert on the issue already and isn't going to change his mind, and the issue as he explained it is hyperbole.

Lawsuits aren't driving doctors out of business. In so far as any are leaving the state, they are doing so due to insurance costs.

The issue then would be insurance reform, an issue you listed as relevant. Not only would insurance reform address the relatively wonky lawsuits so heavily touted as the norm by people desiring tort reform for political reasons, they would also address the much more burgeoning problem of insane costs, managed care feascos, and pharmaceuticals. The single best system I can think of that would address all of those issues is government managed care. When I listen to the Senate speak, they claim it's what they have--a single payer system sponsered by the good ole US of A. And some of them want it for the rest of us citizens--one of them is Kerry.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

OpieCunningham

This is my theory - that we'll move to a brokerage economy. I don't know precisely how that will manifest itself, but it is the next logical step. The business of negotiating and creating deals, purchases and sales. The Enron economy without the corruption (well, atleast not as obvious as the corruption at Enron). It is the optimization of distribution.

Service is moving away. If you look at the product development industry, the engineering and design is going to Asia. If you look at the technical support industry, India. Service is going away because the tools, manpower and infrastructure costs associated with it are cheaper outside the U.S. Which is exactly what happened to manufacturing.

Indeed.

Locobot

I'm glad you're taking the time to make an informed choice. Your vote is important, it's the ultimate patriotic duty. You won't find a candidate that completely matches how you feel on every issue so you have to assign each issue a degree of importance. It's also unwise to base your vote entirely on any one issue. Here are the candidates running this year:

REPUBLICAN PARTY:
President George W. Bush (Texas) *
Presidential Nominee
Vice President Dick Cheney (Wyoming) *
Vice Presidential Nominee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEMOCRATIC PARTY:
US Senator John Kerry (Massachusetts)
Presidential Nominee
US Senator John Edwards (North Carolina)
Vice Presidential Nominee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REFORM PARTY / INDEPENDENT:
Ralph Nader (I-Connecticut)
Presidential Nominee
Peter M. Camejo (Green-California)
Vice Presidential Nominee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIBERTARIAN PARTY:
Michael Badnarik (Texas)
Presidential Nominee
Richard Campagna (Iowa)
Vice Presidential Nominee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMERICAN PARTY:
Diane Templin (California)
Presidential Nominee
Al Moore (Virginia)
Vice Presidential Nominee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCERNS OF PEOPLE (PROHIBITION) PARTY:
Gene Amondson (Alaska)
Presidential Nominee
Leroy Pletten (Michigan)
Vice Presidential Nominee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTITUTION PARTY:
Michael Peroutka (Maryland)
Presidential Nominee
Chuck Baldwin (Florida)
Vice Presidential Nominee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GREEN PARTY:
David Cobb (California)
Presidential Nominee
Pat LaMarche (Maine)
Vice Presidential Nominee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PEACE & FREEDOM PARTY:
Leonard Peltier (Kansas)
Presidential Nominee
Janice Jordan (California)
Vice Presidential Nominee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERSONAL CHOICE PARTY:
Charles Jay (Indiana)
Presidential Nominee
Marilyn Chambers Taylor (California)
Vice Presidential Nominee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROHIBITION PARTY:
Earl F. Dodge (Colorado)
Presidential Nominee
Howard Lydick (Texas)
Vice Presidential Nominee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIALIST PARTY USA:
Walt Brown (Oregon)
Presidential Nominee
Mary Alice Herbert (Vermont)
Vice Presidential Nominee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIALIST EQUALITY PARTY:
Bill Van Auken (New York)
Presidential Nominee
Jim Lawrence (Ohio)
Vice Presidential Nominee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY:
Róger Calero (New York)
Presidential Nominee
Arrin Hawkins (New York)
Vice Presidential Nominee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKERS WORLD PARTY:
John Parker (California)
Presidential Nominee
Teresa Gutierrez (New York)
Vice Presidential Nominee

Bush and Kerry will appear on every ballot but the rest of the candidates may not, depending on which state you live in, appear, in which case you'll have to write in their name. Write-in votes may or may not be counted depending also on the particularites of your state. Bush and Kerry are the only two who have a chance of actually winning. Nader and Badnarik are the only other two capable of garnering more than 1% of the vote. It's important to consider that voting for a third-party candidate will in effect aid whomever ends up winning.

My personal political beliefs fall to the left of the Democratic party in most respects and yet I'm voting for Kerry. In a parlimentary system of democracy representatives are elected from many parties after which they form coalitions to control the congress and elect a president or prime minister. In our presidential democracy those coalitions need to be built before the election takes place.

No matter how shrilly Democrats and Republicans try to label the other as extremist and themselves as moderate, they are both coalitions of centrists and more-extreme voters.

There are literally thousands of other issues you could consider when making your decision. For the sake of brevity and politeness I will only address the issues you asked about.

Bush made tax cuts the cornerstone of his 2000 election bid. He made moderate tax cuts for the middle class and drastic cuts in the tax rates for the top 1% of earners. The Bush tax cuts have shifted the tax burden to the middle class. Kerry has proposed repealling the tax cuts for those earning $200,000 or more per year, effectively redistributing the tax burden.

Kerry has also proposed closing corporate tax loopholes including those which allow companies to open an offshore headquarters and thereby pay no taxes at all.

The Bush camp sees outsourcing as being a boon for corporations and therefore a good thing. Outsourcing also fits with the en vogue, but unproven, economic philosophy of the day: globalism.

Kerry voted for NAFTA and has followed the globalism line on many issues but he arrives at the position from a different path. The leftist arguement for globalism rests on a belief that it will create better trading partners (people who can afford the products we manufature) and result in mutual prosperity. I don't agree with Kerry on this and neither does his running mate John Edwards who opposed NAFTA and other globalist agendas. It seems that Edwards has swayed Kerry somewhat, judging on Kerry's campaign speeches.
Kerry is a life-long hunter and advocate of gun ownership. Bush and Kerry supported the recenty expired Assault Weapons Ban, Bush however did nothing to see that it was extended. Bush may very well win this catagory for you, but it's important to remember that neither party seeks to take weapons away from anyone. Kerry and some Democrats seek to ban certain weapons from production and sale in the U.S. It's a fairly hazy issue when you consider how vague, ineffectual, and arbitrary the bi-partisan-passed Assault Weapons ban was.

Bush's Attorney General Ashcroft refused to search gun purchase records during the D.C. sniper crisis. I disagreed with that strongly, you may not. Remember that we didn't know at all who they were until they were caught. They could have very well been foreign terrorists to whom 2nd amendment rights don't apply.
Kerry is pro-choice, he supports the right for women to make their own choices about their own bodies.

Bush is vehemently anti-choice and receives a large portion of his support from people who make this their singular overriding decision-making issue. Bush has followed a steady line of actions intended to errode the Roe v. Wade supreme court decision. He has extended healthcare and legal benefits to unborn fetuses in a quest to establish them as citizens under the Constitution.

Bush is also a career-long proponent of abstinance-only sex education and has seen that government funding goes to these sex ed. programs only. The idea being that young people will avoid unsafe sexual practices despite not being taught about safe sex. Personally I'm deeply skeptical of any government policy that promotes ignorance.

You hold an historically conservative position on immigration and yet you would be better served Kerry, weird I know.

Cheap immigrant labor is important Bush's corporate constituancy. Bush has proposed the most sweeping immigration reform of the past 20 years. "Bush proposed a new temporary worker program to match willing foreign workers with willing U.S. employers when no Americans can be found to fill the jobs." Not many Americans will pick oranges 10 hours a day for sub-minimum wages. You have to come from another country's economy for that to be worthwhile. Bush's policies exacerbate the reliance of corporations on immigrant labor and legitimize those who entered our country illegally.

Kerry approaches the issues from a labor perspective and therefore seeks to limit the immigrant workforce. America doesn't have a shortage of workers it has a shortage of middle class jobs.
Perhaps not as entirely moot as you may think. Votes for Bush will be seen as support of his Middle East policy, including the invasion of Iraq. The Iraq invasion was a priority for the Bush regime before the Sept. 11th attacks, which they used to goad the American public into war. A vote for Bush would, in your case, condone the lies and lack of planning that preceeded the preemptive strike against Iraq.

I would urge you to condemn the Iraq war and it's planners in the most effective way possible by voting Kerry. Personally I'd like to see Kerry pledge to have our troops out of Iraq in 4 years but that hasn't happened yet.
The current system of managed care (HMOs) is the Republican plan proposed and passed after the defeat of the Clintons' health plan. Bush seeks to shift healthcare to the profit-driven private sector. The Bush plan creates more bureaucracy, but it's private-sector, not government bureaucracy.

I don't have high hopes for Kerry on this issue. The medical industry has been one of his largest contributors. Kerry's position is fundamentally different from Bush's in that he sees healthcare as a right not a privlege. Personally I favor a socialized system of healthcare without HMOs telling doctors which procedures they can afford to do.
Neither Bush nor Kerry supports gay marriage. Kerry supports civil unions that extend all the rights of marriage to gays without the word "marriage."

Bush supports a constitutional amendment that would deny gays the ability to marry. This would be the first ever amendment that would take away the rights of citizens instead of providing them. I believe this shift in philosophy, to a constitution that denies rights, is more radical than a move allowing gays to marry. I do not take this lightly, in fact I consider it fundamentally unamerican and a danger to our republic.
Kerry supports the status quo, Bush does not. A large contingent from the business community supported the most recent precedent (University of Michigan case reinforcing Affirmative Action). So the issue isn't as clear cut as it may seem. I think the Republicans are content to wait out the time limit the Supreme Court placed on Affirmative Action in the UM decision. I think it was 20 or 25 more years, there's not much that can be done until then in any case.
A smaller federal government is a goal championed by both parties and followed by neither. The Federal government has grown steadily for the last 50 years irregardless of which party was in power. If you consider national defense as part of the federal government, it's typically included, defense spending tends to fall gradually during Democratic presidencies and rise gradually during Republican terms. Due to our commitments in Iraq I don't see the trend of a steadily growing Federal government changing during the next ten years.

Personally I see the Patriot Act as the largest government intrusion into people's private lives, well, ever. Bush and Ashcroft are actively campaigning for its renewal. Kerry seeks to amend the act to include safeguards against government abuse. I'd like to see it scraped, I see Kerry's position on the act as unsatisfying, but relatively better than Bush's.

Do the right thing, vote for Kerry!

***
the only way I see this thread working is if all criticism and questioning comes from Stare At the Sun. Accordingly I will respond to him only, unless PMed.
[grammar edit]

onetime2

Vote for me.

I am not beholden to anyone but myself. I too believe the government should be smaller, there should be less government intrusion into our lives, that gay couples should be able to get the same legal rights as married couples, that abortion should remain a legal option (albeit with more stress put on responsibility for decisions made rather than the decision passed off as a fundamental right to choose), that gun ownership should be legal (with background checks mandatory), and prescription drug costs are too high.

We disagree on immigration, Iraq, and the usefullness of manufacturing jobs. People should be allowed to come here to work all they want they should not be eligible for benefits from the government until they become citizens however. Iraq was necessary to prove to the world that we were not going to remain a paper tiger. There is a world economy and it will become more globalized. There is no option in that. Low skill manufacturing jobs will always migrate toward the lowest cost supplier (there will be shifts back and forth when quality issues arise but the trend will continue despite any efforts we make). High skill manufacturing jobs (defense contractors, airplane manufacturing, etc) should be encouraged within our economy before other nations really get a firm foothold in this sector.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Mephisto2

Locobot,

Let me congratulate you on an excellent post. In my personal opinion, you have set a new standard in polite, erudite, and balanced posting on the PB.

Good work.


Mr Mephisto

inharmony

I agree in looking at the importance of the issues to you. Nice to see someone actually trying to make an informed choice.

__________________
"You can't shake hands with a clenched fist."
Ghandi

"Things do not change: We change"
Henry David Thoreau

DelayedReaction

This entire thread has been very mature and uplifting. I'm particularly impressed with SATS introduction and his defense of his opinions. Good calls all around.

This is going to be my first presidential election, and many of my ideals swing close to yours. I'm voting for Kerry primarily because of Bush's attitude towards civil liberties; examples such as the amendment to ban gay marriage and unwavering support for the Patriot Act in its current form show that he really doesn't respect the rights of individuals. My first priority is civil rights, and I feel Kerry does a better job respecting this issue.

Honestly I may vote for the Libertarian party this year because I live in Maryland, which pretty much always votes democrat. I feel it's important that I show support for the party that I mostly agree with, even if strategically I feel my vote would be better used elsewhere.

Wait for the debates. That's when you'll be able to get a real sense of your candidates.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

Lebell

Good thread.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Bill O'Rights

See? I told you they could do it. Now pay me my $5.00.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Stare At The Sun

Thank you for the great response Locobot. And thanks again to everyone else that is putting in their side. I'm leaning towards Kerry or Badnarik

Lebell

No.

The bet was that they couldn't do three in a row.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

onetime2

Hrrrmph. So I guess I'll have to look elsewhere for the vote that will put me over the top.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.