Voting?????

[1_pointer]

With all the mud-slinging that goes on during an election, how do you make up your mind whom to vote for? I'm asking because I'm undecided for whom or if I'll vote.

It seems that with voting one is almost voting for who will cause the least amount of damage, rather than who'll do the most good. Am I just being too pessimistic? I think one problem I have is that for most social issues I'm relatively conservative, you for things like the environment I lean a bit to the other side.

Also, how important do you think the running mate of the candidates is?

Is America getting to the point where a good, strong third party would be better than the current system?

 

[JohnSWA]

Wow, that's a tough one! When W's dad ran for the 2nd term I had enough of the "read my lips, no new taxes", "new world order", and "there is NO recession". I actually changed to the Independent Party 'cause I had enough of my old deceitful GOP. I voted Libertarian that year and Slick Willie got in! It wasn't my fault alone, but I really don't know which way to go other than Jr.

I can't stand Hanoi Janes buddy, but I don't trust Jr. either when it comes to the common man. I'm still undecided as of yet, but you can bet your bottom dollar that I'm not voting for Kerry.

 

[Ithaca 37]

"Is America getting to the point where a good, strong third party would be better than the current system?"

Yes. That's Nader's point. I think I'll vote for him just so the winner doesn't get too confident. Besides, Ralph is about a hundred times smarter than the other two candidates put together, and I like to vote for smart people. Nader's done more for consumers than anyone else in the country.

 

[JohnSWA]

I'm afraid I'd have to agree with ya Ithaca! At least about Nader doing more for consumers than both Bush and Kerry. However I'm afraid that we will have to deal with the lesser of two evils again.

 

[pawclaws]

I try to vote for the individual who I believe will do the better job. No one person is perfect; but, I spurn "yes" men, candidates who run just for the sake of being "the president", candidates who waffle from minute to minute, and candidates who refuse to take a clear position and stick with it even when it becomes unpopular. Kerry does not qualify when bounced against my criterion. Bush does; so does Edwards. Nadar would be a good man; but,lousy president. The office would eat him in a matter of months when trying to deal with international issues.

 

[JoseCuervo]

The problem with Dubya is that I think one should vote for someone smarter than themself. And so by that criteria, I can't vote for Dubya this time.

I do, however, see how many of the Bush supports would not be limited by that criteria.....

 

[Calif. Hunter]

EG - you are so full of yourself that no one would qualify under that criteria (at least in your mind.)

 

[Nut]

dgibson for president

 

[pawclaws]

Yes Cali-Hunter; but one small pin prick and all of Elkgunner's ego would escape!

 

[dgibson]

Keep trying, Nut...maybe we'll get there someday.

 

[Ten Bears]

NUT for vice-president.

I'll vote, but I wont make up my mind this early. I'm not a fan of Kerry by any means.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

I have become a single-issue voter. The candidate's position on firearms usually dictates my choice. For others, it may be women's rights, the salmon, the economy or whatever. The reason for this is that this is the issue that the choice may have the most impact upon me. I am not a woman, so I do not care about abortion (although I think it is murder and it is hypocrisy to charge someone who causes the loss of a wanted baby with murder while an abortionist is performing a service killing an unwanted baby. ) and I am doing just fine and always have, so the economy is not much of a concern to me. I prefer hydro-electric power as it pollutes less and I don't live near a major river.

 

[Tom]

You look at what the candidates have done, what their plans are on the big issues of the day. You look at their ability to get good advice and to work with others on the big issues.

Then, you vote for Bush! Nader is a great guy, I have a lot of respect for him, he will still be a great guy after the election too. Kerry seems like a reasonable man to figure out legal issues, he votes terribly liberal and seems like a protestor on the big issues. Has he got any plans, besides to just protest? I guess I'll go look at his web site some more. The president needs to be a good leader, not a good protestor.

 

[cjcj]

Its too early to tell, if you figure in the V.P., remember the V.P. is only a heartbeat away from the high office, but as of now i have to write in Tom Tancredo [R Colorado] as my protest vote! it would be awesome to have a few million people write in a guy who isn`t even running! that would get some attention. To me illegal immigration represents, crime/pollution/welfare/economy and the environment.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by pawclaws:
Yes Cali-Hunter; but one small...prick and all ... would escape!

We all should have known you would have the most experience with a small prick....

 

[JLG]

I am with Cali-Hunter, I am a single issue voter as well. Alot of my life revolves around firearms and firearm ownership so, it's pretty easy for me to decide who to vote for. Economicly, Bush's policies haven't hurt me, I have done better in the the last 3 years than ever before. On the enviroment, I hated Clinton's way of establishing National Monuments by excutive order, but I spent alot of time running around in one earlier this year and it was nice to know it would stay that way for American's long after I am gone.
I guess there is no perfect choice, you just have to figure out what means the most to you and make your decision accordingly, Good Luck, JLG.

 

[Whiskers]

I am with Cali-Hunter and JLG, I am single issue voter. Firearms are at the top of my list. The only way the economy has hurt me, is Wall Street. But thats becasue all these corporations were cooking the books. Unless something dramatic happens George has my vote AGAIN.

 

[pawclaws]

Yes Elkgunner; several small pricks as a matter of fact. The laterst of course is you!

 

[Ithaca 37]

What are you guys planning to do with those hunting guns when there's no habitat left for the wildlife to live in? I appreciate everything the NRA does to fight the anti-gun nuts,but we could end up with our right to bear arms intact and nothing to hunt if many politicians had their way. Destruction of our publicly owned land by clearcutting, overgrazing, oil field development, mining, more road building and a zillion other practices that make the gummint land unhospitable for wildlife means we won't have as many hunters in the future. Aren't most hunters strong NRA supporters?

So ya gotta balance it out. In Idaho, for instance, no anti-gun politician would have a chance in hell of getting elected, no matter what party they are in. So I vote for the ones who will be best for the future of hunting and fishing. Unfortunately, more often than not, those are the more environmentally concious Democrats.

I think it's stupid to vote for "conservative" politicians who aren't truly trying to conserve our natural resources. If these Idaho conservatives had their way they'd clearcut and mine the whole state with no regard for the wildlife habitat and hunting and fishing would go right down the drain.

Then all I'd be able to do is sit home with my gun waiting for someone to try to break in.

So, my single issue is what's best for my hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation, which is what makes everything else I have to put up with worthwhile 'cuz I can get away from it all when I'm out in the wilds. And the last thing I want to see when I'm out in the wilds is some fatassed ATV ridin' welfare rancher screwin' up everything! (There, see? I didn't want to disappoint everybody by not getting in a shot at my favorite subjects! )

 

[pawclaws]

Ithica37 you got a lot of good sense and foresight there buddy. Unfortunately our political system doesn't look beyond the coming election; nor do most of our citizens. As an example; you might say that Elkgunner can't see beyond the end of his miniscule penis! Seriously though, We'll either follow the course of history and screw it up royal before we realize what we have done, or someone will come along who can see the big picture and is capable of portraying that truth to our society with passion, conviction, honesty, clarity, sincerity, and what we used to call "leadership". I just wonder how far out the "point of no return" is.