I have a political question.

Matt Marvel

Hey everyone. If I could, I would like to get your opinion on something. If I feel inclined to vote independent or third party, do you think I'm throwing my vote away? I personally do not, but I wanted to see what you all think, because there's some pretty intelligent people here. Someone made the argument to me that voting for a lost cause is throwing my vote away. But I feel that if I have no faith at all in either candidate, and if I feel the bipartisan system is failing our country, then I would be throwing it away by voting for a Republican or Democrat. I also feel that thinking third parties or independents are a lost cause is exactly why bipartisanship is in the state it's in, or one of the reasons anyway. So, what are you thoughts and opinions on this?

dutyje

Matt Marvel

Very, very good point dutyje. That's how I feel about it. I just, unfortunately, haven't been able to put it into words lately, the way that you have.

Luko

dutyje

madurofan

dutyje

Luko

madurofan

LMAO!!!!! Giving out cigarettes to kids!

dutyje

Luko

So if you were going to vote for Gore, but were somewhat dissatisfied with him and instead voted for Nader, how is that not throwing your vote away? Look at what happened. Cutting off your nose to spite your face. I get what your saying about the point being not winning, but influencing future elections. But I disagree that the major parties have at all factored in green or libertarian or any other party ideals into their strategies based on recent "successes" of these third parties. And I don't see that changing. I could be wrong. I was once before.

dutyje

kuzi16

dutyje

Bad Andy

The Libertarians have been getting more positions at the state level so they could make hedgeway for more at the federal level. It may take time but it could still happen.

dutyje

I agree, Andy. You don't build a party by gunning straight for the presidency. You need to have officials elected at the local levels first. If these elected officials perform well in their duties (hardy har har), they would be able to grow their political careers into larger offices. This would raise awareness of the party and increase the comfort level of a larger percentage of the population to elect an official from this fledgling political party.

Bad Andy

Look at Lieberman. He was beat out as an incumbant in the primary then went 'Ind' and still won. How many people do you think were told they had thrown away thier votes? Enough throw away votes got him elected. One man's garbage...

kuzi16

Bad Andy

I believe Lincoln was considered a Libertarian or Constitutional Republican, he was a lead in one of those caucuses.

kuzi16

Vidarien

Honestly, I do think it would be throwing your vote away.  That does seem kind of sad, but, this country is nearly 50/50 polarized right now in time, and little margins do count, 2000 showed that.  I know people say that its bad to assume that nader voters would go gore, but, it makes perfect sense if you compare their policy positions.  nader and bush had nothing in common.  Anyways, I know some rather very religious folk want the government to be an official religious organization, but i do have at least some faith in seperation of church and state, being a sunday school kid that that read the bible myself.  I'm just scared of what this country would become if it continues to be run by religion more than regular policy.  On top of that, im afraid of allowing big buisness to run unregulated.  I know the GOP feels it allows the most economic growth, but, i think subprime morgages put a nice dent in that idea.  Likewise, i know obamas social welfare ideas turns the stomach of tax paying people who dont feel its their job to carry the backs of those who dont pay as much, but, i just think the positives outweigh the negatives in this year.

kuzi16

Bad Andy

I agree...please support that statement. I completely disagree that we are being ran by religion. I actually think its just the opposite. No religion so that no one is offended. It's all about tolerance these days, we 'must' tolerate lewd behavior, anti-christian beliefs and hatefull rhetoric but no one is supposed to tolerate christians. I understand there are religious zealots/extremist in every religion that make there religion look bad but don't expect me to tolerate you if you refuse to tolerate me. I don't belive I should compromise my beliefs because some doesn't agree with them. If your offended by my religious beliefs then I offended by the lack of yours.

Luko

Luko

Vidarien

Bad Andy:

I agree...please support that statement. I completely disagree that we are being ran by religion. I actually think its just the opposite. No religion so that no one is offended. It's all about tolerance these days, we 'must' tolerate lewd behavior, anti-christian beliefs and hatefull rhetoric but no one is supposed to tolerate christians. I understand there are religious zealots/extremist in every religion that make there religion look bad but don't expect me to tolerate you if you refuse to tolerate me. I don't belive I should compromise my beliefs because some doesn't agree with them. If your offended by my religious beliefs then I offended by the lack of yours.

 

By that I mean to say, Bush saying he had a long conversation with god before deciding to invade iraq (come on).  I also mean the fact that federal funding for sex education in school is ONLY for those classes that teach abstinence only.  I also mean the fact that he wont fund embryonic stem cell research, when even a lot of his own people are for it, on religious grounds.  The hiring/firing of U.S. attorneys based on their religious guidings on issues such as aborition and gay marriage.

 

Its not about having an opinion on these matters, its thats he uses the power of his office regarding these matters.  I think tolerance and respect comes when both sides have the respect to acknowledge the others position, without using the power of government to pander to your own or to make a statement.  The federal government was never designed for that buisness.

 

I know some might feel im dead wrong here, but thats just my opinion.

kuzi16

j0z3r

You are half right kuzi. A president's religion is none of our business as long as said president keeps his religion separate from his presidential duties, which if we're talking about Bush Jr. is simply not the case.

Bad Andy

His beliefs whether religious based or not are his decisions to make. Remember Reagan supposedly used horoscopes...but he did right by most. I think that someone that is strong in there faith is not waivering, yet they are still politicians. If I know their religion and faith then I know them better and may understand their decisions more, not that I may agree with all of them.

kuzi16

Bad Andy