Disturbed Republican looking for candidate

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Backtothemac, Apr 5, 2004.

  1. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #1
    Well, I don't know what to do. There is no way that I can vote for Kerry, but I am really pissed at Bush. I have read Clarke's book, and I have to say that I owe the man an appology. I am happy that we liberated Iraq, but I am ready for our boys to come home, or fight the good fight in the war on terror.

    What do I do? Vote for the republican that I don't think is really a republican, or vote for a democrat, something I just can't see myself doing.

    Advice, please!
     
  2. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #2
    Question for you, B2TM. If Kerry picked McCain as his VP would you vote for him?
     
  3. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
  4. kgarner macrumors 68000

    kgarner

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Location:
    Utah
    #4
    I agree. I generally consider myself a Republican (although, I have never declared a party), but this time I am going to be looking at the issues and voting whoever covers them best. I liked Bush, but recent events have caused me to question his policies and I am not sure if I will be voting for him this time. Just vote on the issues and forget the party. Niether one is 100% right anyway.
     
  5. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #5
    B2TM,

    I forgot to say that, as much as I disagree with you on many issues, I like your style. Not many would have posted that apology.
     
  6. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #6
    Vote for someone other than the main two candidates. I'm not sure who's running this time around though. The reality is, especially for Presidential candiates, we have a two party system, but voting for a third party is a good way of showing the major two parties what they are doing wrong. If you are a Republican, for the most part or through and through and believe that Bush has betrayed your interests as a Republican in some way, vote for the party that represents that betrayal the best. If that party takes a significant number of votes away from the Republicans, you'd better believe they'd take notice.

    Also, perhaps Kerry is more of a possibility than you realize. Like most presidential candidates, he is somewhat middle of the road (or at least represents himself that way).

    Or vote on the issues. That makes sense too.
     
  7. trebblekicked macrumors 6502a

    trebblekicked

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL, USA
    #7
    the next closest thing to a republican on the ballot would most likely be Gary Nolan, followed by John Kerry and Ralph Nader in that order.

    from where i stand, there isn't too much difference between Kerry and a moderate Republican of the Specter/McCain variety. But Nader is making a big push to get Republicans to consider his policies. i highly recommend checking his site out.

    <EDIT>
    one more thing: Candidate Map
     
  8. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #8
    b2tm - you do have the option of abstaining from the presidential/VP vote. cast votes for your local elections should you find candidates you like for those.

    my alderman ran unopposed last march, but i don't like him. so he didn't get my vote. i hope that a low total sends him a message.
     
  9. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    Don't lose hope yet BTTM, American Candidate hasn't even gotten going yet! :p

    And you've only got until this Friday to get your application in.....
     
  10. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #10
    Vote 3rd party.

    I always vote the issues, even though I'm a registered Republican. Prior to that, I was a registered Democrat, but even then I voted the issues.

    Voting for 3rd parties is even easier when the state is not a battleground state. You can definitely vote the issues.

    My issue is 2nd Amendment rights, or as Col Jeff Cooper would like to call it, the Statute of Liberty. :D

    One article that I have read, I think it was by a columnist that writes for the Sierra Times, is that 2nd Amendment rights and the way a politician treats is is very indicative of how much trust you can place on the politician. I tend to agree. I would vote for John Dingell, even though he's a democrat. I would vote against John McCain, even though he's a republican.
     
  11. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #11
    So now that Dubya's set to vote the same way as your beloved Sen. Feinstein (let's see if you can reply to this WITHOUT resorting to name-calling) on the Assult Weapons Ban, I'm assuming you can no longer vocalize any support for our president? :p
     
  12. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #12
    There is no gun control bills waiting for GWBush to sign into law.

    The Assault Weapons Ban is set to sunset in 2004, and I am awaiting like Buffy the Vampire Slayer to put a stake through its heart. :eek:

    GWBush has said that he would reauthorize the AWBan if it ever makes it to his desk much to the chagrin of me and other gun owners. But, it takes two houses of Congress to do that first. :p

    I knew GWBush's stance on this issue back in campaign 2000. That's why it wasn't as difficult to vote for another candidate. Too bad Alan Keyes didn't win the GOP primary. :sad:

    One thing I like that GWBush is doing though, is nominating conservative judges like tasty Janice Rogers Brown (CA supreme court judge, if she ever leaves her husband, I got dibs. ;) ). These judges tend to interpret the 2nd Amendment correctly as an individual right.

    The strange thing is why liberals, who are supposed to be proponents of individual rights have selective blinders on about the 2nd Amendment. Weird.
     
  13. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #13
    cheers to you...

    being a nonpartisan, i've been in your position before...as in 2000.

    i wasn't a big fan of gore but i knew enough about bush to be afraid of his positions...or lack of. i would've voted mccain in a heartbeat. anyone with a spine is ok by me( but they're a rarity in politics). and nader just wasn't a viable choice-big changes in government come from the bottom up-not the top down. nader has good intentions but his desires don't work within the realities of our current system...i'm a dreamer too but i know reality when i step in it.

    if it makes you feel any better...i have quite a few friends and family in texas
    ( who supported bush) who are now voting kerry. they feel misled. heck, i didn't vote for bush and i still feel misled.

    after this last election, many people said our country could survive four years of a bad president...that's a nice theory, but the fact is many people haven't survived this administration's follies. many more people will die before we get out of iraq. facter in our huge deficit, social security ills, assaults on the environment, job losses... and i just don't see a positive side to the last 4 years.

    do what ya gotta do...whichever way you go...at least you're being openminded.
     
  14. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #14
    Not that gun control isn't an important issue, but to focus on it while ignoring other issues might be folly. As an example, I submit Brown's record on decisions outside 2nd ammendment issues:

    From http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/nominees/brown.html:
    (Edit: More information regarding her more controversial opinions can be found here: http://saveourcourts.civilrights.org/nominees/details.cfm?id=16978)

    Ouch! Not exactly what I'd be looking for in judicial nominee no matter what her views on guns are. Anyone squarely in the pockets of either major party and special interest lobbiests isn't someone I can trust to uphold and fairly interpret the laws of our land.

    Surely you can find a more scrupulous judge who supports gun ownership.

    Taft
     
  15. Backtothemac thread starter macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #15
    Well, Riley I do vote on the issues, and there are a couple that would keep me from voting for Kerry. If Edwards had gotten the nomination, I would have voted for him in a split second. Personally, I think McCain would be better than Bush, I would love to support him. I just think it is a lesser of two evils, and Bush wins with me on a couple of points.

    Point being that even I, a long time republican, am fed up. If McCain was Kerry's VP, then yep, I would probably go with Kerry at that point.

    That would actually be an interesting ticket.

    I will probably abstain from the Presidential vote this year to be honest. I am just discouraged that I don't want to be responsible for the **** up that makes it worse.
     
  16. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #16
    i've been thinking about the 2nd amendment lately.

    in a very literal sense, it's about guns. in a broader sense, it's about protecting the public from oppression by the federal government.

    i submit that, in the broader sense, the success of the bush administration in silencing critics in its march to war (remember when speaking out against anything bush got one labeled unpatriotic or a terrorist?) is indictative of how the purpose of the 2nd amendment has been lost.

    so while i support the idea of the broader protection, i'm undecided on gun ownership. when i go skeet shooting in alabama, the gun protections mean a different thing than when i see a drive-by in chicago (which i've seen).

    yes, it is possible for gun ownership to be done responsibly. but it's often not. what's the solution? who's right?

    p.s. i call bull**** on anyone who supports gun ownership and the federal ban on ephedra
     
  17. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #17
    I think the 2nd amendment is very important to our society.

    But I think that, much like the other protections afforded us in the Bill of Rights, there are no absolute freedoms and therefore are limits to how far we can take these guaranteed freedoms.

    To use two clichéd examples, you have free speech but not to yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre. And you are free to own a rifle but not a nuclear weapon. There are grey areas, and that is where we disagree.

    Now of course there are some who want all guns banned and some who would argue it's okay to own a SAM battery, but discounting such "all or none" extremists, we're simply different shades of the same colour.
     
  18. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #18
    Andrews, 28 Cal. 4th 1234 (2002) --- being 'clinically cold' not withstanding, here Andrews raped and killed one, robbed and killed another, and finally killed one more. This specific case was about the penalty phase of the trial; the question of Andrews' guilt is established, he killed 3 people. This is in 1979. The case goes on about the penalty phase and has a reference to another murder in 1968 when Andrews' was 16! Wow. Four people, and he's not over 30 yet! Andrews' is an oxygen-thief. He should have been put to death after the 1st murder. Then 3 other people would still be alive today. Is this what you are trying to defend?

    I started looking at the other opinions, and I do not see anything yet that I do not agree with. I'm at the Kasky vs Nike case, and her analysis is top-notch and scholarly too.
     
  19. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #19
    When did you stop beating your wife?
     
  20. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #20
    Its often not? Or is it that there is an appearance that it is not?

    Remember, there are over 200 million guns in private hands in the United States of America. How many of these 200 milion guns are used irresponsibly over the course of a year? I contend that the irresponsible and illegal use of guns comprises less than 1%.

    Often, you consider often to be 1%?

    Freedom denotes responsibility. Seems that passing laws that affect the 99% who are responsible in order to fix the 1% that are irresponsible and wouldn't follow the law anyhow is the wrong approach.

    Repeating this wrong approach and expecting a different outcome is the mark of insanity.

    If you don't want your Mac to lose data, and you lose data every time you unplug the Mac without saving your data first, why would you keep unplugging the Mac and wonder why you are losing data?
     
  21. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #21
    Guns are made for killing, to dispatch a biological entity quickly and efficiently.

    If 99% of the people are responsible with them, the 1% who aren't will have much more drastic effects than if 1% of the driving public are irresponsible drivers. Irresponsible gun use is misuse of an effective item designed to kill.

    In these instances 1% amounts to "often enough." If 1% of the world's nuclear weapons were used each year on civilian targets, would you defend the rights of the 99% that weren't?
     
  22. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #22
    That 1% is all it takes to ruin something for everyone. Should we repeal anti-drunk-driving laws because 99% of people drink responsibly? I suppose you'd be OK with the judicial process happening in secret since 99% of judges are good, honest people? No need for internal affairs investigators in police departments, 99% of cops are good guys, right?
     
  23. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #23
    my use of "often" aside, there are indeed negative effects of gun ownership. a few stats from here

    i don't post this to come off as some kind of anti-gun zealot. as i said, i'm unsure what to do, but i do recognize that the easy availability of guns leads to kinds of violence and deaths that otherwise wouldn't occur or be as severe. i do not have the answer.
     
  24. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #24
    But it's so much easier when I can put you neatly in the 'anti-gun-zealot' box... ;)
     
  25. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #25
    ..especially if ya trick 'im into standing in the box -- and then shooting him!
     

Share This Page