Ditto on the not voting for rotten apples.
Last report I heard had calls from citizens to their Representatives and Senators at 6 to 1 against the bailout. The elitist rotten apples passed the measure anyway. If the elitist rotten apples ignore the overwhelming requests of the citizens on this issue, and get away with it by being re-elected, what could possibly make anyone certain they will support the pleas of citizens in the future when it comes to Second Amendment issues?

Sadly, giving tacit approval to bad still beats giving overt approval to worse.

I would agree with that, in so far as it makes no sense to vote for Obama to spite McCain.

I would disagree when it comes to voting for a third party who may better encompass your political values. I believe giving approval to good/great (but unelectable) beats giving tacit approval to bad.

Ah!

But that is so far from the actual truth. I have to respectfully disagree with you on this Andrew.

Refusing to vote for Norm, the bad apple (or Franken, also the bad apple), is not giving overt approval to worse. Any and all overt approval given is to the good choice, by evidence of your vote being placed upon said good choice. (In the course of this discussion, that label is applied to candiates Dean B. and James N.)

Whether or not my fellow countrymen decide to sell their country down the river by voting for more Norm (or new Al), has no bearing on my choice to improve the country by voting for a good guy. It is the fault of all the voters, who, in effect, willingly giving their tacit approval to bad, when they are fully aware that fact. When you are purposefully selecting a rotten apple, that is exactly what you get. The degree of how rotten, of on which side of the apple the rot is present, is of little consequence.

Having said all that, I don't begrudge you in your line of reasoning. Heck, I subscribed to it for quite some time myself, so I completely understand. However, my line in the sand is drawn: no more will I vote for what appears to be the least worse option. There are too many good men out there, who are giving of their time, efforts, and money to improve this country, and the least I can do for them (and for my children) is to support them with my ballot.

Besides (and not that it's relevant to my argument here), Norm won't miss my support. If he did, he wouldn't have voted for that $700,000,000,000.00 atrocity.

Well said.

A big +1 here.

McCain will sign any gun control the house sends him. Obama will continue the war, whether or not you want him to or not. They are both for wall street welfare. Among many other things, there is no difference between the two.

This has been the clearest election in some time when it comes to voting for a candidate other than the two puppets placed before us once again. When you combine that all with Diebold, what have you got to lose by voting your true conscience?

I follow your logic, but in the VP race I will vote for Palin. I want her as VP.
The fact that "that guy" will be hurt and McCain helped by my vote is not my concern.

I won't vote for Barkley, he was the puppet master holding Ventura's strings. And we know how that turned out.

Not sure I will vote for Norm either. We knew 6 years ago that he was not a strong conservative, but a democrat cross-over. But some of his positions still grate mightily.

Definitely not for Franken.

I may just vote for none of the above.

Backing up a bit, it appears to be a positive on 2A, but what about conceal and carry issues? I mean, that's what we are interested in?

I'm looking Barkley over closer these days, but would be interested in a more detailed statement on 2A.

Run off elections?

Unfortunately, this country does not vote for a vice president. You vote for a president.

This whole notion that Palin and Biden have anything to do with anything is a farce. It's a way thrown out by the media for people to justify swallowing the turd that is their presidential running mate. That's all.

The vice president is an "on-deck" individual. The purpose of that office is to step in if something happens to the president elect. I find it funny that you say you will vote for Palin. She will not be on the ballot. There is a reason for that. Her position as a running mate is there solely for the people who understand that McCain is bad news. This offers a way for people to walk away feeling somewhat good about themselves after pulling the lever for the letter R, despite the fact that they have contributed to electing a horribly poor candidate.

Palin is the equivalent of the cute girl in high school that McCain is standing behind to get his picture taken with so that people will think he's cool. It has no bearing on how this country will be managed by the executive branch for the next 4 years. I would urge you to reconsider your "vote" for Palin.

Anyway, I think over my last few posts I've said my piece. I'll step aside now, grab a bag of popcorn, and see what others have to say.

Who would you vote for, then? I've looked at all the third parties, and none of them work, either.

Bob Barr? Sure, he gets a few things right, but what he gets wrong is so far wrong, he's not a libertarian, at all. Same was true for Ron Paul. The "Constitution" party just seems to be some sort of fascists, under camouflage. The rest are just various forms of commies. There's nothing left.

Do you know our constitution says about the office of the VP. It's a bit more than Miss runner up in a beauty pageant.




Have you ever voted in a presidential election?

I meant as a separate option. Wherein the People might elect a vice president from a choice of candidates. All you get with this arrangement is a package deal, with McCain having 100% shareholder ownership of the package.

But yes, technically I was wrong, and you are correct. Her name will be on the ballot.

I do.

The Vice President of the U.S. has only one duty defined by the U.S. Constitution: to serve as President of the U.S. Senate.

In my opinion, that is poor criteria for supporting a bad apple as PotUS.

So YOU will vote for her then, right?