I've always considered myself a liberal republican. I feel very strongly on the issues of states rights and smaller government involvement in my day-to-day decision making abilities along with many other republican-style fare.
At the same time, I consider myself enormously liberal. Issues like gay rights, abortion, and social security make me seem like a downright hippie.
I guess I just wanted to let you know that there are some of us who consider ourselves liberal and republican, or conservative and democrat. If you fall into a category like this, don't feel bad. You're not alone. :)
why is this hard to find someone close to the middle that can lead the country?
I mean, did you really like Joe Lieberman?
I've alluded to this before, but it bears repeating: divisivness only breeds divisivness. Republicans started this crap back in 1968/72, and Democrats have been stupid enough to play along.
Don't tell me a vote for Nader is a vote against Kerry because Nader "takes votes away."
A vote for Nader is a vote against Kerry.I don't know if this is an argument in support of thrid parties or what. But for better of for worse, we live in a two party system. Yes, it is your right to vote for someone outside the two party system, but why? Except for a few minor (and ludicrous) points, Nader is a cheap imitation of a Democratic candidate. So if Nader scores 10 out of 10 on your issues but has zero chance of winning, and Kerry scores 8 but has a better shot at getting into office, why waste a vote on Nader?
My 2 cents.....fijiman18September 20 2004, 06:10:49 UTC
Because a person is free to vote for whoever they believe in and not join the bandwagon just to be with one of the "popular" crowds. It's your right to vote for whoever you believe in, regardless of how far behind or abscure the candidate may be. It's your right.
If you point out that a vote for Nader is a vote against Kerry, then it's reason to say that a vote for Nader is a vote against Bush.
Why not say "A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader" and leave it at that?
Re: My 2 cents.....flavobeanSeptember 20 2004, 07:34:25 UTC
Because a person is free to vote for whoever they believe in and not join the bandwagon just to be with one of the "popular" crowds.I think voting is more than a popularity contest or going with the popular crowd
( ... )
Comments 4
At the same time, I consider myself enormously liberal. Issues like gay rights, abortion, and social security make me seem like a downright hippie.
I guess I just wanted to let you know that there are some of us who consider ourselves liberal and republican, or conservative and democrat. If you fall into a category like this, don't feel bad. You're not alone. :)
Reply
I mean, did you really like Joe Lieberman?
I've alluded to this before, but it bears repeating: divisivness only breeds divisivness. Republicans started this crap back in 1968/72, and Democrats have been stupid enough to play along.
Don't tell me a vote for Nader is a vote against Kerry because Nader "takes votes away."
A vote for Nader is a vote against Kerry.I don't know if this is an argument in support of thrid parties or what. But for better of for worse, we live in a two party system. Yes, it is your right to vote for someone outside the two party system, but why? Except for a few minor (and ludicrous) points, Nader is a cheap imitation of a Democratic candidate. So if Nader scores 10 out of 10 on your issues but has zero chance of winning, and Kerry scores 8 but has a better shot at getting into office, why waste a vote on Nader?
Reply
If you point out that a vote for Nader is a vote against Kerry, then it's reason to say that a vote for Nader is a vote against Bush.
Why not say "A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader" and leave it at that?
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment