[adam42381]

Don't try to argue, ATrain. Don't you know that all Democrats are morons?

[ATrain]

Don't try to argue, ATrain. Don't you know that all Democrats are morons?

Trust me, considering some of his posts I wonder why I bother. He resorts to blanket statements to argue against anything liberal/he disagrees with instead of actually reading articles, arguments or whatever.

[jbock13]

I'm simply saying that every public sector worker I've ever known loves Mark Warner. Like teachers, bureaucrats, etc. It had nothing to do with you personally. Sorry if you took that the wrong way.

[thepostman]

why are teachers and bureaucrats lumped into the same category?

also I hope nobody ever lumps me in with Not a Jerry...

Will Obama/Romney stop endless war?
Will Obama/Romney repeal the NDAA? The Patriot Act?
Will Obama/Romney stop the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens?
Will Obama/Romney end the CIA's drone strikes?
Will Obama/Romney side with personal liberty for all American citizens?
Will Obama/Romney veto the re-authorization of the modified version of FISA?
Will Obama/Romney veto any new SOPA/PIPA-like legislation?

No, they won't. So no, I won't vote for them.

[ATrain]

I'm simply saying that every public sector worker I've ever known loves Mark Warner. Like teachers, bureaucrats, etc. It had nothing to do with you personally. Sorry if you took that the wrong way.

And what's wrong with "all" public sector workers liking a candidate? Is that a bad thing? Did you even bother to ask them why?

[jbock13]

I did. And it's because Warner increased their pay and benefits, for his future election to the Senate. Pay for play, the Denocrat way.

[ATrain]

I did. And it's because Warner increased their pay and benefits, for his future election to the Senate. Pay for play, the Denocrat way.

Every governor in a time of surplus increases pay. Private sector companies turn a profit, they reward their hard workers with a pay raise. There were no raises during the recession as a result of the dot com bubble burst. George Allen also raised pay and benefits for state employees. Jim Gilmore also raised pay for state employees. Warner got elected over Gilmore because he fixed Gilmore's mess.

From my understanding, Warner's love comes from the fact he helped streamline processes and make agencies more efficient, making state jobs easier to perform and agencies more cost effective. The only thing he messed up on was VITA based on my conversations with fellow co-workers.

The fact he got Virginia Tech into the ACC has helped him as well.

[ALUmnus]

Scorcho, surely Obamacare, debt growth, national security, and allowing the UN to trump our national soveriegnty & Constitutional rights are all very real threats to personal liberty, no? All areas where there are clear differences in the candidates. The issues you sited above may not change regardless of whether you vote for Obama, Romney, Johnson, or other...okay. But there are other extremely important issues where there is a difference, more than just the few I listed. That's where it does matter who you vote for.

This whole meme of there's no difference between the two major parties is just simply not true.

[El Scorcho]

Scorcho, surely Obamacare, debt growth, national security, and allowing the UN to trump our national soveriegnty & Constitutional rights are all very real threats to personal liberty, no? All areas where there are clear differences in the candidates. The issues you sited above may not change regardless of whether you vote for Obama, Romney, Johnson, or other...okay. But there are other extremely important issues where there is a difference, more than just the few I listed. That's where it does matter who you vote for.

This whole meme of there's no difference between the two major parties is just simply not true.

I know there are differences between the two parties. There just isn't a difference on that sector of issues. There aren't differences on the issues that matter to me. I think everything else is a wash when those things I listed are written off and ignored.

Debt growth, national security and UN involvement in our country's affairs were all things that I was concerned about the last time I gave the GOP my vote. And then George W Bush made all of those things worse for eight straight years. Obama has just continued all of his worst policies. He picked up Bush's bailouts, he picked up his drone strikes and he picked up his reckless spending. Obama continued the Bush administration's warrantless wiretaps. Dick Cheney would have drooled to have the NDAA passed during their term. The Patriot Act was created under a GOP administration and renewed by both parties.

My point is that I was fooled by the GOP twice and I knew in 2008 that Obama would just continue these things. Are there some areas where we might be better off under Romney? It seems likely, but there are some things the GOP has tried to do in the last four years that have scared me too. Their blind allegiance to the Pentagon and failure to maintain control of the NSA/CIA are chief among them.

I'm just not going to be suckered again. I learned my lesson.

[alabama24]

I am absolutely voting for a Denocrat ticket all the way! Denocrat motto: Why not take a Gamble on US!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lottie_Deno

[jbock13]

ahaha Denocrat. Good catch Alabana.

[belcherboy]

how about: Unless your state's results are decided by 1 vote, your vote is worthless no matter who you vote for.

I think George HW Bush would disagree. A 3rd party candidate allowed Bill Clinton to win, and he won none of the states by just 1 vote, but arguably by thousands of votes siphoned from Bush to Perot . You could argue that Nader may have swayed the election to GWB in 2000 as well, although Nader had far fewer votes and it may have not affected anything.

I don't think you necessarily "throw a vote away" by voting 3rd party. I actually have a lot of respect for those who do vote that way, but the unintended consequence of conservative leaning people voting for a 3rd party guy is that it does help the opposition when your 3rd party candidate doesn't win.

[ALUmnus]

I don't think you necessarily "throw a vote away" by voting 3rd party. I actually have a lot of respect for those who do vote that way, but the unintended consequence of conservative leaning people voting for a 3rd party guy is that it does help the opposition when your 3rd party candidate doesn't win.

To me, the red half of that statement total negates the green part. Don't know how you can have it both ways.

[El Scorcho]

... but the unintended consequence of conservative leaning people voting for a 3rd party guy is that it does help the opposition when your 3rd party candidate doesn't win.

This is what bothers me. They're both the opposition. My definition of conservative and the GOP's is not the same. If the Democrats win, it is not my fault. It is the fault of the Republican party for offering up candidates like McCain, Gingrich, Santorum and Romney. I'm tired of hearing that it's the fault of third party voters. If the GOP candidate can't pull in conservative-leaning voters, it's the GOP's fault and theirs alone.

[belcherboy]

I don't think you necessarily "throw a vote away" by voting 3rd party. I actually have a lot of respect for those who do vote that way, but the unintended consequence of conservative leaning people voting for a 3rd party guy is that it does help the opposition when your 3rd party candidate doesn't win.

To me, the red half of that statement total negates the green part. Don't know how you can have it both ways.

The reason the first line does not negate the second line, IMO, is because it is about conviction. If someone feels passionately enough about a candidate, then that person needs to follow their passion, even if it may hurt their overall political desires. I don't think that someone who votes based on convictions, ais throwing away their vote. They are making a statement by it.

I just hope there are not too many that are making a statement by voting 3rd party this year. The GOP need all the votes they can get!

[belcherboy]

... but the unintended consequence of conservative leaning people voting for a 3rd party guy is that it does help the opposition when your 3rd party candidate doesn't win.

This is what bothers me. They're both the opposition. My definition of conservative and the GOP's is not the same. If the Democrats win, it is not my fault. It is the fault of the Republican party for offering up candidates like McCain, Gingrich, Santorum and Romney. I'm tired of hearing that it's the fault of third party voters. If the GOP candidate can't pull in conservative-leaning voters, it's the GOP's fault and theirs alone.

IMO, if a 3rd Party candidate won, you would be saying the same thing about them after their first term. The true definition of conservatism is impossible in the country IMO. Too many people would have to willingly give up their dependence on government to make it happen. I think we can lean back toward conservatism, but I don't believe for a second that ANY politician can come in and create a true conservative society again.

[NotAJerry]

I just hope there are not too many that are making a statement by voting 3rd party this year. The GOP need all the votes they can get!

No, the GOP needs to go back to real conservative standards and offer better candidates. Voting 3rd party isn't "making a statement," it's voting out of principle instead of being herded in to two barely distinguishable parties that are owned by the same banks.

This year the GOP offered something akin to the following:

Candidate A beats his wife every day of the week.
Candidates B-E beat their wives 6 days a week but argue vehemently about why the day they don't is better than the day the other's don't.
Candidate F doesn't beat his wife at all, but since he won't play the game he's un-electable.

There was one decent, conservative GOP candidate this year and the party did everything it could to disparage him, ostracize him, and tell the world that he was un-electable because he's too different from the others.

Until the GOP returns to something legitimately conservative, it's a useless parallel party to the very slightly different Democratic Party. Romney/Obama are thrown away votes.

[jbock13]

Uh, the banks support Democrats. Do some research on Goldman Sachs.

But then again, I'm Republican and invest in Goldman. Everyone knows Bilderberg is not real. Nothing to see here...

Seriously though, it depends on your definition of conservative. Do you mean libertarian? Because although for example Ron Paul would be a traditional conservative as far as foreign policy, today it would be called libertarian or non-interventionist.

[belcherboy]

I just hope there are not too many that are making a statement by voting 3rd party this year. The GOP need all the votes they can get!

No, the GOP needs to go back to real conservative standards and offer better candidates. Voting 3rd party isn't "making a statement," it's voting out of principle instead of being herded in to two barely distinguishable parties that are owned by the same banks.

This year the GOP offered something akin to the following:

Candidate A beats his wife every day of the week.
Candidates B-E beat their wives 6 days a week but argue vehemently about why the day they don't is better than the day the other's don't.
Candidate F doesn't beat his wife at all, but since he won't play the game he's un-electable.

There was one decent, conservative GOP candidate this year and the party did everything it could to disparage him, ostracize him, and tell the world that he was un-electable because he's too different from the others.

Until the GOP returns to something legitimately conservative, it's a useless parallel party to the very slightly different Democratic Party. Romney/Obama are thrown away votes.

Honestly, I don't think there are more electable candidates out there. We have a society that is very much dependent on the government (Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare, Welfare, etc.). A true conservative would have to ask everyone to sit at the table and take cuts. No one is going to do it. At this point, we will have to go bankrupt, and then have our credit taken away for us to be forced into change. A true conservative does not stand a chance in today's political arena IMO.

I have no problem with you taking that stand, but don't entirely blame the GOP when the country moves more quickly to the left if Democrats win more Presidential elections. By splitting votes among conservatives, you give an advantage to the Democrats. I choose the lesser of two evils. I think I'm willing to give the GOP the keys to the future, feeling that at least they stand a chance of changing the direction. Even knowing there is a chance that they don't don't live up to what they are preaching. With the Democrats, I think, with their current platform, they have already chosen a path that I believe will lead to a worse economy. Maybe the GOP will prove the same though if given the power again, but at least they are talking a good game.

IMO, you would be better off focusing your efforts on House and Senate seats, then the President. If enough true conservative House and Senate members are elected, perhaps there might be change. We just need a President who will not put activist judges in the Supreme Court to kill anything a conservative Congress might put out. Just my two cents.