Single issue voters...I became one four years ago...how about you?

C

cold dead hands

Moderator
I love my country. I hope that all of the citizens can get the best from life.

I will be 33 when the the vote comes around and I have noticed that my voting stance has changed greatly as I have aged, become wiser, smarter, more educated and concerned about the future (mine and my young children's). Most of all I have decidedly begun to vote pro liberty no matter what the chances are of the candidate winning or losing. I vote my conscience. No one will ever change that from here on in.

Liberty means you have the right to run your own life and do as you please provided you harm no one other than yourself.

(Bet you thought I was gonna say my single issue vote was guns, huh?)

I believe guns are the tool of liberty, but I do not make them my single issue. However, "from my cold dead hands" is my my life's motto. If they want a piece of my liberty they are going to have to earn it. It will get ugly should the they try to steal my birthright. I hate thieves.

BUT...guns only go so far.

I do demand a government that keeps greedy buisness people in check. I demand clean air, water and soil standards. I demand a protection for the Earth and all of the creatures that cannot battle us when we harm them.
I demand a government that tries to make us all equal and given the same opportunities. (please don't read that as a socialist statement. The rich have the right to be rich if they truly earned it through innovation and hard work. I just see too many rich people who got that way by holding down and refusing to help elevate their fellow man. I am no Christian, but I do believe the Jesus got it right when he said love your neighbor as you love yourself. Too many well to do, greedy types claim to be Christian yet refuse to love their neighbor they would themselves.)
I demand a government that keeps its religion and self imposed morals out of my private life. No harn, no foul. The words ''voluntary'' and ''consensual'' need to be required in any law passed from this day forward and all old laws must be rewritten or stricken down if they do not not represent the spirit of liberty.

Neither the Repubs nor Dems have given me hope for the last twelve years. I will still vote for the lesser of two evils, but I am said to say that this is the first time I will intentionally be a single issue voter. It saddens me that it will be for a stronger pro gunner.

After much thought I have decided the McCain will get my vote since he is likely to get the nomination.

I absolutely abhor the man, but he will be fighting a Democrat congress if he makes it into office. This kind of stalemate is most likely to benefit gun owners since Obama or Hillary will tow the party and sigh any anti gun legislation put in front of them.

In 2012 I would like to nominate my sisters cat for president. He may not make a good leader, but he won't be looking to screw bunches of people who don't agree with him and his only party line includes the full legalization of powerful catnip and better snacks for felines everywhere.

That is a platform I can get behind.
 
Well I'm not quite as old as you but I aggree with you just the same. I grew up in a household were the GOP was made out to be the saviour of us all But after a while of this and seeing where party line voting has put this nation most noteably in the last 8 years, I decided I was going to vote for who I aggreed with most, regardless of wether or not he stood a chance of winning. As for the wasted vote idea. If I'm a gun owner and vote for an anti-gunner and he/she wins, Is that not just as much wasted as a vote for a pro-gunner that looses? I think that a great deal of people fail to realise that in this coming election, There is no conservitave, pro-gun pro-liberty canidate among the front runners. There are only three anti-gun and anti-liberty canidates who happen to have different letters behind their names. Now if a person chooses to buy their NRA Membership and vote for who ever has a "R" after their name just because the NRA says their better then a "D." Go for it. But when Hi-Cap mags go through the roof on price becuase they are banned AGAIN you can just argue that "It was better then the alternitive" all the while guns are being chopped up and gun owners imprisioned.

And for the record. I stopped thinking mouch a the NRA and the realated after the Swamp Buster Act went through. Of Course now there Trying for a "Sod Buster Act" But that realy is a story for another time. All the NRA has ever been about is a club for Rich men (and women) to shoot there $5K +++ firearms. Most of these have never shot a firearm anywhere outside of a firing range. Yes there are many who do not fit the above description. And many of them are here. But let's face. Do you realy think they can cover overhead and pay their high up execs multi-million dollar sallaries on $25/year/member?
ETA

I demand a government that keeps its religion and self imposed morals out of my private life. No harm, no foul. The words ''voluntary'' and ''consensual'' need to be required in any law passed from this day forward and all old laws must be rewritten or stricken down if they do not not represent the spirit of liberty.
Click to expand...

Could you please define this a little better. i.e. What constitutes allowing a citisen to practise a religion and what constitutes forcing it upon a citisen?

Thanks,...

PS for the record the govt. Does not "have a religion." Please show me where the US govt. has given preference to one religion over another...
 
Big issues for me are
1) Guns. What is legal today some cretin wants to make a felony tomorrow. Making it a felony tomorrow will not do anything meaningful about violent crime committed with guns the day after tomorrow. Yes, Democratic presidential candidates for '08, I am talking about you. Stop acting all innocent on this issue. I am not voting for people who think I belong in prison.

2) Taxes. We started this nation because of high taxes levied by the British government. Although taxation without representation was a major justification for the American Revolution, the real reason the Revolutionary War was fought was because taxes were too damn high and the British were too determined to collect them. These taxes affected every part of the colonial economy, and hurt the poor the most. The same applies to modern "progressive" taxation: High income tax rates on income above certain levels, on certain types of income, and on corporations serve only to increase prices as businesses pass on the tax burden to their customers, create interesting methods of compensation for executives that motivate financial shenanigans in public corporations, slow job creation as businesses send the payroll off to the tax man instead of new employees, and dry up capital investment as owners of capital tend to buy and sell less financial assets for tax reasons. There are well supported theories as to what an optimal tax rate is with regard to tax collections; intelligent statesmen and women will apply them. Yet again the Democratic presidential candidates will get a sneer from me: Tax revenues are not linearly related to tax rates. Applying linear thought to taxation will result in less tax revenue in the future. If tax revenues were directly and linearly related to tax rates then maximizing tax revenue would be a simple exercise in maximising tax rates, i.e., 100% income tax rates, and infinite tax rates on goods.

3) Borrowing and spending. When I want to spend money I have to earn it, beg for it, or borrow it. (I have ruled out theft as an option.) If I don't earn or receive as gifts enough money then I will have to borrow money and pay it back or save money to spend later. If I borrow too much money and am unable to earn enough to pay it back then I risk having my assets liquidated to pay my creditors. Uncle Sam never saves money, borrows money like there's no tomorrow, and can devalue it when he can't afford to pay it back and can't get the votes to raise taxes directly (thus increasing taxes indirectly). Uncle Sam has a spending problem, and when Uncle Sam goes bankrupt we will pay for it, not Uncle Sam. I am disappointed that politicians have made the US population unwitting cosignatories to frivolous US government borrowing. This nonsense needs to stop. Alas, I can only sneer at both parties on this one. Republican and Democratic presidential candidates: Would you cosign the car note, the cell phone bill, the jumbo mortgage, and the credit card of the family spendthrift? Of course not. Stop asking the people of America to do it for you.
 
I do demand a government that keeps greedy buisness people in check.
Click to expand...

That doesnt sound very "freedomish". What right do you have to tell folks they can't be greedy :)

WildsofaceityouareapolitcalmoderateAlaska ™
 
That doesnt sound very "freedomish". What right do you have to tell folks they can't be greedy
Click to expand...

I think you're wrong, WA.

Greedy people are allowed to be greedy under his paradigm.

But, just as they are allowed to follow their own greedy goals, CDH's ideal benevolent despotism would have a means of monitoring when the greedy individuals began to encroach on the liberties of other people.

What that line might be, only CDH could say. Suffice it to say though, CDH sounds like he has a vague idea on that.

AZRedhawkPlatosRepublic44
 
I don't really think "liberty" can be a single issue because each of us has our definition for liberty. Some of the things you mentioned I agree with yet would agree that they're not very grounded in the concept of liberty.

I won't become a one-issue voter though there are a couple issues that keep springing up that may change my mind. Not guns, though. Those I can hide.
 
I consider 2nd Amendment position a bellweather for a politician's true stance on personal freedoms and their respect (or lack thereof) for their electorate. I find it hard to trust a politician that doesn't trust me to be armed or who purports to believe that prohibitions placed on lawful citizens will be honored by criminals ...

Nick
 
But, just as they are allowed to follow their own greedy goals, CDH's ideal benevolent despotism would have a means of monitoring when the greedy individuals began to encroach on the liberties of other people.
Click to expand...

What right then does he even have to define greed?

In contrast to all the other goofy natural rights we see expounded upon, isnt it our natural, animal kingdom right to be greedy?

WildokhereitcomesAlaska TM
 
I find it hard to trust a politician that doesn't trust me to be armed or who purports to believe that prohibitions placed on lawful citizens will be honored by criminals ...
Click to expand...

So what about suitcase nukes :)

WildtheoldcanorwormsAlaska TM
 
there are differing views on single issues

A true single issue view is one where you pick an issue and regardless of anything else you vote a particular way. Others view a single issue as a major factor in a decision but they do not rule out any other things that may enter into the choice.

Should we have an imaginary magical candidate who positively represented an issue (I'll choose RKBA) all the time. That candidate might be your choice if RKBA is your only concern. Are you willing to vote for the issue regardless of the candidates position on everything else. Would you vote for the RKBA candidate even if they were pro abortion, pro gay rights, favored every other issue to which you are opposed?

In all honesty I have never met a person who is willing to never consider more than one issue in the choice of candidates. Everyone I've met who claim one iossue is why they are support candidate A seems to add there are also reasonns B, C and D. Not simply vote for reason A.
 
Would you vote for the RKBA candidate even if they were pro abortion, pro gay rights, favored every other issue to which you are opposed?
Click to expand...

The usual problem for progressive pro gun owners is that the RKBA candidates are usually anti-choice, anti-equality and oppose other freedom issues.

There is no perfect candidate.

WildandneverwillbeAlaska ™
 
What right then does he even have to define greed?

In contrast to all the other goofy natural rights we see expounded upon, isnt it our natural, animal kingdom right to be greedy?
Click to expand...

Not saying I agree with him, just saying I know where he's coming from.

And "greed" under the definition I understand and operate under, encompasses a man's (or woman's) desire to expand his claims of property or influence. Not necessarily a bad thing, and common in the animal kingdom as well as with man.

Greed is responsible for most of our technological acheivements, including the roots of this forum, the internet and firearms.

His right to define greed? Where do you derive your right to limit his capacity to define words in context of discussion?:rolleyes:

I think the common understanding of greed we all have is sufficient to this task at hand.

I'd venture to assume he's saying he wants a check on greed that encroaches upon the natural rights of man espoused in our founding documents: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Equal representation under law. Taxation commensurate with representation. Governments can be greedy much like businesses or bandits.

AZRedhawkbutthatwouldbemeapplyingmyownstandardofgreedtothisargument44
 
tend to be is not an absolute

when it comes to candidates. I continually hear how all members of one party are suppose to be or tend to be on certain sides of all issues. Then when you examine the record of the candidate you occasionally find they are not consistent with being for or against every issue you presumed they would be. Politicians are clever little critters who sometimes vote based on voter reactions more than anything else.

You know that is very true in the Alaska legislature don't you Wild One.
 
You know that is very true in the Alaska legislature don't you Wild One.
Click to expand...

I though they only voted based on how much they are being paid and by whom bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahah

Inside joke :)

WildlikealittlechicagoAlaska TM
 
just the convicted ones for sure

It looks like the card games in the Federal prison can go from a game of cribbage to a game of bride now that a few more are joining the club.
Do you think Don and Ted will have private rooms are will they be sharing one?
 
There are many important issues, but the gun-hating psychos who would flush the Bill of Rights down the toilet have changed that for me. I would vote for a puppy-killing, football hating, incestuous Martian if I thought he would preserve and protect the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
 
The last thing I want is government bureaucrats trying to interfere with the world's greatest economic engine.
Click to expand...

News Flash: Government bureaucrats interfere with the economic engine everyday, and the engine continues to outperform itself each year.
 
Single issue voting is stupidity at it's finest hour and nothing supports this better than the current election. How many people will vote for Hillary just because she's a woman or Obama just because he's black? Who will they chose to vote for when there is just one candidate and why? How many will go to McCain just because their woman or black lost?

One has to look at all of the issues and consider all of the candidates points, their past voting records and what congress will allow them to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top