is Huckabee America's hope

[StefanM]

Being a Canadian who spends his time in Australia, my opinion means nothing. But I've been following this coming US presidential race more than any other political race in my lifetime and it has been a facinating one.

From the little I have seen of Huckabee, I would put him #2 behind Obama as candidates I would like to see as president. For star power, Hillary vs. Guliani would be unbeatable. But for likeable eloquent men of character who I think will be strong leaders for the US, a Huckabee vs. Obama showdown is the way to go.

I think that a Huckabee v. Obama race would be very interesting.

I do think Obama would win, but it would make an exciting campaign.

 

[Martin]

Whether or not Huckabee would make a good president or not I will leave for another thread. However I think we need to face reality. Apart from some change in events, this race will come down to Rudy v. Hillary. I can't vote, I will not vote, for either of them.

RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT...2008

 

[just-want-peace]

I can't vote, I will not vote, for either of them.

Meaning you will not vote at all, OR, you will vote 3rd party?

Big, BIG difference in the two options.

 

[saturneptune]

Meaning you will not vote at all, OR, you will vote 3rd party?

Big, BIG difference in the two options.

If it is Romney or Giuliani against any Democrat, a third party, no doubt about it.

 

[just-want-peace]

If it is Romney or Giuliani against any Democrat, a third party, no doubt about it.

I read you loud and clear; I'm just not totally convinced at this point that I agree with the 3rd party option, but I am very sympathetic to this scenario.

My concern is : Will the worst R, not be better for the country than ANY D?
If so, then I cannot, in good conscience, go 3rd party.
If not, then it's 3rd party all the way; or a write in if no choice there!

Now a GOOD, STRONG, clearly conservative 3rd party candidate, I would seriously consider, but so far I see none on the horizon.

 

[Martin]

Meaning you will not vote at all, OR, you will vote 3rd party?

Big, BIG difference in the two options.

==Either. If I see a third party candidate I like, then I will support that person. Otherwise I will leave the top of the ticket blank.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Otherwise I will leave the top of the ticket blank.

How is this any different than those who stay home and do not exercise their right to vote at all? Aren't both an abdication of civic responsibility?

 

[Martin]

How is this any different than those who stay home and do not exercise their right to vote at all? Aren't both an abdication of civic responsibility?

==No, because I am not going to vote for someone I don't support. Period. I voted for George Bush in '00, and I have regreted it. He claimed to be a small government conservative, but he has revealed his true big government nature. In other words, my vote for George W Bush was based on a lie. A lie he told, and a lie I was stupid enough to believe. I am not falling for that again. I am done with voting for the lessor of two evils, I am done compromising. It is now, all or nothing. With that in mind, I see nobody running in either major party that is any different (other than Ron Paul).

I guess one could say I no longer trust Democrats or Republicans.

 

[Pastor Larry]

You didn't answer the question. How is your position any different than those who stay home and don't vote? Aren't both an abdication of civic responsibility? The answer is that there is no difference and it is an abdication of civic responsibility.

You regret voting for Bush. The reality is that he has been a poor president on many fronts, but much better than either Gore or Kerry.

Short of Jesus running for president, you will always have to vote for the lesser of two evils. The issue is whether or not you love this country enough to vote for the better of two evils in order to preserve a future and a hope for this country. I think many do not, and that is why they can be so short-sighted in the voting booth.

You say you are done compromising, but failing to vote is exactly that. It is a compromise for America. The "all or nothing" means you will never vote for anyone. Even Ron Paul is a wicked sinner, and he has some serious policy issues on top of that.

There has to be a longer term vision for America. We have to look beyond this election to preserving something for later. Short-sightedness, such as you argue for here, will surely be the deathknell of the future.

 

[KenH]

1) Even Ron Paul is a wicked sinner, and he has some serious policy issues on top of that.

2) There has to be a longer vision for America.

3) You say you are done compromising, but failing to vote is exactly that.

1) And so are you, Pastor Larry, and so do you, Pastor Larry. And so am I and so do I. It is so self evident to Christians that these phrases apply to every single human being in these United States who will be participating in the voting process in 2008 that I don't understand why you wrote that sentence.

2) Amen. On this you and I agree. :thumbs:

3) And you do the same thing when you won't support the idea of at least overturning Roe v. Wade and sending the issue back to the states as the situation was before that Supreme Court decision. You want all or nothing, and criticize those who don't agree with your all or nothing stance.

 

[Pastor Larry]

1) And so are you, Pastor Larry, and so do you, Pastor Larry. And so am I and so do I. It is so self evident to Christians that these phrases apply to every single human being in these United States who will be participating in the voting process in 2008 that I don't understand why you wrote that sentence.

Yes, I am and I am sure I do. If you don't understand why I wrote that sentence, just look at the number of people who say they refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. It is impossible to vote while not voting for the lesser of two evils. I think it should be self-evident, which is why I don't understand why people would say they won't do it.

[quote3) And you do the same thing when you won't support the idea of at least overturning Roe v. Wade and sending the issue back to the states as the situation was before that Supreme Court decision. You want all or nothing, and criticize those who don't agree with your all or nothing stance.[/quote]Ken, please be honest with my position. I have always supported the overturning of Roe and have argued that it is a step in the right direction. I have argued this with those who don't agree, who think that nothing short of a total ban on abortions is proper. There are those here who reject anti-abortion legislation that contains an exception for rape and incest and the life of the mother. While I don't think the exceptions should be there, I have supported that legislation because it is a step in the right direction. I supported the PBA when many people here did not. I supported it because it was a step in the right direction. I have argued that it is important to vote for those with whom there is the possibility of appointing pro-life judges, even if they might end up not appointing them.

So in short, you have grossly (and intentionally???) misrepresented my position. i have always stood on the side of overturning Roe. I don't want "all or nothing." And you have been here long enough and have interacted with me enough to know that.

The question is, Why don't you be honest with my position?

 

[saturneptune]

It is impossible to vote while not voting for the lesser of two evils. I think it should be self-evident, which is why I don't understand why people would say they won't do it.

So in short, you have grossly (and intentionally???) misrepresented my position. i have always stood on the side of overturning Roe. I don't want "all or nothing." And you have been here long enough and have interacted with me enough to know that.

The question is, Why don't you be honest with my position?

That is not true. We are under no obligation to vote from the two (at present) major parties. If both represent the interests of hell, what have we accomplished, electing the higher level of evil?

It takes vision and a little bit of courage to vote for someone out of the mainstream. If enough people do it, we can vote both of the pathetic parties out of existence.

Take a look at the numbers, simply. Only half of those eligible to vote are registered. Of those registered, only half vote in a good election. The record is 60% in 1960. Of those voting, 43% are disguisted with one of the two major parties. There is not enough votes to put the Democrats and Republicans out of their misery? Baloney. It takes a passion and change of heart of our nation.

As far as your last comment about misrepresenting your position, why is it there are six or so people you constantly say that to? Is this a pattern?

 

[Gold Dragon]

How is this any different than those who stay home and do not exercise their right to vote at all? Aren't both an abdication of civic responsibility?

I think an abstain vote carries a lot of meaning and civic responsibility with it. In my eyes, it is significantly different from someone who fails to show up to vote.

 

[Pastor Larry]

We are under no obligation to vote from the two (at present) major parties. If both represent the interests of hell, what have we accomplished, electing the higher level of evil?

You are right that we are not obligated to vote, but if we elect the "higher level of evil" (which is the only option there ever is) we help to forestall the public increase of evil.

It takes vision and a little bit of courage to vote for someone out of the mainstream.

It can also take selfishness, a willingness to put one's own desires above the higher interests of the community.

If enough people do it, we can vote both of the pathetic parties out of existence.

True, and that would be fine. But until that is possible, we have to take other steps.

As far as your last comment about misrepresenting your position, why is it there are six or so people you constantly say that to?

There are not five or six that I can think of. I can think of only one or two. This, by Ken, was (to my recollection) an isolated circumstance. Ken knows and has known for a long time that I support the overturn of Roe as a step in teh door, though not nearly enough. It boggled my mind that he would say otherwise.

Is this a pattern?

With some it is. It is unfortunate that people cannot simply address arguments as they stand, but rather choose to misrepresent the argument and then address the straw man that have set up. i wish everyone here would take a stand against it.

 

[KenH]

It can also take selfishness, a willingness to put one's own desires above the higher interests of the community.

This an unkind and untrue statement. Since when is voting for a person out of a sincere conviction selfish? Since when is refusing to vote out of a sincere conviction selfish?

You judgmentalism in this area is unwarranted and just plum wrongheaded.

 

[Pastor Larry]

This an unkind and untrue statement.

It is neither. It is true that it can be selfish. It was directed at nobody so it isn't unkind.

Since when is voting for a person out of a sincere conviction selfish?

When they are voting merely to satisfy themselves with no thought of what effect that vote will have on others.

Since when is refusing to vote out of a sincere conviction selfish?

See above.

I have not said that everyone who refuses to vote is selfish. I merely said that it "can" be selfish. (Again, noting the words I use will help to discern what I mean.)

You judgmentalism in this area is unwarranted and just plum wrongheaded.

And your judgmentalism is warranted and not wrongheaded? Why isn't my sincere belief worthy of the respect that you demand for others' beliefs? Doesn't that seem a bit of a double standard? (It should.)

 

[KenH]

(Again, noting the words I use will help to discern what I mean.)

Yes, PL, your method of nuanced statements puts you in the same league with the best that use that tactic.

 

[hillclimber1]

Yes, PL, your method of nuanced statements puts you in the same league with the best that use that tactic.

Gee, you mischaracterized him. Little nuance, and plenty of straight talk. Interesting that you accuse others, often, with using tactics you yourself employ.

beam/mote out of eye.

 

[tinytim]

Huckabee is my choice....

 

[Rippon]

Huckabee is my choice....

Fred T. is my choice .