How do YOU choose?

[Nor_Cal_Angler]

I go into the booth, close the curtain behind me, blindfold myself, pick up the marker, and stab at the paper......

sometimes you win....sometimes you dont....


just say'n

NCA

[dnf777]

What makes you bet (think) that?

I agree with Ken. Its one thing to spew opinions (like we do here) but when they put on that robe and sit in those chambers and feel the gravity of their decisions, I bet they dig a little deeper into their souls for answers.

Supereme Court justice nominees are like a box of chocolate......

[Marvin S]

Does this candidate want more of my money for his agenda, via more taxes, including income, property and/or small business? Is the candidate in favor of more entitlement programs, increasing the ones we already have, funding assorted government boondoggles and bigger government making decisions for me in general? The first two are the deciders for me and those candidates are usually pro Constitution, whether it be 2nd Amendment or other issues personally important to me. I'm willing to vote for someone I disagree with on some things, for example didactic religious beliefs, if the big picture is less government and fiscal responsibility.

I believe that to be a good start vetting a candidate.

I have a few issues that are very important to me. I tend to vote those issues. I also, occasionally, vote against people. If neither candidate appeals to me, I vote for the one that appears to want to hurt me the least. If I dislike both equally, I could leave that particular race alone. That is rare though. I doubt I would vote just “D” or “R” though, there would have to be some issues that warranted my vote either for or against.

My first election was Ike & Adlai - voted for Adlai because I didn't think a military person should be POTUS. Still don't, but that was a really bad vote as I found out later. Adlai was bad news.

The only potential POTUS that I have truly voted for is Goldwater & I read his book prior to making that decision.

In the local elections there is very little choice. This is a really liberal state & all the old style D's have been drummed from the party so the R's have lot's of room to travel before they get into their opponents territory.

One thing that seems to have made local elections more competive is our top 2 primary, so it is not uncommon for 2 candidates of the same party to be in the general election. They then have to differentiate their positions so it makes things more interesting, which is .

I'm definitely more Libertarian on social issues, so they factor less in my decision making. Voting on moral issues sounds noble in theory, but in practice, there's simply no way to legislate morality. These days, even the thought makes me uneasy, although government programs have been steadily swelling the ranks of the functionally helpless illiterates with no morals, let alone any moral compass. And if I had my way you'd be forbidden from reproducing if you're on the public dole or here illegally until you're capable of legally supporting yourself AND your spawn...but I digress. I mean, think about this: Would you rather have Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed, Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel, Tim "Tax Cheat" Geitner et all including the POTUS, making personal decisions for you and your family, or would you rather be free to follow the guidance of your religion and those you respect?

Have to agree with most of this also except, don't believe catering to the dopers is a productive way & believe those who like same sex are more aggressive than a horny teenager trying to score, so their agenda is not as passive as they would like people to believe.

Do agree with you about the reproduction, we can thank AFDC for relieving the stigma connected to loose morals.

[depittydawg]

Subroc pretty much summarized how i feel about elections as well. In this last election, I didn't vote for anyone. I voted against the greater of 3 evils.
It is a sad statement when you vote against someone, rather than for someone.

I think the bigge question nowadays, is , does it really matter who you vote for? Or who wins? Lots of people voted for change. We'll never know for sure what would have happened if McCain would have won, but does anyone think things would be drastically, or even moderately different?

We, and our elected officials, are OWNED.

Whenever you think that; just ask yourself if the first decade of the 21st century would have been any different had Al Gore defeated GWB in the 2000 election.

[depittydawg]

I am more conservative on social issues than any other area of politics, period.

Morality is not all about social issues though Julie...

Greed is immoral.
Dishonesty is immoral.
Laziness is immoral.
etc,etc...

T.

Amen to all of the above.

[dnf777]

Whenever you think that; just ask yourself if the first decade of the 21st century would have been any different had Al Gore defeated GWB in the 2000 election.

Good point. I stand corrected.

[Matt's Grizz]

Like my dad says, "Pick the lesser of the two evils"

[Julie R.]

... don't believe catering to the dopers is a productive way & believe those who like same sex are more aggressive than a horny teenager trying to score, so their agenda is not as passive as they would like people to believe.

I certainly don't want a druggie in an elected position, but I think it's been abundantly proven that the war on drugs is an epic failure. Despite untold billions spent over the last 40 years drugs are more firmly entrenched in society in general and organized crime in particular than at any point in history. The more I read about Mexican cartels, drug lords and ghetto gangs, the more I think we should just legalize all of their product, tax hell out of them and let people kill themselves if they want. Taxing would generate plenty of money to help those that wanted to help themselves. While the thought of more meth addicts and crack heads roaming the streets is frightening, if their drug of choice was legal they'd be far less likely to kill you for a dime bag. And, unlike drunks, stoners don't hold up liquor stores and beat their wives.

We've become a society where the protected classes--those unwilling or unable to take personal responsibility--are fast overtaking those who are. Certainly there will always be wards of the state who cannot live unassisted, but we need to decrease the ranks of those who can, but choose not to. Not continue to coddle them with handouts, quotas, dumbing down education, and policies designed to encourage them to breed.

As for gays, I really don't care what they do in their bedrooms although I'd rather not know about it. Personally I think don't ask don't tell is a dandy policy for anyone's sex life unless I was married to or plan to marry the person. I'm personally not in favor of gay marriage and certain other government-mandated morality issues, but not enough to vote against a candidate whose platform otherwise aligned with mine.

[Julie R.]

Whenever you think that; just ask yourself if the first decade of the 21st century would have been any different had Al Gore defeated GWB in the 2000 election.

It's a scary thought, although we'd have entered this recession a lot sooner and we'd probably now be in a period of strong recovery if he'd won and gotten voted out in 2004. Imagine if an Algore version of Cap-N-Trade had been enacted in 2001? And instead of 3,000 deaths from the terrorist attacks of 2001, many more major cities had suffered devastating losses? Although for sure Hurricane Katrina would've veered harmlessly out to sea, because everyone knows that was Bush's fault (Hi Roger ).

[dnf777]

It's a scary thought, although we'd have entered this recession a lot sooner and we'd probably now be in a period of strong recovery if he'd won and gotten voted out in 2004. Imagine if an Algore version of Cap-N-Trade had been enacted in 2001? And instead of 3,000 deaths from the terrorist attacks of 2001, many more major cities had suffered devastating losses? Although for sure Hurricane Katrina would've veered harmlessly out to sea, because everyone knows that was Bush's fault (Hi Roger ).

I'll assume that was mostly in jest, but I do know there would be about 4000 less empty chairs at the Christmas Dinner table this year. And that's no jest.