LOL... no, I mean a lot of Mexicans can fill basic healthcare jobs that are needed in order to care for the elderly. We're going to need a lot of nurses and other nursing home personnel in the future.jonsimon wrote:
Are you saying mexicans kill old people?Turquoise wrote:
Immigration is good also for taking care of our old people in a literal sense. It's about the only thing that keeps our nation young.jonsimon wrote:
Immigration is good for America. Who else will pay social security? It's a boost to taxes and a long term boon to the economy. All those immigrants want citizenship eventually.
shows where my mind is, I thoguht this was a thread about beating it and I was going to flame......so awsomely. Then I read and it said eLECtile. Im a dummy
Exactly. In order to keep the people we know we don't want in power out, we must vote for whoever has the best chance to beat them. My strategy is to vote against Democrats because I don't want their party to have the majority. I have never agreed with a Democratic candidate, so voting Republican only makes sense. I am anti-abortion, pro-lower taxes, pro-2nd amendment, against giving amnest to illegal immigrants - therefore, I cannot vote Democrat because they are the polar opposite on each of those issues.kr@cker wrote:
but the dems will never do the same (that's what happened with the whole perot thing), so by doing that i'm pretty much guaranteeing a pelosi/reid win
Last edited by Stingray24 (2006-11-01 19:18:26)
I know plenty of Democrats that voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004. Still, I'd argue both sides have a problem with voting for their party's candidates regardless of how bad they might be. I tend to vote Libertarian, but even I'll admit that some of my party's members are nuts... like Neal Boortz.Stingray24 wrote:
Exactly. In order to keep the people we know we don't want in power out, we must vote for whoever has the best chance to beat them.kr@cker wrote:
but the dems will never do the same (that's what happened with the whole perot thing), so by doing that i'm pretty much guaranteeing a pelosi/reid win
I vote for my party's candidate because, overall, I disagree with the other party. So what if I don't like the candidate. I want his party in power because it represents my values. Voting for someone I like and putting a party that completely opposes my values in control makes no sense.Turquoise wrote:
I know plenty of Democrats that voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004. Still, I'd argue both sides have a problem with voting for their party's candidates regardless of how bad they might be. I tend to vote Libertarian, but even I'll admit that some of my party's members are nuts... like Neal Boortz.Stingray24 wrote:
Exactly. In order to keep the people we know we don't want in power out, we must vote for whoever has the best chance to beat them.kr@cker wrote:
but the dems will never do the same (that's what happened with the whole perot thing), so by doing that i'm pretty much guaranteeing a pelosi/reid win
Last edited by Stingray24 (2006-11-01 19:21:38)
True... this is why we need Instant Reform Voting.Stingray24 wrote:
I vote for my party's candidate because, overall, I disagree with the other party. So what if I don't like the candidate. I want his party in power because it represents my values. Voting for someone I like and putting a party that completely opposes my values in control makes no sense.Turquoise wrote:
I know plenty of Democrats that voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004. Still, I'd argue both sides have a problem with voting for their party's candidates regardless of how bad they might be. I tend to vote Libertarian, but even I'll admit that some of my party's members are nuts... like Neal Boortz.Stingray24 wrote:
Exactly. In order to keep the people we know we don't want in power out, we must vote for whoever has the best chance to beat them.
Explain.Turquoise wrote:
True... this is why we need Instant Reform Voting.Stingray24 wrote:
I vote for my party's candidate because, overall, I disagree with the other party. So what if I don't like the candidate. I want his party in power because it represents my values. Voting for someone I like and putting a party that completely opposes my values in control makes no sense.Turquoise wrote:
I know plenty of Democrats that voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004. Still, I'd argue both sides have a problem with voting for their party's candidates regardless of how bad they might be. I tend to vote Libertarian, but even I'll admit that some of my party's members are nuts... like Neal Boortz.
The easiest way I can explain this is to basically state that Instant Reform Voting allows everyone to vote for 2 people.
Ideally, this means your first vote goes to the candidate you agree with most. But your second vote is the "lesser of multiple evils" vote. Basically, the guy that has the best chance of getting elected that you can stomach supporting.
So, this allows people to vote their conscience with the first vote, but since this system works like an elimination system, your final vote goes to your second choice, if that guy has more first votes in total.
Come to think of it, I think it's actually called Instant Runoff Voting.
Anyway, this system gives society a better look at who people actually prefer, while still giving third parties a chance at winning.
Ideally, this means your first vote goes to the candidate you agree with most. But your second vote is the "lesser of multiple evils" vote. Basically, the guy that has the best chance of getting elected that you can stomach supporting.
So, this allows people to vote their conscience with the first vote, but since this system works like an elimination system, your final vote goes to your second choice, if that guy has more first votes in total.
Come to think of it, I think it's actually called Instant Runoff Voting.
Anyway, this system gives society a better look at who people actually prefer, while still giving third parties a chance at winning.
The Dems have been alienating themselves from the middle for the most part in my opinion. If there weren't so many that were way far left this election would be a slam dunk for them. (Providing they just told John Kerry to shut up and just go sit down). I must say I am a little weary about the GOP candidate in my state (FL). Charlie Crist seems to have been to influenced by insurance companies.
Xbone Stormsurgezz