Haslam-gun owners should be able to keep weapons cars

[daddyo]

Actually, that would be that I vote the way I want to and you don't vote, right? And that's like casting your vote for the guy who is definitely anti-gun.

Show me where I said I wasn't going to vote.

[JAB]

But only two that have a snowballs chance of getting the gig.

Personally, for the last few elections I have tried not voting for the lesser of two evils and have, instead, voted for the candidate I would most like to see in office. That doesn't always mean voting for the candidate - or one of the two candidates - most likely to win. That just means voting for the candidate I think is the best choice. The idea that people shouldn't vote for a candidate because he or she 'can't' win - even if he or she is the best candidate - becomes nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuated by the interests of the Dempublican and Repocrat parties. In my case, though, I don't extend that to the idea of writing in myself or some other 'non-candidate' because I at least want to vote for someone who is actively running.

My problem here is that none of the independents stand out (to me) - taking their platforms as a whole - as being any better than the Big 2.

EDIT: I just wish haslam would make up his mind about guns. he's flip floppin' his but off. With that said, I don't get the feeling he's gonna go on an anti gun crusade. Not so sure if i feel the same about Son of Ned

Unable to find another candidate better than these two, I have just about come around to that line of thinking, myself. How sad is it that we are down to choosing not the candidate who we think will best support our rights but, instead, the candidate who is least likely to attack them?

Edited October 28, 2010 by JAB

[mikegideon]

Jab,

Unfortunatly, it's what it is. Nothing wrong with voting your choice. It's your vote. Personally, I WILL vote to block the ugliest candidate because things CAN get worse. I feel helpless enough as it is. I'm certainly not going to waste my miniscule power making a statement that nobody will hear.

[E4 No More]

Show me where I said I wasn't going to vote.

"Neither Haslam nor Ned Ray Bob Jr. get my vote."

Only a Republican and a Democrat have an ice cube's chance in hell of winning in this state at this juncture, so by not voting for Haslam or any other dipstick on the ballot you are not countering a vote for McWorser who we know beyound a shadow of a doubt to be anti-gun: therefore, you aren't voting.

Edited October 28, 2010 by SWJewellTN

[Guest HvyMtl]

Vote your conscience. If you hate the candidates, make sure you get involved in the process and try to get things changed in your party. Otherwise, you will be stuck, yet again, the next time with people you wouldn't trust to Valet Park your car...

Sadly, I see little action to correct the underlying issues. So, we get the same type of candidates. Who keep pushing us along, downstream, towards the falls...

FYI: Yellow Dog Democrats vote only for Democrats on the ballot, even if it is a yellow dog. Look what that has done to the Democratic party... Remember this when you do the same for the GOP...

Edited October 28, 2010 by HvyMtl

[mikegideon]

Vote your conscience. If you hate the candidates, make sure you get involved in the process and try to get things changed in your party. Otherwise, you will be stuck, yet again, the next time with people you wouldn't trust to Valet Park your car...

Sadly, I see little action to correct the underlying issues. So, we get the same type of candidates. Who keep pushing us along, downstream, towards the falls...

In other words... all that's left at this stage of the game is damage control.

[daddyo]

"Neither Haslam nor Ned Ray Bob Jr. get my vote."

Only a Republican and a Democrat have an ice cube's chance in hell of winning in this state at this juncture, so by not voting for Haslam or any other dipstick on the ballot you are not countering a vote for McWorser who we know beyound a shadow of a doubt to be anti-gun: therefore, you aren't voting.

There are others on the ballot, plus a write-in option. Yes, I am voting, no matter how you want to spin it.

[JAB]

Personally, I WILL vote to block the ugliest candidate because things CAN get worse.

The problem is that, in this case, I am having trouble deciding that either of the main 2 is any less ugly than the other. With Nedson, we know he doesn't really stand with us because he has at least been honest enough to more or less say so. With Bill 'Flip-Flop' Haslam, we know he has lied (or at least stretched the truth to breaking) in trying to convince us, mostly unsuccessfully, that he does.

Considering the OP, the real kicker is that (supposedly) McWherter - who we 'know' does not stand for us - does not forbid his employees from having firearms in their vehicles on company property while Haslam - who would have us believe that he does stand for us - comes from a family whose company - a company of which he used to be President - does forbid same.

Even worse is that I can't identify an independent candidate that is, overall, any more appealing than the Big 2. I will vote but it is easy to see why some folks figure, "Screw it, waste of time."

Edited October 28, 2010 by JAB

[E4 No More]

There are others on the ballot, plus a write-in option. Yes, I am voting, no matter how you want to spin it.

Mathematics is not spinning; it's fact, no matter how you spin it.

[JAB]

Mathematics is not spinning; it's fact, no matter how you spin it.

So, since Haslam seems to have the election sewn up, the folks who are going to vote for McWherter are just wasting their vote, too? If that is the case, why even have an election? Just pick a winner based on an equation and forget all this useless voting nonsense. It would save a lot of money.

I don't believe it is our civic duty to vote for a candidate based on who is most likely to win. I believe it is our duty to vote for the candidate most likely to be the best choice of all candidates, not just the least objectionable of the two front runners. If I do less than that, regardless of who everyone else is voting for, then I have failed in my civic duty. If more people would vote their true choice rather than choosing the lesser of the top two evils then someone else just might have a chance. As long as the blinders are on and folks think they have to choose a candidate they don't really want or 'waste their vote' then the voters get what they deserve - a candidate that they don't really want in office, even if he might be ever so slightly better than 'the other guy'. That is the way I see it. Now, if I could just convince myself that there is a 'best choice' in the 2010 TN Governor's race.

Edited October 28, 2010 by JAB

[daddyo]

Mathematics is not spinning; it's fact, no matter how you spin it.

OK, got it. I'll let you be right, since you obviously need it.

[mikegideon]

The problem is that, in this case, I am having trouble deciding that either of the main 2 is any less ugly than the other. With Nedson, we know he doesn't really stand with us because he has at least been honest enough to more or less say so. With Bill 'Flip-Flop' Haslam, we know he has lied (or at least stretched the truth to breaking) in trying to convince us, mostly unsuccessfully, that he does.

Considering the OP, the real kicker is that (supposedly) McWherter - who we 'know' does not stand for us - does not forbid his employees from having firearms in their vehicles on company property while Haslam - who would have us believe that he does stand for us - comes from a family whose company - a company of which he used to be President - does forbid same.

Even worse is that I can't identify an independent candidate that is, overall, any more appealing than the Big 2. I will vote but it is easy to see why some folks figure, "Screw it, waste of time."

Floppy has peer pressure. Nedson does too, in the wrong direction.

[E4 No More]

OK, got it. I'll let you be right, since you obviously need it.

[Guest tnxdshooter]

I think my rep buddy said it best when I asked him what he thought of a previous senator and the upcoming governor. He said and I quote, keep in mind we were at a cattle sale in GA at the time.

"He would rather walk from Knoxville, to GA to tell you a lie then to stand right here and tell you the truth"

That is what I think about Haslam and think about most politicians in this day and age.

[mikegideon]

I think my rep buddy said it best when I asked him what he thought of a previous senator and the upcoming governor. He said and I quote, keep in mind we were at a cattle sale in GA at the time.

"He would rather walk from Knoxville, to GA to tell you a lie then to stand right here and tell you the truth"

That is what I think about Haslam and think about most politicians in this day and age.

Yep. We do waste a lot of time trying to put our faith in folks that just don't deserve it.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Go through a close race and then decide, after voting for someone else, that if

enough people would have put their vote to a different use, instead of protesting,

the guy who won turned out to be a bad, bad thing.

If McWhorter won by one or two votes, it would be a bad, bad thing. Even first

grade math shows us that. Sometimes you have to see how your vote affects

the whole, instead of standing on the sidelines complaining. Haslam certainly

wasn't the best candidate, but a majority picked him in the primary.

I'll take him over the opponent.

SWJewellTN is right. He didn't have to be given permission!

[JAB]

Floppy has peer pressure. Nedson does too, in the wrong direction.

Well, I went and voted yesterday. Pretty anticlimactic. No real 'good' choice for governor, even with all the independents running, so it was just a matter of choosing the 'best' of the bad and the one who I think will do the least amount of damage.

I am in the County where I live so I don't vote in the City elections that were also being held. That left the governor, an uncontested State Senate ballot, and uncontested State Representative ballot and a vote for an amendment change that doesn't really do much of anything because it still leaves room for the very thing it is supposed to protect (hunting and fishing) to be 'reasonably' regulated out of existence.

[mikegideon]

Go through a close race and then decide, after voting for someone else, that if

enough people would have put their vote to a different use, instead of protesting,

the guy who won turned out to be a bad, bad thing.

If McWhorter won by one or two votes, it would be a bad, bad thing. Even first

grade math shows us that. Sometimes you have to see how your vote affects

the whole, instead of standing on the sidelines complaining. Haslam certainly

wasn't the best candidate, but a majority picked him in the primary.

I'll take him over the opponent.

SWJewellTN is right. He didn't have to be given permission!

You speak the truth, Mr. Obama

[daddyo]

I'm STILL tying to figure out the logic that says, if someone votes, but they don't vote for one of the two front runners, that they somehow didn't vote....

[JAB]

Go through a close race and then decide, after voting for someone else, that if

enough people would have put their vote to a different use, instead of protesting,

the guy who won turned out to be a bad, bad thing.

If McWhorter won by one or two votes, it would be a bad, bad thing. Even first

grade math shows us that. Sometimes you have to see how your vote affects

the whole, instead of standing on the sidelines complaining. Haslam certainly

wasn't the best candidate, but a majority picked him in the primary.

I'll take him over the opponent.

SWJewellTN is right. He didn't have to be given permission!

I think what you are still not getting is that there are many of us who remain unconvinced that Haslam really is any better than McWherter. The crux of your argument lies in the idea that he is. That is your belief. Not everyone shares that belief.

In the last Presidential election, I was unconvinced that McCain was any better than Obama. I remain unconvinced that he would have been any better, to this day. I voted Libertarian because I thought that their candidate was clearly better than either the Dempublican or the Repocrat. I would do so, again. I do not and will not belong to either side of the Dempublican/Repocrat party and a candidate will not get my vote simply by winning one of their primaries.

I will admit that, this time, I voted for Floppy Haslam but only because none of the independent candidates were clearly any better than him. In other words, I came to the conclusion that (to me) he was the best of a very bad group - and that was only because, as someone else stated earlier, the 'peer pressure' he will likely receive from others of his party might help keep him in line, not because I think that he, individually, is clearly superior to McWherter. Had their been an independent who was clearly better, then as the best candidate he or she would have gotten my vote.

Edited October 29, 2010 by JAB

[E4 No More]

I voted my conscious along with many others when I voted for Perot, and we ended up with Clinton. Can it be any clearer?

[JAB]

I voted my conscious along with many others when I voted for Perot, and we ended up with Clinton. Can it be any clearer?

I voted for Clinton, so that isn't really a good example of 'a tale of woe', to me. Would I vote for him, now? Depends on who he was running against. I am older now and my politics have changed a good bit so I wouldn't be as quick to vote for him as I once would have, but maybe. I certainly wouldn't vote for the Hildebeast, whose politics I believe are much further to the left, but Bill? Over, say, McCain or Obama? Over W? Yes. Yes I would. And I wouldn't give a hoot how many interns he kept under his desk.

Honestly, though, if faced with the same choice today, I'd probably vote for Perot, too. I would then not ever regret voting my conscience, no matter what the outcome. I'm just that much of a stubborn bastard.

Edited October 29, 2010 by JAB

[mikegideon]

I'm STILL tying to figure out the logic that says, if someone votes, but they don't vote for one of the two front runners, that they somehow didn't vote....

They voted, it just will have no impact. If it's a given that one of two candidates will win, then voting for somebody else this just going to change the total number of votes between the two, not the outcome. I haven't seen the poll numbers, but I'm guessing that Haslam and Nedhead have unbeatable leads. They certainly have unbeatable budgets.

EDIT: No impact probably isn't the right way to put it. More likely, it will just take one vote away from the lesser of two evils, which makes the most evil stronger.

Edited October 29, 2010 by mikegideon

[JAB]

If it's a given that one of two candidates will win, then voting for somebody else this just going to change the total number of votes between the two, not the outcome.

But that is only a 'given' because so many voters accept the false idea that it is a given. If this is truly a government by representation and the outcome of elections truly counts, then nothing is a 'given' until the votes are counted - unless everyone accepts that they 'have' to vote for one of two sides of the same plug nickel because it is a 'given' that one of them will win.

What I am saying is that, if there is a clearly better alternative (which I could not find in this, particular election) then I would rather vote for the person I really want in office. If it is just a matter of choosing between a feces sandwich or an excrement salad, the other ingredients in the salad might be a little better for you but either way you are still choosing to eat sh*t. If a chicken dinner is an option - even a very remote option - then I'll try for that, instead. If it doesn't work out then I'd just as soon go hungry as sit there and try to pretend I scored some kind of victory because I get to eat an excrement salad.

[daddyo]

I voted my conscious along with many others when I voted for Perot, and we ended up with Clinton. Can it be any clearer?

But you still VOTED.