Haslam-gun owners should be able to keep weapons cars

[mikegideon]

But you still VOTED.

Yep, for Clinton. Don't think that was his intention.

[Fallguy]

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

Me too...

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.

It may not be a good tale to you, but I would wager that out of those of use that voted for Perot, the majority would have voted for Bush has Perot not been on the ballot. Perhaps causing different results...

Do I wish there were viable candidates besides a Dem or Rebp? YES!! Have I voted for non-Dem/Repb? Yes. Have I encouraged others to vote for who the feel the better candidate would be and not just one from one of the two major parties? Yes. But I'm afraid that for the near future....99% of the time it will be a D or R that gets elected. Even those that are "Tea Party" candidates have chose to run under the Republican banner and not Libertarian, Green or some other party or Independent.....

[monkeylizard]

Is it too late to do a write in campaign for Basil?

[mikegideon]

Is it too late to do a write in campaign for Basil?

We don't have the advertising budget to pull it off.

[JAB]

We don't have the advertising budget to pull it off.

I don't know, he did say something to the effect that he would "immune" us "from state laws for life". Hell, with that platform I think most of the politicians - maybe even Floppy and Nedson - would vote for him.

[JAB]

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

BTW, I meant to say that I think that the two of us (me with 'Nedson' and you with 'Floppy' - which I think is great) have come up with the perfect nicknames for the two candidates. Just goes to show what average Americans can achieve when they work together.

We should all refer to them with these nicknames for the rest of the campaign and continue to use the nickname to refer to whichever one ends up as governor (probably Haslam) for the entirety of his time in office. Honestly, wouldn't it be great if the nickname caught on and were used in the popular media?

Edited October 29, 2010 by JAB

[DaveTN]

It’s a game. Picture playing Blackjack or poker with a couple of people that are clueless on how the game is played.

Haslam or McWherter one is going to win; that is a given. The rest of those people are thrown in there to impact the outcome.

I still believe you should have to take a test to vote. Ballots should not be multiple choice; you should have to at least know the name of the person you are voting for.

[mikegideon]

BTW, I meant to say that I think that the two of us (me with 'Nedson' and you with 'Floppy' - which I think is great) have come up with the perfect nicknames for the two candidates. Just goes to show what average Americans can achieve when they work together.

We should all refer to them with these nicknames for the rest of the campaign and continue to use the nickname to refer to whichever one ends up as governor (probably Haslam) for the entirety of his time in office. Honestly, wouldn't it be great if the nickname caught on and were used in the popular media?

Doesn't matter what he says if nobody hears it. It's impossible to beat your way through the noise without a huge budget.

[E4 No More]

But you still VOTED.

For the impaired: It's throwing your vote away.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

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.

No, I get it quite well. I already understand that if a Democrat gets that office, because of

voter turnout, with a lot of dissenting voters, it is exactly the same thing as voting for him.

And, of course it turns out that some may have to hold their noses while voting. A primary

was won. Accept it or dissent, but understand that a vote still means more than some

think it does. If you wish to cast a vote that will not benefit either party, why vote?

The trouble is that a dissenting vote, where there are two possible victors, serves no purpose,

other than one's own vanity. Always make your vote count.

[daddyo]

For the impaired: It's throwing your vote away.

There's nothing wrong with me, but thanks for the insult.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It’s a game. Picture playing Blackjack or poker with a couple of people that are clueless on how the game is played.

Haslam or McWherter one is going to win; that is a given. The rest of those people are thrown in there to impact the outcome.

I still believe you should have to take a test to vote. Ballots should not be multiple choice; you should have to at least know the name of the person you are voting for.

It's not a game, at all, but you are right about a test being required.

[JAB]

The trouble is that a dissenting vote, where there are two possible victors, serves no purpose,

other than one's own vanity.

Again, your belief - and you should vote according to your beliefs (of course, you do not require my permission to do so.) I do not share that belief and will vote according to my beliefs. The belief that 'if you aren't going to vote for tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum then there is no reason to vote' is also not a belief I share. Further, I do not believe that voting one's conscience is 'vanity' and I honestly doubt that our Founders would have shared that belief, either.

Anyhow, I have explained my side and those on the opposite have explained theirs. I will not accept your view. Neither am I likely to convince you to accept mine. I am just glad that we live in a country where (at least for now) we can still discuss such things. I am also thankful that we have the ability to vote for alternate candidates - not just choose between two government endorsed candidates or show up to vote for the only 'candidate' on the ballot every few years. To me, the ability to choose to vote for an independent or other 'alternate' candidate - along with actually excercising that option when I truly believe he or she is the best person for the job - is part of what separates us from countries that hold elections in name only with voters being told which candidate their individual 'choice' will be. In the end, that might be all it means but, for me, that is enough.

Edited October 29, 2010 by JAB

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yeh, it is my belief. Do you wish to argue? It's my opinion and I stated it. Okay?

Whether or not you accept something is beyond my control, as it should be.

[daddyo]

It's not a game, at all, but you are right about a test being required.

You might be surprised at who would pass and who would fail such a test.

[JAB]

Yeh, it is my belief. Do you wish to argue? It's my opinion and I stated it. Okay?

Whether or not you accept something is beyond my control, as it should be.

Ummm...perhaps you missed the part where I said:

...you should vote according to your beliefs (of course, you do not require my permission to do so.) I do not share that belief and will vote according to my beliefs...

Anyhow, I have explained my side and those on the opposite have explained theirs. I will not accept your view. Neither am I likely to convince you to accept mine...

In other words, your 'belief' is no more a set in stone fact than mine. It is a difference in opinion, which is okay. The world won't end just because you and I don't agree on this issue. Heck, I'd even go so far as to say that whether Nedson or Floppy or even a long-shot, one in a million independent wins will have little to no impact on whether or not the world, the United States or even Tennessee are here come next election time. You will be just fine if I don't agree with you just as I will be just fine if you don't agree with me. As neither of us is going to accept the view held by the other, there is really no sense in arguing. Hell, arguing doesn't really accomplish much, anyhow. Debate, on the other hand, is a good thing. To this point, we have been debating (or at least I thought that we were.) However, to continue the discussion would probably mean ending up in a useless, senseless argument in which we both would simply be chasing our tails. That would be a waste of time and good will.

Have a nice weekend.

Edited October 29, 2010 by JAB

[Mike.357]

For the impaired: It's throwing your vote away.

in your opinion

[E4 No More]

in your opinion

Bingo! And opinions are like butt-holes: everyone has one and they all stink! Look, the time for voting your conscious is during the primaries; the time to hold your nose while you vote is during the general.

But I find it aggravating when people throw away their vote and then complain about getting the greater of two evils instead of the lesser. If statistics are accurate that's better than 60% of the people on this or any other forum.

[Guest TnRebel]

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!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You might be surprised at who would pass and who would fail such a test.

It wouldn't surprise me, at all.

I would feel better if people got a little more engaged in knowing about the

people they were sending to public office. A test might weed out those that ACORN gave a pack or carton of

cigarettes to, to vote for their man. If they don't give a damn about anything more than that, they shouldn't be

voting in the first place.

Once upon a time, there was a proposal that only land owners be allowed to vote. Similar idea and a sound

concept. The people that are on welfare are probably going to vote for the welfare providers, like a junkie

would do anything for the next fix. Same with many issues.

A more informed public, not a more bribed public.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Just don't neglect to remember how Obama got elected. Even though McCain was a bad

choice, it was still a better, bitter pill to swallow. But one good thing came out of the process.

We are seeing tyranny force fed, and one political party is completely in control right now,

only for the next couple months, hopefully.

Yet, some wish to argue about no choice being available. Haslam won't be the best choice we

could have fielded, but he is the choice that a majority of Tennesseans freely elected as their

candidate for governor. Hell, even some east Tennesseans voted for him. Like Jewell said,

dicker in the primary and get behind the winner.

Some of you people think what Murkowski and Crist did was right. Maybe so, if you aren't really

who you say you are.