You advocate withholding your vote or giving it to a 3rd part candidate. You believe that is helpful to our nation and have no problem if that ends up ushering in someone worse than Bill Clinton.
I'm sorry that your need to be elite is more important to you than common sense. I don't speak your language. It's pure folly and is, in essence, all about you and your soap box.
If your goals were truly unselfish, you would work with what you have and keep working harder for more.
But I'm sure you have signed a lifetime contract as a bona fide unappeasable and must therefore remain as such.
Sorry. I see nothing in any of your posts that would hint at gender. The masculine is also the neutral form.
You advocate withholding your vote or giving it to a 3rd part candidate.
I advocate giving my vote to whomever will do the most to ensure this Nation's survival. I have been trying to pry an agenda out of the Pubs for nearly forty years now. They tend to "wing it". After being a registered, participating, and financially supporting Pub for that length of time, one would think I could get a statement of Party intent. I only get requests for more money, never a reply to questions or requests for information. I need to know that I am voting for the right people. When the Pubs' action in Congress becomes indistinguishable from the Dems', I think it is appropriate to take my current tact. The whole idea of representation is representation. I honestly don't see that happening. One might assume that they take their constituents for granted. By all means, present evidence to the contrary.
I'm sorry that your need to be elite...
Peculiar, indeed. I have no herding instinct. If that is a prerequisite for participation in the affairs of State, then I'll have to keep bludgeoning my way along. I'm not a social animal; and, have no need whatsoever to lead the pack. On the other hand, I have no need to follow lemmings. If you think reading the Founding documents betrays a need to be elite, then I know I'm courting the wrong Party. If you think that I would be misguided to hold Constitutional knowledge as a prerequisite for becoming a congresscritter, then the Nation is in serious trouble. (Chalk that up to government schools.)
If your goals were truly unselfish, you would work...
That is precisely what I hope I am doing. My ideals are based on my understanding of the Founding documents. I have watched this Nation change quite a lot since the 1960's; and, only a few changes have been healthy. If I can convince one congresscritter that his continued stay in office at my expense is contingent upon doing the right thing instead of "playing the game", progress has been made. My vote is all I can use to affect needed change. If I say this yet remain unwilling to make good on the threat, then what is the point of beating the drum? If the congresscritters get the idea that there might be a large number of people unhappy with the way things now work, I expect that changes might begin to happen. Perot's erosion of the vote sent a clear message: There can be a protest vote. Now they know people aren't giving them free reign on our behalf. I don't view cheerleading or cheering as meaningful work.
I have a vote to cast. It is the congresscriter's job to convince me that my vote is well-placed beside his name. I'd like to suggest that more effort be expended to address that responsibility rather than having a cow because I prefer to exercise my vote in a responsible manner. If you are under the impression that my vote must be cast because of the color of the Party banner, then I must tell you that you are using your vote in a very irresponsible fashion.
But I'm sure you have signed a lifetime contract as a bona fide unappeasable..
I've spent a lifetime supporting the Pubs, then watching them heal for the Dems. I prefer to hang out with people with backbone. I'd rather stand on the deck of a sinking ship knowing that I never compromised my ideals.
If the Pubs are "so much on track", how come there seems to be no statement of purpose? Why are there laws that violate every entry in the Bill of Rights, yet not one Pub will state that he will fight to reverse that condition? All I am looking for is an indication that I'm expending my vote on the solution rather than the problem.
If the Pubs are so damn smart, why doesn't someone take a crack at this rather than berating me because I'm taking a firm stand?
You have yet to answer any of my questions. Neither has any of your tribe. Try these on for size:
1. Do you believe that the Constitution is the basis for the law of the land?
2. Do you believe that the Constitution is a "living document", to be interpreted for the moment?
3. Do you believe that there are laws that seriously violate the Constitution?
4. Assuming that you believe #3 to be true, do you know of any Pub congresscritter who has taken a stand to reverse this trend? (I'm covering Ron Paul ... you have to mention others.)
Imagine my confusion when I come here looking for reasons to continue voting the Pub ticket only to find myself being berated as I directly exercise the intent of the First Amendment. If you imagine yourself to be helping "the cause", I beg you to reconsider. That goes for the rest of your "attack tribe".