just to make sure, everyone here IS voting for kerry, right?

[UpsideDownFlag]

pro gun democrats, despite dissing the california dem legislature and talking about ted nugent, still plan on voting for kerry?

i PROMISE you that he wont take your guns away. unfortunately.

[Vladimir]

1. Not me

I'm not a murrikan ;)

[slackmaster]

2. Unless it turns out he's one of the Crab People or something

pro gun democrats, despite dissing the california dem legislature...

It's my state and I can dis the whole dumbass legislature if I want to. That goes for both parties BTW.

...and talking about ted nugent...

Ted Nugent discussions are not my problem.

i PROMISE you that he wont take your guns away.

No President ever will. That is being done piecemeal by the states.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FeebMaster]

21. You forgot the quotes around pro-gun Democrat.

I guess I should have capitalized Democrat.

[MrBenchley]

4. I am...

He's going to close the gun show loophole and ban assault weapons....

[enfield collector]

24. you mean try to re-ban assualt weapons. the ban expires

in 2 weeks.

[RoeBear]

5. I will...

...no matter how hard some people here try to push me away from
the party.

[DarkPhenyx]

6. Might vote Kerry.

Still undecided, and hoping for a better choice then the "lesser of two evils".

[UpsideDownFlag]

7. i think it just became too late. bush got nominated.

now its him and kerry.

[Vladimir]

8. You forgot Nader

see what I never understood about Nader voters is (and btw. I am not implying you are a Naderite DP) why, when they recognise that a two party democracy is a sham, they don't just walk into a polling station and use their ballot paper to wipe their arse with instead of voting for a guy who is only there to satisfy his own ego. Would get more publicity for the cause...

[UpsideDownFlag]

9. the irony of a third part vote is that it helps the party you like less

a protest vote is a vote for the enemy.

[slackmaster]

16. Almost right

In a truly Democratic election a third-party vote is the equivalent of half a vote for the candidate that wins and half a vote for the candidate that loses.

OTOH with the Electoral College system if you live in a state that favors one major part candidate heavily, voting for a third party to "send a message" does no harm.

[Vladimir]

17. Depends on whether you have proportional

representation or first past the post or whatever... but you are right, in a safe state either way, a vote for Nader would do Kerry no direct harm. But there are two caveats:

1) It is hard to judge which states are completely safe.

2) You'd be voting for Nader.

As a communist, I support the position of the CPUSA which is backing Kerry but hasn't endoresd him to avoid giving Bush a free PR victory...

[slackmaster]

19. I wouldn't vote for Nader for dog catcher if Satan was his only opponent

I might vote for a Libertarian or even a Green as a protest as long as it would do no harm, but never Ralph Nader.

[Jackie97]

51. Unfortunately....

"lesser of the two evils" is your only real option in the United States.

We have a "first past the post" type of system, which prevents more than two parties from having any real influence here.

If you vote for anybody other than Kerry or Bush, then you might as well stay at home. Save yourself a trip. It's a waste of a vote.

I don't know what your politics normally are. I'm guessing that you don't find either of the parties to be to your liking. I think that we should consider the route that people like Howard Dean took on it. Howard Dean wants reform, but he knows he can't get it from a party like the Green party. Therefore, he is a Democrat. He works in the Democratic Party to try to reform it. That's what I would suggest. I would suggest joing one of the two parties, and trying to help reform it from the inside; not screaming from the outside that you want change.

In order for change to come in the parties, we need people to press our "leaders" to favor what we want through letters, protests, donating to special interest groups, etc. John Kerry will not consider what you want for policy by saying "I won't vote for you. I'll vote for the Libertarian". He'll consider what you say by saying "I'm for/against (fill in the blank) and I VOTE". Remember Clinton's attacks on smokers and the companies in the 1990's? I noticed that he stopped when a bunch of bumper stickers came out that said "I smoke, and I vote". That's a dumb thing to make an issue out of on either side, but I think you see my point.

The problem with W is that he literally thinks he knows what best for the country with little to no regard for what the majority wants. An example would be the abortion issue. He knows that most Americans are pro-choice, yet he pushes for "pro-life" legislation and judges.

I think that Kerry cares a lot about what voters think because of how much he keeps changing his opinion about Iraq. LOL. He clearly doesn't want to commit political suicide. He wants votes. That's the type of president that we need. We don't need some crazy guy that acts like he's annointed from God. We need a man who considers that what the people think, and considers the possiblity that the people know what's best for themselves; not a man who thinks he knows what's best for us.

Just food for thought.

[countmyvote4real]

10. This is no time to fragment the vote against the * juggernaut.

I am voting for Kerry because * must be stopped now. If we can get Kerry elected, we can at least hold his feet to the fire and those of our local legislators for some progressive change. (I live in NYC, so I have better local options, Bloomberg being the exception.)

If * prevails, I’m out of here and looking for another country. I can be an idealist to a point, but I’m ultimately a pragmatist. Those with loftier goals and stronger stomachs are welcome to sacrifice themselves, but be prepared for a “Come to Jesus” moment. Supreme Court appointments are for life.

[skippythwndrdog]

11. Regardless of the outcome in November, running away won't help

If everyone who gets pissed off about any election result leaves the country, who will be here to fight the next round? Sure. You can vote absentee but it's awfully hard to campaign for change (if the Repugs win) or to campaign for maintenance of the power structure (if Kerry wins) from outside the borders of the U.S.

Just a thought.

[MrBenchley]

12. Boy, the excitement just leaps off the page, doesn't it?

I can tell our "pro gun democrats" are excited to have a candidate with a plan to create jobs, forge an international coalition to make the world safer, protect the environment, create alternative energy sources, revitalize public education, etc...

[IwoVet1945]

13. Voting for Kerry and progun ownership.

Been a democrat for 58 years, pro-gun, and voting for Kerry.

[John BigBootay]

34. Truly an Iwo Jima vet???

If so-- I want to figuratively shake your hand, pat you on the back and say a heartfelt "thank you."

[goju]

14. The fact that you direct that question

at gun owners indicates that the propaganda has worked on you. Gun owners are democrats too, despite what you have been told.

[library_max]

26. Except that he didn't direct the question at gun owners.

He directed it at "pro gun Democrats." There's a difference. Plenty of gun owners are nevertheless in favor of gun controls. Some of them even post in JPS.

[goju]

27. Oh, ok

Lets play semantics then.

"pro gun Democrats" may or may not be gun owners, you are correct. Silly me!

[library_max]

28. Well, they aren't ALL of the gun owners, that's for sure.

That's like saying that all white people are Klansmen because all Klansmen are white people.

[goju]

29. Yeah

and to pretend we dont understand to whom the original post was directed is an exemplary waste of time.

[library_max]

31. Very true.

It was directed at RKBA fanatics, not at gun owners in general. Pretending not to understand that is a waste of time.

Of course, if we really wanted to know what the original post meant, we could ask the original poster. Or, alternately, we could try to make trouble by deliberately confusing the difference between RKBAers and all gun owners generally.

[goju]

32. Very false

It wasnt directed at "RKBA fanatics", it was directed at "pro gun Democrats". All RKBA'ers are NOT pro gun Democrats. Was your misleading quote an attempt to "make trouble by deliberately confusing the difference" or was it just sloppy thinking?

If you "really" want to know to whom the post was directed, just ask yourself where it was posted? I dont think its a logical leap to conclude that he was directing the post at "gun owners" who visit DU, ie pro gun Democrats, is it? I dont think he intended for ALL pro gun democrats to read the post and I dont think he intended for all gun owners read the post. I think he was trying to get the attention of pro gun owning Democrats who post on DU. So I dont think my reference to "gun owners" needs to be analyzed with such unrelenting scrutiny, does it?

Can we get passed this childish game of semantics yet?

[library_max]

33. Not all gun owners in DU are "pro gun Democrats."

Many post in favor of gun controls.

[FeebMaster]

35. So do a most of the "pro-gun Democrats"

to my everlasting amusement.

[goju]

36. Ah!

"Not all gun owners in DU are "pro gun Democrats. Many post in favor of gun controls."

So you have concluded that all "pro gun Democrats" on DU reject COMPLETELY the idea of gun controls. How did you come by that notion?

I have said repeatedly that certain gun controls, trigger locks, background checks (if they worked) etc, are appropriate gun controls. I would venture a guess that MOST "pro gun Democrats" and/or gun owners on DU would indeed support certain gun controls.

[library_max]

39. Of course there is a difference

between being willing to tolerate some very limited gun controls and actually posting in JPS in favor of gun controls. When's the last time you posted in JPS on the gun control side of any argument? I mean, not to imply hyprocrisy or anything . . .

[goju]

40. Last week

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=82823#82828

Post #3

Please DONT suggest hypocrisy, I mean what I say.

[library_max]

47. Yes, that post was very supportive of gun control.

"What we have now are lunatics with a gun phobia setting policy and spewing propaganda in an area in which they are rabidly biased and overwhelmingly ignorant."

Gee, with friends like you . . .

[goju]

48. Well you asked

I never said I agreed with current gun control measures, or the people proposing. I said that I, like many others, do support and advocate some gun control measures.

[UpsideDownFlag]

37. my post was aimed at the people who habitually post

anti feinstein, anti-vpc, and anti anything else progressive they can think of Threads. i used Pro Gun not as a blanket statement, but because that's what they call themselves. if you are a progunner who doesn't feel the need to bitch about dems or ask "why should a gun owner vote for kerry"...this thread isn't for you.

[goju]

41. Well

I thank you for the clarification, even if it is not all that helpful.

You put me in the lot with those (whoever they are, I havent seen them) who post anti progressive, anti feinstein threads. I am however, anti VPC. Not necessarily a progressive lobby if you ask me.

But I dont think feeling a need to "bitch" about a policy or politician who happens to wear the D label, necessarily makes you a anti progressive. After all, we should be able to debate the policies they advocate, shouldnt we? I cant think of a person alive I completely agree with, except myself. If that makes ME anti progressive in your eyes, so be it.

I have not seen anyone attacking anyone (legislator, lobbyist) on issues other than their gun stance. Maybe you have but, I dont think its fair to beg the question that "pro gun Democrats" might not vote for Kerry. This is DU after all. Despite disagreement on guns, I think we are all pretty much on the same page politically.

[library_max]

38. If you "really" want to know to whom the post was directed, read post #37.

[goju]

42. See post 41

[enfield collector]

15. yes.

[FatSlob]

18. Yup

[TheRovingGourmet]

20. I'm a LaRouche man myself. hahahaha

[Romulus]

22. was there any other option? (eom)

[gatlingforme]

23. I don't know ? how do you respond to rhetoric like this>>>

"Okay you pro gun morons, are you voting for Kerry or what? I promise he will make nice with you..........." LOL Your questions are compromised by the tongue in cheek method you use. I will not respond to this BS, but I will vote for Kerry .

[MrSandman]

25. Voting for ...

Kerry for socioeconomic issues

I will trust my Rep. to protect my RKBA.

[neverborn]

30. I wouldn't if I could vote.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vladimir]

44. Goodbye... n/t

[Romulus]

46. wow, only 8 posts (eom)

[mosin]

45. Unenthusiastically

Sadly I live in Ohio, so I don't have the luxury of a protest vote.

[library_max]

49. Gee, thanks for all your support. /nt

[mosin]

52. Enthusiasm...

is not required.

I make no apologies for being a (relocated) Texas Democrat. Read the Texas GOP platform and see why a moderate might gravitate toward the Texas Democratic Party.

When the national DNC nominates a pro-gun, moderate candidate for president, I'll be appropriately enthusiastic. Until then, it's the lesser of two evils.

Of course, we could always adopt Instant Runoff Voting or the Condorcet Method for our elections and make things more interesting....

[Jackie97]

50. I am...

but only because I don't have anything better to vote for. That doesn't mean he won't get the same amount of protests and angry letters from me that Bush does.

[Lefty48197]

53. Good one JibJab! Voting for Kerry?

That's hilarious. These gun nuts will vote for a yella dawg, before they'll vote for a Democrat.

[UpsideDownFlag]

54. lol