Okay . . .
I’m against abortion and against the death penalty.
I’m against the RCC or Judaism or Wicca or anything else being invoked in our laws inasmuch as I don’t think God has a place in government.
I don’t think there’s any problem with same-sex marriages.
I’d rather someone not tell me I can’t buy a gun. I’m willing to attend classes or something to be able to carry said gun.
So who the hell supports all of this? Neither Bush nor Gore. Nader doesn’t seem to.
The closest I can think of is Harry Browne. I’ll give you the low down:
He disapproves of publicly funded abortions.
He doesn’t like religon in laws and such.
He agrees fully with that.
I’m unsure about his gun ideas, I would assume because he’s a Libertarian that the gov’t has no business saying that but I could be wrong.
Some points you might want to think about:
He wants to cut/privitise alot of gov’t orgs. (If not all) the FDA is one included.
He wants to privitise education, and cut all laws requiring anyone to go.
Anyone else feel fre to comment.
IMO, the closest is Gore.
But you’re right – you’re not going to find any candidate that shares all of those views.
Really?
Gore is pro choice.
Gore supports the death penalty.
Picked a high profile Orthodox Jew as a running mate…and often makes reference to his own Southern Baptist heritage and how it influences his life (and perhaps…his policies…?)
Supports a photo “license” for new owners of hand guns.
Is currently opposed to same sexed marriages.
(I don’t think Bush is any closer a match)…
I don’t see any “closest” candidate…although to be honest, I don’t know Harold Brownes position on the death penalty abd the particulars on his abortion stance)
I’ve actually been thinking about voting for my mother . . . she shares most of, if not all of, my views on the “important” stuff.
Gore . . .um, no. Same for Bush. Nader, I don’t sink so. With the thing on education, I don’t think Browne gets my vote.
And before you start laughing about me voting for my mother, think about this: I’m not voting for the person who’s closest to my views. I’m not voting for gore so I don’t vote for bush, because that infers some sort of approval of his policies. I am not in favor of Gore or Bush running this country.
Beagledave questioned what I said, so allow me to explain:
Yes, Gore is pro-choice. Yes, Bush is anti-abortion. But the OP didn’t say he wanted abortion outlawed. I’m against abortion too, but I’m also pro-choice. This one probably favors Bush, though.
Yes, both men favor the death penalty. But Bush is rather, um, overenthusiastic about it. And I have a Chicago Tribune article (10/16/00) in front of me titled, “Texas criticized on death penalty: Study by defenders group says system is deeply flawed, biased.” This is not the first criticism of the Texas death penalty system. The edge goes to Gore, I think.
While Gore and Lieberman may talk about their religion, they’re not trying to get it forced into government. Bush, on the other hand, supports creationism in science class, posting of the 10 Commandments by government entities, and other Religious Right agenda items. In a choice strictly between Gore and Bush, you’ve got to go with Gore easily on this one.
Both of them are against “same-sex marriages.” However, Gore and Lieberman have indicated that they would look into some way of recognizing same-sex partnerships, such as in regards to legal rights and the like. Again, advantage: Gore.
Gore has stated outright that he will not ban guns (I believe it was the 2nd debate). Since banning is the only concern here, it’s a toss-up, since Bush wouldn’t do it, either.
So, we have 1 for Bush, 2 clearly for Gore, 1 more leaning for Gore, and a tie. Without using “fuzzy math,” that looks like Gore is the closest match between the two of them.
Now, if you want to move on to Harry Browne, then he might indeed be the closest match (I wasn’t considering him when I posted my message), though he will not be for banning abortion (and thus is not a perfect match).
David B
I agree with you on abortion, and the death penalty.
Bush 1 to Gore 1
I see no problem with your call on Seperation of Church and State.
Bush 1 to Gore 2
I disagree with you on same-sex marriages. I think that is a clear tie. Both Bush and Gore have come out against it. I want to give the benefit of the doubt in this issue to the Democrats, but I think the Republicans hedged their bets with Cheney’s statement during the VP debate. I don’t think we will see movement on this issue at the federal level during the next 4 years no matter who is elected.
Bush 2 to Gore 3
Guns. I have a clear disagreement with your call on this one. Gore ONLY addressed sportsman and hunters. He never addressed self-defense in the debates. It would be fair to say that Gore avoided making his stance on handguns public. Bush is clearly the favorite in 2nd Amendment rights. In addition, the way I read it, iampunha specifically said he wanted to CARRY his gun. Unless he comes back and clarifies this, this would mean that iampunha wants the ability to leagally carry concealed. If this is what he said, then there is a clear advantage to Bush here.
Bush 3 to Gore 3
By my count Browne would score as a 5.
Allow me to clarify some of this to make it easier . . . and thanks to those who’ve responded.
I do not believe abortion or killing of humans should be legal. So I am anti-death. That is, I do not believe any human is endowed with the right to kill anyone, order that death, be a member of a panel that decides that, etc. In other words, no human being is allowed to kill another human being. If you kill, you’re not going to die.
I think that while religion is great, there’s a time and place for it, and the US government is neither of those.
If, for example, Dr. Matrix and Cajun Man want to get married, all the power in the world to them. I don’t see the logic behind not extending the legal rights of married couples to people marrying within their gender.
Haziest of all. While I don’t think it’s a very good idea to let people walk around on the street with machine guns, I think I should be allowed to carry a concealed pistol or hunting rifle or such . . . something that isn’t automatic and can’t be made to be such unless, like, you make guns or something. Basically, I think it should be something where you need skill to operate it and need to pass some sort of training program to be allowed to carry it. Entirely too many people have died from guns misfiring or gunfights where the people just do not know how to fire a gun. And no, this is not based on a fact or figure I’ve seen. This is personal opinion:)
I’d add in things about my views on lower school education, but my feeling is that this isn’t an issue that’s pushed a lot.
These issues are listed in order of importance. 1 is much, much more important to me than 4.
Harry Browne is your man.
Seriously, I realize his chances of winning this election are small but given what you have stated you are along the lines of Libertarianism. In addition, we are not throwing away our votes if you go a third party. The more that step up and vote their beliefs rather than within the realms of what is “popular” we all are standing up and giving a voice to Washington that things need to be changed…
#1. Government’s role in abortion should not be. If you are against or for it does not matter. This is an issue that remains along the lines of the moral issues within the woman/couple dealing with the issue. Personally I believe that the government needs to keep their hands off the legislation and the ultimate judge (if you so believe) is God, Goddess, whatever. In addition, no laws will stop abortion as women have been using methods for thousands of years to induce abortion, it’s time to get government out of the process and let the women decide for themselves, right or wrong in your eyes. Should we start throwing women in jail for abortions? No, there are two adults involved in this process and if women are subjected to such a thing then the man should also be subjected for planting his “seed” as it takes two to tango. This is why I believe government does not belong in this issue. Libertarians are very split on this issue but since the government is not involved (in a strict Libertarian society) it leaves the people involved to deal with the issue at hand.
#2. Religion and government do not mix, in addition it is a part of our Constitution although some like to believe otherwise. Browne believes you are free to support your religion as you so believe provided your religion does not trample on the rights of others as outlined in The Constitution, if it is not problematic with regards to other citizens rights you are free to practice your religion as you see fit. Worship the green and purple striped one eyed monster named Bob if you choose but there is no role for government to legislate religion of any kind.
#3. Again, this leaves things up to you as a human being. Why is it important that the government be involved in the marriage process anyway? In this case it is more a moral issue and usually a religious issue which does not belong within the realms of government. If gay man and gay man choose to have a union who should be allowed to judge whether or not that union is legal? Certainly not government. Government is meant to provide basic services that run along the lines of The Constitution.
#4. A VERY hot topic, but it is clear that the majority of gun owners are law abiding people. Once you include a crazy program called the “drug war” you have opened up a very strong underground of “criminals” that are protecting their territories, etc. You have to look at both issues in this case and realize they are mostly working together to create gun problems. I am against gun laws in any form, but that’s my strictest of Libertarian views. If you are against more gun laws neither Repub nor Democrat parties are working to enforce the existing laws…even Senator McCain has a commerical in my state about the “gun show” loophole, he’s not even from Colorado. It’s full of fluff and no stuff, no hard facts that scream worthy of voting for. If a criminal wants to get a gun a criminal will find a way, stealing, buying one in the underground or a person that has never committed a crime but has intentions or may do so in the future. There is no way to keep guns out of the hands of those that are lawless.
I must add that violence using guns has declined since the late 70’s (check out the FBI’s website and you can verify my statement).
So, in my opinion you may like to think about Harry Browne. It seems he speaks more true to what you believe than what the two major parties are spewing.
Freedom2 said:
Using fuzzy math? How do you figure he’s a 5? You didn’t count them up – you just proclaimed it to be so.
And I still disagree with you on the homosexual marriage bit. Yes, both are against actually calling it “marriage.” But Gore indicated some sort of legal recognition, which is probably the best that they’re going to get anytime soon.
Actually.I’m not sure how much a president can influence most death penalty issues anyway…most death penalty cases are state cases…I suppose the only real influence a president could have would be to appoint Thurgood Marshall clones to create a Supreme Court who would rule the death penalty as cruel and inhumane…and unconsitutional…somewhat unlikely I think…
While very real, your list of concerns misses the number one concern that should be on top of everyone’s list. And that is, quite simply the state of the economy.
Many analysts are concerned that hard times are on the horizon. I happen to agree with them. We’ve already seen interest rates take several hikes this year. We’ve seen a strong stock market recede to start-of-the-year levels. We’ve seen the unemployment rate start to waver. And most telling, we’ve seen corporate profits tank.
I intend to keep making my mortgage payments, to eating well, to occasionally buying new clothes, and to save money for my eventual retirement.
To do this, I need to have a job. And I believe that the spending and taxing that Gore proposes would promote an environment much less conducive to a sound economy.
Much of the boom of the 60’s is attributable to the tax cut initiated by Kennedy. Much of the boom of the 80’s is due to the Reagan tax cut. Much of the boom of the 90’s is due to the cash influx caused by 401k plans.
The 2000’s are going to need something to promote the economy and the anti-business climate in the Gore proposals isn’t it. I’ve heard little on the economic policies of Nader, Browne, and most other “minor” candidates. Buchanan scares me.
That leaves Bush. GW will be getting my vote on November 7.
David B, your democratic pro-Gore bias is showing, and it aint pretty.
**
Lets see. Bush supports banning abortion which iampunha does. Neither bush nor gore supports getting rid of the Death Penalty, true Bush is more enthusiasitic, but gore has absolutely no qualms about it. How in the hell does gore get the edge on point one?
beagledave said:
Most – but not all. There are federal death penalty statutes, which the president obviously can have some say over.
oldscratch said:
Then you’re seeing things. I am neither a Democrat nor pro-Gore (as far as I know, I am still a registered Republican; before that, I was a registered Libertarian). I will admit to being less anti-Gore than I am anti-Bush, but that’s hardly the same thing. And I don’t let it get in the way of objective discussions like this one. Indeed, as I noted later, if you want to include all of the candidates, Harry Browne is probably the one to vote for.
He doesn’t. Read it again. I split point one into two parts because they are different issues. Bush got the edge in the abortion part. I felt Gore got the edge in the death penalty part for the reasons I mentioned. If you added up the points, you would have seen how I split them.
Allow me to clarify yet again.
In an ideal world, there would be no abortion or cause for the death penalty or abortion.
Like that’s ever going to happen. So long as humans have free will (let us suppose we/they do, for my purposes), people will be killed and abortions performed (I don’t see a difference between the two, but there are those who do).
No state should allow an abortion, in my mind. That doesn’t mean the federal government gets involved, that means the state government gets involved. Somewhat akin to how taxes were originally done, IIRC. States collect and use.
I just don’t believe anyone has the innate right or priviledge to kill anyone. IOW, I don’t see how anyone has been given, or earned, the right to kill someone . . . that power can only be given, in my mind, by whatever gives life itself.
The way I see it, I would love to vote for Harry Browne, but I think his campaign depends on humans being decent people. I don’t think that is the case. I agree with parts of his stance on how government shouldn’t interfere with the lives of the citizens, but what happens when someone’s murdered or an abortion performed? I simply don’t think anyone should be given the right or duty to kill another. That others take that I don’t see as being right.
Bush cant even do anything about the death penalty.
Hey, you asked who supported certain viewpoints. Now you’re changing the game.
As I said, you will find nobody in the current crop (or, likely, in almost any crop) of candidates who supports all of those. Your choice really comes down to this: You can vote for the candidate who agrees on the most, you can vote for the major candidate who agrees on the most, or you can not vote at all.
Well, I’ll say this: I ain’t voting for Gore. I ain’t voting for Bush. I’m tempted to vote for Browne because he’s more likely than my mother to win the election or get a significant number of votes.
However. I’m not about to give my vote to the person who stands for “most” or “the most important part” of what I believe. If that were the case, I’d vote for Bush purely due to the rumors of his appointing Supreme Court justices who are pro-life.
Sometimes I wish this country weren’t made up of states but lots of cities, like other countries. Would make it a lot easier to formulate plans to eliminate abortion, bans on same-sex marriages, the death penalty, etc.
iampunha, you realize a vote for Mom is a vote for Bush, right?
::ducks and runs::
Sorry David, I misread the final part of your post. Got it.
And as for iampunha. Nader comes pretty close? Let’s take a look
As stated, both Bush and Gore are pro-killing. Nader is anti-death penalty. Nader can actually stop death-penalties if elected.
Abortion? It is unlikely any canidate will have much effect on abortion if elected. But, here are Nader’s words on it.
“I donÕt think government has the proper role in forcing a woman to have a child or forcing a woman not to have a child. And weÕve seen that around the world. This is something that should be privately decided with the family, woman, all the other private factors of it, but we should work toward preventing the necessity of abortion.”
Nader is much more strongly in favor of this than either Bush or Gore.
Nader supports gay rights much more actively than Bush or Gore.
Nader on the subject. “You have people who are killed or injured with guns and you have law-abiding people who want to use certain kinds of guns for self-defense. How do you blend the two? First of all, make sure the weapons are designed safely with trigger locks. … Two, strong law enforcement so that they’re not falling into the hands of the criminal element. Three, you look at a weapon the way you look at a car. You’ve got to know how to handle it. You should be licensed. … And four, there are certain weapons that should be banned. If you do all that, both interests will be protected.”
So Nader supports everything except abortion. And on abortion it’s unlikely that any change will come on it anyway. Seems like Nader or Browne are your canidates.