It's Time To Do What's Best For The Country

Let's pause for just a moment and put aside parties, personalities, etc. Let's go to the polls and vote for the person we believe is truly best for our country. We have serious major problems that have to be fixed fast. We have no time to wait and see. Forget about the personality and the party of the candidate and vote your conscience for the person that has the right ideas for fixing and preserving the USA.

 

that’s good advice but don’t people already vote for who they think is best for the country?

 

http://voteforpolicies.us/survey/select

I'd recommend doing that, takes the policies of each candidate on each issue and lets you choose them without knowing whose they are.

 

Not as many as you would think. There are many individuals who vote for the lesser of two evils (Republican and Democratic) and not for who they believe is best for this country. This mindset that the vast majority of Americans has is a good reason why so many eligible voters don't vote on election days and why third parties can never hope to win the presidency. Until the "lesser of two evils" mindset change, people are going to wonder why they are so dissatisfied with the lack of progress.

 

Its my inherent right as a US citizen to vote according to any belief I wish.

Who gives you the right to tell me how I should and shouldn't vote?

What you are doing in this post is the very thing you are telling people not to do.

You are being a hypocrite.

 

How exactly can it "take the policies of each candidate on each issue" when so many of these "policies" are lacking far too many specifics to accurately judge them?

 

They should but many only vote for they have been TOLD is bad for the country by fat drug addicts on the radio and 'news' networks owed by foreigners.

 

Or when one of the candidate has held every side of every issue in the last week or so?

 

thats why things never change and we continue to live in this police state because the american sheople fall for it over and over again willing to vote in evil by saying-anybody but Obama.

Problem is Romney is evil as well and by voting in the lesser evil,they are part of the problem.would be a perfect world if we lived in one where the choices came down to the two finalists being gary johnson and ron paul wouldnt it? we can only dream.

 

The worst thing about it is that the people have an opportunity to change all of this by voting for who they want. If people just voted for who they though were the best (and not because Obama is black), perhaps this election would be more than a wash-out that results in another four years of bickering from Congress (because the way things are going, it is very likely we'll receive a split Congress again and we know how well that's going).

And yeah, had this election been between Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, I probably would be paying a lot more attention because those are the two people that I could see producing the change this country needs in order to get better. Heck, I voted for Gary Johnson because I feel he's the only candidate that I possibly see doing much good. Granted, I feel Obama would do a slightly better job than Romney if given a second term, but I don't think either are good choices.

Also, *points to signature*. I have some words to say in the likely case we get a split Congress again.

 

No they don't. Too often people vote what is good for their personal interest. True Americans should be very concerned the government forces religions to pay for contraception that is against their moral beliefs, but the problem is that people want something for free so they are willing to sacrifice the rights of others and votes themselves some free stuff.

Obama used taxpayer money to buy votes in Ohio and Michigan through the unnecessary auto bailout, which was really just a union bailout. Obama purchased the votes in the right states because those are swing states. Don't for second think those people are voting for the good of the country. They are voting their pocket book.

 

If a healthcare plan includes contraception, then an employer is bound to provide such. They aren't a church, they are an employer.

Aren't nearly everyone voting their pocket book. The republicans complaining about taxes and unemployment and deficit and debt are certainly voting their pocket books.
Or am I missing something here?

 

but i think a church dictating your health are by its own theology is wrong even if you work for it
the problem of this thread is it boils down to vote for who I think is good for America

 

Only you could find a way to attack someone saying people should vote on policy not politics.

It gives you a bunch of statements and you pick which best describes your position. It's not perfect, but it actually works quite well.

I don't think that's true. The candidates definitely have differing policies on different issues.

 

But here is the problem with you thinking it is wrong for a religion to choose its own morals; that isn't for you to decide in a free country. What happens when the government forces you to do something that you don't agree with? You may cheer now because you have the power to force others to pay for what you believe in, but when the expanding government tramples your rights, then you have no place to complain.

 

Why are the best candidates always the ones that never have a chance of getting elected?

 

And then there are the voters that still swallow the BS party line and propaganda of 'buying votes' and 'bailing out unions'.

 

It's a very simple proposition. After four years of an Obama Presidency and Democrat controlled congress the first two years and controlling the Senate all four years the economy is still in a shambles and GDP is falling lower this year than last and last year was lower than the previous. Unemployment is still abysmally and unacceptably high. Labor participation rates the lowest in decades from people just giving up on their futures. The deficits have been over a TRILLION dollars the last 4 years.

Obama said if we passed his stimulus unemployment would not go over 8%, that it would be below 6% by now. He said he would cut the deficit in half in two years. He said his policies would put us into a full robust recovery.

He has failed. He offers nothing new. He offers nothing of substance. He has no plans. All he can do even these last few days before the election is just speciously and fallaciously attack Romney.

Romney has laid out a plan, one that will work to get us into the economic recovery we so desperately need, one that will get people working again and paying taxes again. One where we have a future not on government subsistence but of our own industriousness and abilities.

The choice is clear, all other issues are moot. I faced the same decision when Carter ran for reelection. I had voted for him the first time in spite of my general support of Republican candidates. By the time he ran for reelection his failure as President was evident. Voted for Reagan and it was the best vote I ever cast. Time for the same reflections about Obama.

 

How does anyone ignore the character and history of the candidates and then proceed to "vote their conscience"? It's like saying "Mr. Police Sniper, ignore who the bad guy and and who the good guy is, put that blindfold on and shoot".

 

The Church doesn't dictate anyone's health. It doesn't even have the authority to stop employees from getting contraceptives.

What it DOES HAVE is the RIGHT to abstain from paying for medical services or insurance coverage for medical practices it's religious beliefs forbid it to condone.

Not one woman wanting contraceptives is denied them by the Catholic Church.

All the cheap broads have to do is pay for it themselves.

There's nothing wrong, nothing at all, with telling someone they have to pay their own way.

Not if you're an American.

 

Isn't the ability to win the election part of the criteria for deciding who the "best" candidate is?

Ron Paul was never the "best" candidate, he was never electable, plus he clearly didn't understand the concept of freedom of seas.

The Democrats never have a "best' candidate, not in the last 100 years they haven't. But they still get elected, even if, like JFK, they have to steal the election.

Want to know what happens when enough little dweebs sit on the sidelines awaiting the best candidate to satisfy their little prima-donna asses? The worst candidate gets elected.

Instead of Bush, the fools that supported the nut Ross Perot allowed the inauguration of a serial rapist and sexual predator. Instead of voting for Romney, these dweeb perfectionists are risking the holding of the Executive Branch by person known to detest the United States, for another four years and at least another six thousand billion dollars.

And the sad thing is, these dweebs will be proud of the damage they've done, if King Obama manages to steal this election.

=====

Three times in the last 100 years has the rise of a turd party been significant in US history.

First there was Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party, which split the GOP vote in 1912, allowing the worst president in US history to set the nation on the path it's trod ever since. Truman DRAGGED the US into the Euoropean War (and incidentally probably causing the Great Influenza Pandemic that he later caught), he created the Federal Reserve, which caused and prolonged the Great Depression, and he segrated government and the military.

Then there was Ross Perot's petty feuding with the Bushes, which installed in the White House a perjuring sexual predator who was later impeached.

Then there was what should have been an irrelevantly minor turd party headed by little Ralphie Nader....but he managed to siphon enough left-wing looney loser votes in Florida to create a net benefit for the nation, ie, denying Al Gore the electoral votes of Florida.

Since there are no viable turd party candidates, the only thing a turd party can do, if it takes votes that would otherwise go to Romney, is deny Romney essential electoral votes needed to defeat King Obama.

No real American would do that.

 

No i think its wrong for a church to force its morals on its employees that is for them to decide it’s a free country

 

What morals are you talking about and since it is a free country the company has the right to do so and the employee has a right to leave. Now if it is a matter of trying to instill their faith as a condition of employment you have a better point.

 

What morals are you talking about and since it is a free country the company has the right to do so and the employee has a right to leave. Now if it is a matter of trying to instill their faith as a condition of employment you have a better point.