Mine is similar. For me, add/change:My Presidential Election voting record:
84: Reagan (R)
88: Bush (R)
92: Perot (I)
96: Dole (R)
2000: Bush (R)
2004: Bush (R)
2008: McCain (R)
2012: Romney (R)
I don't count voting for Perot changing party afflictions though, I call that a mistake. I vote in all elections and I typically vote for Republican Senators and Representatives, however, I have voted for some Libertarians lower on the ballot.
Mine is similar. For me, add/change:
80: Reagan
12: Ron Paul
Reagan, Perot, and Paul were the only ones I voted for. My other votes were the lesser of two evils. In the case of Paul for '12, I was going to select Romney as the lesser of two evils, until the changed the rules at the republican convention. Because of that, I didn't vote for a single republican, one democrat, and the rest were third party or write-ins.
I called the Romney campaign and RNC and told them I projected a loss because of how they pissed off so many people by changing the rules in the middle of the game.
I'm not so inclined to say Paul should have been given a seat in the cabinet. That would be cool, but that's not how decisions should be made. It really angered me, and many others, that they feared Paul's influence and possible shakeup of the convention, that they changed the rules in the middle of the process.I did not agree to that rule change you are referring to, because the Republicans would have been better off including Ron Paul and friends instead of pushing some of them away. On some fiscal issues Ron Paul can be great and he and his organization should have been treated with a little bit more respect, and if Romney had won, he should have had Ron Paul in the Cabinet somehow. Whether the RNC and Romney agreed with Ron Paul or not, just as a tactical move, they should have included him more since he does represent a certain faction of the Republican Party.
I'm not so inclined to say Paul should have been given a seat in the cabinet. That would be cool, but that's not how decisions should be made. It really angered me, and many others, that they feared Paul's influence and possible shakeup of the convention, that they changed the rules in the middle of the process.
I will never forgive those responsible for such a boneheaded move. Had they payed the game fair, rather than underhanded, I would have voted for Romney. No my favorite at all, but in many ways I do like him.
The Democrats are not as bad as the Republicans, and it is not close.From one Viking to another.
Why don't you just vote third party? The 21st century democrats are just as bad as the republicans? Do you really consider them the lesser of two evils?
And that's why you said it, right. You knew someone would see you logic...
As the man said. "If you're not a liberal when you're young, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative when you're older, you have no head."
I myself have shifted position on a few things - for example, Abortion.
Isnt that a Churchill quote?
No, he never said it, but many people attribute the quote to him.
The idea is that when people are young they are idealist. They think the world can be better, that the rich are somehow keeping the poor down, that people should be helped by the government, etc. When people grow older they learn that life is not fair, that hard work is how your make your life better and that you can't truly help someone by giving them what they need.
Of course, as someone that never was a liberal I don't happen to find much merit in the idea that idealism is a sign of someone with a heart, but just the sign of someone being foolish and naive.