tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post112847531891436492..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Play the hand you're dealtRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1128522146445179302005-10-05T10:22:00.000-04:002005-10-05T10:22:00.000-04:00I agree with Steve's sentiments, and I agree with ...I agree with Steve's sentiments, and I agree with Frank regarding the need for third parties to do more to prove themselves.<BR/><BR/>I would add that some of the advocates of third parties that I've come across have said that they considered Ronald Reagan an acceptable candidate. How long has it been since Reagan was in office? About 17 years. Are we to believe that 17 years is such a long time that it justifies the abandonment of the Republican party?<BR/><BR/>I've also noticed, as Steve mentions, that advocates of third parties often focus on issues of the size of government, usually ignoring or underestimating the significance of advances the Republicans have made on abortion, marriage, guns, and other issues. We have to make all of these judgments in the context of where the society is, and on some issues our society seems to be at a point where they wouldn't allow much more than what the Republicans have been doing.<BR/><BR/>There is no plausible third party at this point, and the Republicans are significantly better than the Democrats, despite Republican weaknesses on spending and other issues. The claim that we have to vote for third parties in order to make them plausible needs to be qualified with the condition that we vote for them only if there's evidence to suggest that other factors will get other people to vote for them over time as well. And that condition wasn't met in 2000 or 2004. I doubt that it will be in 2008 either. If I thought that voting for a good third party in 2008 and 2012 would result in that party getting the presidency in 2016, I'd be willing to vote for it. But that's not the situation we have. Instead, it doesn't look like any of the good third parties have what would be needed to accomplish much in the foreseeable future. Maybe that situation will change over time by means of a third party getting a lot of funding, one of the two major parties collapsing, a national disaster, or something else. But it isn't the situation we're faced with at this point in time. <BR/><BR/>Jason Engwer<BR/>http://members.aol.com/jasonte<BR/>New Testament Research Ministries<BR/>http://www.ntrmin.orgJason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1128479565004704762005-10-04T22:32:00.000-04:002005-10-04T22:32:00.000-04:00Except for the fact that we have no idea who John ...Except for the fact that we have no idea who John Roberts is and even less of an idea who Miers is, I was going to say this is a great post.<BR/><BR/>You may beat me up for being inconsistent, but I vote the way you vote -- meaning I vote pragmatically. One doesn't really have a choice if one wants to vote meaningfully and keep power out of the hands of the utterly incompetant. Sometimes it is better to have the marginally-incompetant in charge if the only other two choices are armed revolution and gutless agnostic totalitarians.<BR/><BR/>When PP and his libertarian buddies can win a local/state election and prove their system of small government works in a small governement, and that they have the ability to manage the cuts down without shattering the economy, they can then prove to me their system has a Christian metaphysical underpinning and we can start circulating petitions for signatures. Until then, they need to stop the name-calling and the high-brow schtick.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.com