POLITICS - Hillary vs McCain

SR James · Post by **SR James** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:09 pm

So if it comes down to Hillary vs McCain in the general election, whatcha gonna do? I can't stand Hillary but I don't know if I can vote for McCain, for a whole bunch of reasons...including the bill he introduced a few years ago that would have effectively made gunshows impossible.
Talk about a lesser of two evils kind of choice....

RIHMFIRE · Post by **RIHMFIRE** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:11 pm

sometimes lifes a bit*%
I,m not voting for one!

Scott64A · Post by **Scott64A** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:12 pm

I'll still vote for Ron Paul.

You CAN write in, you know. It's never this or that.

The belief that "If I vote for someone who doesn't have as good a chance of winning, so it's just throwing away a vote..." is BS!

-BS!

Vote your conscience.

cma g21 · Post by **cma g21** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:14 pm

I've given this much thought. IMHO, this country is headed for some very bad times. There are problems that have been building for decades that are coming to a head.

A President in the mold of Ronald Regan might be able to postpone the reckoning for a few years (or more).

Unfortunately, no Regan is running. If the choice is between Hillary/Obama and Rudy/McCain, then I’ll vote for the most conservative third party candidate. Yes, I realize this is essentially a vote for Hillary/Obama, but it may help stop the GOP’s slide to the left. Even if it doesn’t, maybe having the Democrats in charge when the economic bad times will do for them what the Great Depression did for the Republican Party.

In any event I don’t think having either Rudy or McCain in power would be all that much better than Hillary/Obama, and it would allow the Democrats to blame anything bad on the Republicans.

As to the remaining GOP candidates: I don’t really trust Romney or Huckabee, but they would probably be enough better than Hillary/Obama to risk voting for them. As for Paul I consider him a libertarian, not a conservative, and unelectable (popular as he may be on gun boards).

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:26 pm

The difference between Clinton and McCain is only whether you choose to grovel and say "Yes, Mistress", or whether you choose to shout "Sieg Heil" from behind barbed-wire.

A write-in for Paul would be the only right thing to do.

Sixgun · Post by **Sixgun** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:17 pm

I'm with cma g21,
We need to send the Republicans a message. We might as well suffer for 4 years so as to let the rest of the country know how dangerous Billary is. As to my own experience and from what I have read about history, the Dems in 1940 were more rightwing than todays Republicans.-------------------Sixgun

H_Talon · Post by **H_Talon** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:28 pm

I hate to say this but this year will be a vote against not a vote for year ..

and I think the Obomma's and billerys are the one to vote against ...
voting for someone not on the ballet will get them in office faster ..

I just hope the republicans will get a better choice than McCain ...

but what do I know

Talon

Slick · Post by **Slick** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:44 pm

Scott64A wrote:I'll still vote for Ron Paul.

You CAN write in, you know.

I will be doing the same..

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:03 pm

FWiedner wrote:The difference between Clinton and McCain is only whether you choose to grovel and say "Yes, Mistress", or whether you choose to shout "Sieg Heil" from behind barbed-wire.

A write-in for Paul would be the only right thing to do.

Not a correct assertion......

FALPhil · Post by **FALPhil** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:28 pm

It won't come down to Hillary vs McCain. McCain cannot sustain much longer. He has even less of a chance as Bob Dole did, for many of the same reasons and some new ones.

The biggest issue that McCain sucks on is immigration. Once his Republican competitors point out that he is basically promoting amnesty and that as soon as it takes effect, over a million (current) illegals are immediately eligible for social security benefits from an already statistically bankrupt system, it is all over but the crying.

But there are other flaws. For instance, he wants to give civil rights to enemy combatants so they can clog up our court systems and use up our tax dollars with public defenders. Another example is that he has drunk the anthropogenic global warming kool-aid. He has come out against the pharma industry in a manner reminiscent of John Edwards' "two Americas", which would lead one to the conclusion that he would not stop socialized medicine. He opposes the Bush tax cuts and will let them expire, which is, in effect, a de facto tax increase (and as shaky as our economy is right now,it would precipitate a disaster).

So, in effect, McCain is a candidate who will put the pro-welfare-state, pro-regulation left in the driver's seat of American politics: the Republicans would be voting for a president who will rule as a Democrat. As dumb as some Republicans can be, I don't think the collective pool of Republican voters are that stupid.

Sorry, I try not to get this political on gun boards.

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:53 pm

I'll vote for McCain in the end. I'll probably vote for him Tuesday.

crs · Post by **crs** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 6:34 pm

Here are the opinions of two well spoken, very conservative ladies. Both are worth reading to remind us that McCain is a liberal in Republican clothing.

Come on Ann, tell us how you really feel !

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24635
You too, Michelle, speak up!
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/01/23/jo ... epublican/

Maybe Mitt is the only sane answer if we are to have a hope of defeating Hil or Obie.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 6:43 pm

For the life of me I can't remember the name of this congressional watchdog, but they rated McCain's voting record for 23 years as conservative as Thompson's.......

Someone has to be wrong.....

bunklocoempire · Post by **bunklocoempire** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:18 pm

I'll be voting Ron Paul as well, writing in if I have to, I like the odds!

And I like our Constitution! It truly will be Ron Paul or Bust.

Bunkloco

guido4198 · Post by **guido4198** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:12 pm

With Fred Thompson out of the race, I'm at a loss as to who I'll be supporting in the upcoming Florida primary. In the general election however...I will evaluate the options, and should Hillary Clinton appear on the Democrat ballot..I'll cast my vote for whatever choice mkes it the LEAST LIKELY she will win. That's NOT a vote against a woman for President...that's not an issue with me AT ALL. I simply cannot allow THAT woman to become President without doing everything I can to try and prevent it. If that pair wins...( yes folks..it's the pair of them...) I want to feel like I did everything realistically possible to prevent it. I'd rather do that, than "send a message" to the Republican party and stay home, or write in someone else. That's just me...

FALPhil · Post by **FALPhil** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:36 pm

BlaineG wrote:For the life of me I can't remember the name of this congressional watchdog, but they rated McCain's voting record for 23 years as conservative as Thompson's....... Someone has to be wrong.....

I can believe that. Fred wasn't as conservative as I would like. BUT you have to remember that watchdog groups have their own agenda, and they rate legislators based on what matters to them.

Like Ann Coulter says:

John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism and youth. Like McCain, pollsters assured us that Dole was the most "electable" Republican. Unlike McCain, Dole didn't lie all the time while claiming to engage in Straight Talk.

gary rice · Post by **gary rice** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:43 pm

a sinister thought has recently run through my mind. mccain has suddenly come out of no where as his campaign was deemed almost doomed just a month ago, now he is the darling of the gop elite. what if the democrats are funneling money into his campaign knowing he will be easy for obama or clittion to defeat rather than thompson or romney who would pose more of a threat? lets face it, the only way the gop can defeat the left is by running someone who is clearly the opposite of them like a thompson etc. wouldnt surprise me.

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:31 pm

The democrats are funneling money into Ron Paul's campaign according to a google search I just ran. That make's perfect sense. But then again so are the Neo-Nazis.

handirifle · Post by **handirifle** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:03 pm

Well I just wish Colin Powell would have run. He would would be the choice candidate for a LOT of reasons in my book. The main one being, he's the ONLY one with any brains.

As for the other candidates, HillObama are the same record with different faces. John edwards is an "also ran" McCain is too deep in ted kennedy 's pockets to suit me, ron paul is running around with his head in the clouds or in the sand.

I'm not sure who romney really is and huckabee is strong on faith, but strong on higher taxes and big government too.

I'll most likely write in Colin Powell, running or not. The others are useless.

That said, Not liking Hillary at all, tonight she said she'd get 50Billion$ in funding for alternate energy research money by cutting out tax incentives to oil companies. It almost makes sense, and that's scary!

brucew44guns · Post by **brucew44guns** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:08 pm

Maybe we worry too much!!! Heard something on the radio today that Hillary is quoted as saying "If Im the next president, big changes are coming---AND, the Federal Govt will become much more involved in the National Economy". (paraphrase). Oh goodie!, think how much that will help us, as we try to recover the loss of many, if not all our guns in the next few years. Im relieved. (puke, gaghh me)

FALPhil · Post by **FALPhil** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:00 pm

handirifle wrote:Well I just wish Colin Powell would have run. He would would be the choice candidate for a LOT of reasons in my book. The main one being, he's the ONLY one with any brains.

Hahaha! That's funny!

I'll bet you cannot tell me how Powell stands on one single issue of import. If he has brains, you would never know it, because he never says anything of substance or commits to a position.

They are ALL smart people; you don't get to where they are otherwise (OK, Kucinich is the exception). The big trick is (a) understanding how stupid they think you are, and (b) figuring out what motivates them.

Gun Smith · Post by **Gun Smith** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:14 pm

The major problem we have in this country is that over the last 70 years there have been so many entitlement programs put in place that only a small part of our taxes are actually under the yearly control of our representatives. So, in reality it doesn't matter much who is elected to any branch of government because they can't make much of a difference. We've got to do something NOW about Social Security, Medicare, the drug plan, and many other entitlement programs. Our elected officials are so worried they won't be reelected that they keep dodging these very serious problems. You do understand that their JOB is running and being reelected. They are stuck with not making any tough changes that that would affect their JOB. If we don't make some big changes very soon we are in danger of bankrupting many of these programs.

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:30 pm

I'll pinch my nose and vote for whoever has the best chance of defeating Hillary, even if it is the devil himself!

As much as I like Ron Paul, anyone who ignores the imminent threat of Islamofascism does not warrant my vote, no matter how good he is on everything else. None of our other issues will matter if the crazies re-group and re-arm and get a bomb. Thinking they won't continue their all-out war on American and the rest of the west is simply dillusional. Besides, any write-in candidate, as much as it sends a message, simply helps get Hillary elected. It stinks - it's not fair - but it is how the system works.

Up until last week I thought that if McCain was the GOP nominee, the Dem's would slaughter us. Now I think he probably has the best change of beating her. Why? - because he is not a conservative, and attracts a lot of independents, moderates, and blue-dog Democrats. With Hillary's huge negatives, McCain would steal enough of her votes to win. With his age, we'd probably only have to put up with him for one term.

Now, if it is Hillary versus Huckabee (not likely), we are back to getting creamed. McCain versus Obama also poses a problem, as Obama doesn't have the baggage the queen B does, and will take away many of McCain's natural supporters.

Too early to call on any of this now anyway. Good thing is that after this weekend, at least that ambulance-chasing shyster Edwards should be out of the race!

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:02 am

If that's the case I'll just save my gas and stay home.

Rusty <><

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:08 am

"We've got to do something NOW about Social Security, Medicare, the drug plan, and many other entitlement programs."

I'd vote to elimante them so Americans have to get jobs. With less spare time maybe they'd stop whinning.

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:35 am

Rusty wrote:If that's the case I'll just save my gas and stay home.

Rusty <><

Rusty - as satisfying as that would be - and as much as neither would deserve your vote, staying home will also get Hillary elected. This is why the press loves McCain and Huckabee so much. They know that for the latter many fiscal conservatives will stay home, and for the former many conservatives period will stay home. Just like her worthless husband, she's win without getting a true majority of the popular vote - just the majority of the votes cast for any candidate (especially if a 3rd party actually makes a strong showing). The press wants Hillary in so bad they will do anything to help her...

C. Cash · Post by **C. Cash** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:42 am

Ysabel Kid wrote:I'll pinch my nose and vote for whoever has the best chance of defeating Hillary, even if it is the devil himself!

As much as I like Ron Paul, anyone who ignores the imminent threat of Islamofascism does not warrant my vote, no matter how good he is on everything else. None of our other issues will matter if the crazies re-group and re-arm and get a bomb. Thinking they won't continue their all-out war on American and the rest of the west is simply dillusional. Besides, any write-in candidate, as much as it sends a message, simply helps get Hillary elected. It stinks - it's not fair - but it is how the system works.

Up until last week I thought that if McCain was the GOP nominee, the Dem's would slaughter us. Now I think he probably has the best change of beating her. Why? - because he is not a conservative, and attracts a lot of independents, moderates, and blue-dog Democrats. With Hillary's huge negatives, McCain would steal enough of her votes to win. With his age, we'd probably only have to put up with him for one term.

Now, if it is Hillary versus Huckabee (not likely), we are back to getting creamed. McCain versus Obama also poses a problem, as Obama doesn't have the baggage the queen B does, and will take away many of McCain's natural supporters.

Too early to call on any of this now anyway. Good thing is that after this weekend, at least that ambulance-chasing shyster Edwards should be out of the race!

+1 About where I'm at too Ysabel, all around.

SR James · Post by **SR James** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:51 am

McCain is actively opposed to many of the things I deeply believe in. Not only that, its not like he's just a run of the mill senator who passively voted for things I oppose, he INTRODUCED AND WROTE most of those bills, McCain-Feingold being a major one. The list is a long one. Based on this, I don't expect McCain, should he become president, to sit back and do nothing. He WILL hurt conservative causes. Maybe not quite as much as Hillary, but he will hurt us nonetheless.

And I'm sick of spinless Republican RINOs stabbing us in the back. It's probably true that not voting or voting for a write-in will guarantee the Dimocrat gets elected. But the Republicans will never have any incentive to change their ways if we keep meekly accepting whatever spinless, backstabbing, Liberal Lite snake the GOP sticks us with.

I'm ready for a VIABLE third party. Or for Oklahoma and Texas to secede.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:00 am

C. Cash wrote:
Ysabel Kid wrote:I'll pinch my nose and vote for whoever has the best chance of defeating Hillary, even if it is the devil himself!

As much as I like Ron Paul, anyone who ignores the imminent threat of Islamofascism does not warrant my vote, no matter how good he is on everything else. None of our other issues will matter if the crazies re-group and re-arm and get a bomb. Thinking they won't continue their all-out war on American and the rest of the west is simply dillusional. Besides, any write-in candidate, as much as it sends a message, simply helps get Hillary elected. It stinks - it's not fair - but it is how the system works.

Up until last week I thought that if McCain was the GOP nominee, the Dem's would slaughter us. Now I think he probably has the best change of beating her. Why? - because he is not a conservative, and attracts a lot of independents, moderates, and blue-dog Democrats. With Hillary's huge negatives, McCain would steal enough of her votes to win. With his age, we'd probably only have to put up with him for one term.

Now, if it is Hillary versus Huckabee (not likely), we are back to getting creamed. McCain versus Obama also poses a problem, as Obama doesn't have the baggage the queen B does, and will take away many of McCain's natural supporters.

Too early to call on any of this now anyway. Good thing is that after this weekend, at least that ambulance-chasing shyster Edwards should be out of the race!
+1 About where I'm at too Ysabel, all around.

Same here.

Swampman,

You have a source for Ron Paul being in league with Neo-Nazi's?

Johnny

C. Cash · Post by **C. Cash** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:08 am

SR James wrote:McCain is actively opposed to many of the things I deeply believe in. Not only that, its not like he's just a run of the mill senator who passively voted for things I oppose, he INTRODUCED AND WROTE most of those bills, McCain-Feingold being a major one. The list is a long one. Based on this, I don't expect McCain, should he become president, to sit back and do nothing. He WILL hurt conservative causes. Maybe not quite as much as Hillary, but he will hurt us nonetheless.

And I'm sick of spinless Republican RINOs stabbing us in the back. It's probably true that not voting or voting for a write-in will guarantee the Dimocrat gets elected. But the Republicans will never have any incentive to change their ways if we keep meekly accepting whatever spinless, backstabbing, Liberal Lite snake the GOP sticks us with.

I'm ready for a VIABLE third party. Or for Oklahoma and Texas to secede.

SR James,

I am not the most studied man politically(I have a passion for History but politics in general have never held my interest), but let me ask a question nontheless. Tell me, why was McCain-Feingold a bad thing to us Conservatives? It seems it should effect both parties equally in what it did. Was there something attached to it that I'm not seeing other than revamping the campaign finance process for all Parties? Just wondering out loud why this example was so bad. Pardon my ignorance on the matter.

SR James · Post by **SR James** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:17 am

McCain-Feingold was bad, period, not just to conservatives. It prohibits negative ads that specifically mention a candidate by name, within a certain time period before the election (I believe it is something like 60 days). For example, I contribute money to the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action (ILA). M-F prohibits such groups from running ads mentioning a specific candidate, such as "don't vote for Hillary because she'll take your guns" to use a simple example. In my oppion, that is an infringement on freedom of speech.

M-F also has provisions which financially favor incumbants and has led to the rise of "527" groups who funnel money to candidates in various ways designed to get around the law. For a good summary of the effects of M-F see this website:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34642.html

I'm no expert on M-F but I do object to the effect it has had in abridging political freedom of speech by setting up the Federal Election Commission as the arbiter of what you can and cannot say; i.e. its just one more federal control of our lives.

C. Cash · Post by **C. Cash** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:10 pm

Thank you for the clarification SR James. Food for thought and I am going to look a bit deeper at McCain on this and other issues.

donw · Post by **donw** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:02 pm

it's not a very good choice but between the two i'd HAVE to go mccain.

i think he's not as anti-gun as billery.

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:40 pm

"You have a source for Ron Paul being in league with Neo-Nazi's?"

http://lonestartimes.com/2007/10/25/rpb1/

FALPhil · Post by **FALPhil** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:50 pm

Swampman wrote:"You have a source for Ron Paul being in league with Neo-Nazi's?"

http://lonestartimes.com/2007/10/25/rpb1/

"Being in league" and accepting donations are not the same thing.

Now, let me state, I f*cking hate Stormfront. I think they are a bunch of neanderthal, goose-stepping morons. BUT, I am not going to stand up and say that they have neither the right of free speech, free religion, or free association. The reason that they donated to the Paul campaign is that Paul has said that they have these rights as well, especially the latter, which the federal government has encroached upon mightily in the last 4 decades.

Another issue with Paul is that there was a newsletter published under his name that had some marginally racialist overtones, which Paul said that he didn't know anything about because he was not in the habit of reading the stuff published in his newsletter. I find that a little disingenuous, but I don't see anything unconstitutional in Ron Paul's behavior, while I see a whole lot that is unconstitutional in the other candidates' behaviors. Is one worse than the other?

The Paul campaign has said that they will keep the money.

bunklocoempire · Post by **bunklocoempire** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:04 pm

Swampman wrote:

The democrats are funneling money into Ron Paul's campaign according to a google search I just ran. That make's perfect sense. But then again so are the Neo-Nazis.

Uh.... Ron Paul is also receiving money from The US Army, The US Navy and The US Airforce. http://opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.a ... cycle=2008 Feel free to dig around on that site and see who contributes what to whom.

bunklocoempire · Post by **bunklocoempire** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:50 pm

Ysabel Kid wrote:

As much as I like Ron Paul, anyone who ignores the imminent threat of Islamofascism does not warrant my vote, no matter how good he is on everything else.

Ignores Islamofascism? http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/112 ... -measures/ Please notice the date written, October 15 2001.

Arm Pilots: It is unthinkable to leave pilots defenseless in the cockpit after the events of September 11th.

Immigration Restrictions: Common sense tells us that we should not currently be admitting aliens from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists.

Better intelligence gathering: Burdensome regulations and bureaucratic turf wars hamper the ability of federal law enforcement personnel to share information about terrorists.

Harsher criminal penalties for terrorists: The federal statute of limitations for terrorist offenses should be eliminated, so that suspects can never breathe easy even 10 or 20 years from now.

Letters of marque and reprisal: This constitutional tool can be used to give President Bush another weapon in the war on terrorism.

End legal preferences for terrorist suspects: Congress should clarify all federal criminal statutes to insure that so-called "extralegal" preferences for criminal terrorist suspects are eliminated.

And now again, January 20, 2008. It has been over 6 years since the atrocities of September 11 were committed and there are still some very basic measures that need to be taken to bring the perpetrators to justice and make America safer.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/901 ... terrorism/

So I don't believe Ron Paul is ignoring Islamofascism. It is a matter of strategy. Spread our forces thin and police the whole world where ever Islamofascits might pop up, or, win some friends by taking out only the terrorists. Not occupying a country which breeds resentment. Not to mention the cost of American soldiers, the real reason I'll keep arguing points for a Constitutional strategy that makes the most sense.

Know the enemy. Lotsa good reading around the rest of the site as well. http://www.history.navy.mil/library/onl ... .htm#intro

Thanks, Bunkloco

horsesoldier03 · Post by **horsesoldier03** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:35 pm

I think Mitt is going to get my vote. I am kind of on the outspoken side, but maybe I can explain this right. If you cast a vote for a canidate that basically has little or no chance to be elected your not throwing your vote away. However, you are taking votes from a good canidate that may not be 100% of what you agree with, but IMO if it prevents someone from taking office that is 80% of what I DONT agree with then I am only hurting myself in the long run.

LIFE IS FULL OF COMPROMISES!!!

Swampman · Post by **Swampman** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:47 pm

So you guys are willing to overlook anything, and still support Ron Paul.

bj94 · Post by **bj94** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:51 pm

I'll vote for whoever is running against Hillary Obama, no matter who they are. I can't think of how they could possibly be worse than H O.

FALPhil · Post by **FALPhil** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:52 am

bj94 wrote:I'll vote for whoever is running against Hillary Obama, no matter who they are. I can't think of how they could possibly be worse than H O.

I imagine that there will 2, maybe even 4 candidates opposing the Democrat nominee on the final ballot in November. You need to think about which one, because yo can't vote for all of the opponents.

This thread has taken an interesting and scenic path. One can see that the consensus is that we are not happy with our choices. I heard a rumor yesterday that after Super Tuesday, a third party may announce a candidate. The ticket may include the former boll-weevil Democrat Sam Nunn. I might find that interesting, but only if Michael Bloomberg is not involved.

SR James makes an excellent point: If the Republicans nominate a RINO and we elect him, we are just reinforcing bad behavior, and we will get more of the same. At that point, one must ask, does it really matter who we vote for? This is consistent with the historical record of cultures and civilizations failing when the people sacrifice principle in favor of pragmatism. With the demographic trend swinging the wrong way in Europe and Canada, and moneyed interests tripping all over themselves to move our economy to China, we cannot afford to sacrifice our principles for a short term "win".

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 2:48 pm

Scott64A wrote:I'll still vote for Ron Paul.

You CAN write in, you know. It's never this or that.

The belief that "If I vote for someone who doesn't have as good a chance of winning, so it's just throwing away a vote..." is BS!

-BS!

Vote your conscience.

I agree. The only time I've ever felt I "wasted" my vote was when I voted for a "moderate" Republican who turned out to be a socialist. I'll ONLY vote Republican if Huckabee or Paul is the nominee; otherwise I'll either write in Paul or Huckabee, or stay home and save gasoline to avoid wasting my vote. If those weren't somehow viable options, I'd rather vote for a Democrat than an 'almost-as-bad' Republican - because I don't want to 'waste my vote' on the lesser of two evils.

The way I see it, if you vote for 90% Evil because you don't think 10% Evil has a chance of beating 95% Evil, THAT is a wasted vote for two reasons:

1. You still voted for a rather 'evil' candidate.

...and more importantly, if you value your freedom, think of this...

2. Our mostly spineless Republicans would at least throw up some opposition to a Democrat's socialist and statist agenda, because it would be coming from a Democrat. On the other hand, they'd nearly ALL 'go along to get along' when a liberal Republican president had the same agenda, or a 'not quite as bad' agenda.

Thus, voting for a Romney, McCain, or Guliani vs. a Hiliary or Obama might very well result in losing MORE freedom, and losing it FASTER. That is why I think the only way to WASTE a vote would be to vote for those Republicans as the 'lesser of two evils' - you not only sell your soul to Evil and rationalize it as the 'lesser' evil, but you ALSO wind up with less freedom in the end than you would have if the obviously evil, who would at least spark some opposition, had won.

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 4:15 pm

"KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE PRIZE"

Like most of you here, I don't like any of the front runners. But I will do my duty and vote. I won't get mad and not go. I won't vote for someone that can't possibly win as a protest, either. That is exactly what the Clintons are counting on. Thatâ€™s how Bill won.

If you need a reason to vote for any of the poor choices we will have with the Republicans, and if you believe the 2nd amend. is the foundation for all of our rights like I do then remember this. For the long haul, it doesnâ€™t matter what laws the congress passes or what president signs them in to law, it aint law until the Supreme Court says it is.

Justice John Paul Stevens is 87 years old and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 74 years old.

The party that wins the Whitehouse will appoint at least one new Supreme Court Justice and just maybe two. The winning new president will get the credit but make no mistake about it, the party will guide his decision. Do you want Chuck Shumer, Diana Fienstein, Barbara boxer, and the far left loons the supply the money like George Sorros, Alex Baldwin, and Rosie Oâ€™Donnell making that decision? Because that is exactly what you will be doing if you donâ€™t vote the republican candidate in.

This is what I plan to do. I will go down there, hold my nose and vote. Iâ€™ll then come home, throw up, get drunk, take a shower and go to bed. I just hope I can get all that in the right order.

FALPhil · Post by **FALPhil** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 5:12 pm

Nate Kiowa Jones wrote:"KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE PRIZE"

<snip>

Justice John Paul Stevens is 87 years old and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 74 years old.

That's a great strategy, Steve!

Remember, the Republicans gave us Justice David "Empty" Souter...

ohio hunter · Post by **ohio hunter** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 5:36 pm

And McLame is going to apoint a conservative judge?
J

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:04 pm

ohio hunter wrote:And McLame is going to apoint a conservative judge?
J

Mclame will appoint a more conservative judge than the hilderbeast will for sure.
But that's because the party base will see to that. Any appointment will have to have the party support to be confirmed. It will be like a tug-of-war. Each side will try to influence the appointment as much as they can. That's how it works. If the Dems control the legislature and the hilderbeast is pres. who do you think will have the most influence?

BAGTIC · Post by **BAGTIC** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:58 pm

handirifle wrote:Well I just wish Colin Powell would have run. He would would be the choice candidate for a LOT of reasons in my book. The main one being, he's the ONLY one with any brains.

Condaleeza Rice, YES!. Powell, NO!

Powell is a weak kneed internationalist in the mould of George Bush, Sr.

BAGTIC · Post by **BAGTIC** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:03 pm

With Thompson out of the race I'll probably go with Huckabee. I think he would be the least anti-2nd Amendment or gun rights.

For those who worry about his spendng make sure you keep fiscal conservatives in the Congress to balance his inclinations. Congress matters more than the President on spending.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:37 pm

Swampman wrote:"We've got to do something NOW about Social Security, Medicare, the drug plan, and many other entitlement programs."

I'd vote to elimante them so Americans have to get jobs. With less spare time maybe they'd stop whinning.

& McCains going to do that?

C'mon, you wont even support RP in the primary & he's the only one that even remotely takes an anti huge Govt stance.

CowboyTutt · Post by **CowboyTutt** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:20 pm

I think our own "Nate" aka Steve has the most accurate view of the "big picture" here. Personally, I think McCain is the most dangerous of all, as he seems to not care what his party is doing. He's too much of a wild card. Romney will at least tow the party line, as he is a political creature. He also seems to have a good grasp of financial stuff, and history has shown that the most popular presidents have been those in times of financial prosperity (whether they were responsible for it or not). NOT voting only proves your totally apathy, not your disastifaction with the Republican party. A big mistake, as it throws your vote to the opposition party, most likely (this year).

There are still those in the Republican party who will pressure for our gun rights. There are none, or virtually none, in the Democratic party, although I prefer Obama over Clinton any day. To let them take power, with a Democratic congress, will be our undoing.

Feel free to disagree.

-Tutt

POLITICS - Hillary vs McCain

POLITICS - Hillary vs McCain

This is gonna be a tough one for sure....

hillary

I THINK I WILL BE VOTING FOR MITT!