Does Ron Paul have a chance?


PDA






Ragnar Danneskjold
February 21, 2007, 12:17 AM
I'll admit, a year ago, I had no idea who Ron Paul was. A year ago, I also had never fired a gun before, and wasn't all that political generally either. Recently, I have been reading more about him, and the more I read, the more I like. I don't agree with him on a number of issues. But I agree with his motivations. He seems to be a genuine small government politician. I haven't heard of him flip-flopping on anything really. And he even stands up to the Republican behemoth on the Congress floor by voting no when others vote yes, because he stands by what he believes in: small government, states rights, individual rights. I can't say I support all of this man's stances on the issues, by I think I can support the man himself. And that's more than I can say for the rest of the non-democrats running in 08.

So my question is, does Ron Paul actually have a chance?

If you enjoyed reading about "Does Ron Paul have a chance?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Biker
February 21, 2007, 12:19 AM
If my vote counts, he has a chance. Does your vote count?

Biker:)

GoRon
February 21, 2007, 12:19 AM
So my question is, does Ron Paul actually have a chance?

no

SVT93
February 21, 2007, 12:21 AM
Not really, but hes got my vote.

steelhead
February 21, 2007, 12:21 AM
Not a chance. The "money" won't back him.

Outlaws
February 21, 2007, 12:22 AM
No because we live in a Plutocracy.

Biker
February 21, 2007, 12:23 AM
Not with that attitude. What if everyone who believed in Paul said to hell with the chances, sacked up and voted for the man?
Oops, nevermind - that would require principles.

Biker

Lone_Gunman
February 21, 2007, 12:29 AM
Well, there is no chance in hell I would vote for the top three Republican candidates.

So that leaves only Paul and Tancredo. I like both of them OK, but would prefer Paul.

If the general election boils down to either McCain,Giuliani,or Romney -versus- Hillary, I will vote for whatever third party candidate runs.

Erinyes
February 21, 2007, 12:36 AM
Doubt it. But I'm still voting for him in the primaries and I'll tell everybody I know about him.

ConstitutionCowboy
February 21, 2007, 12:37 AM
I think both Paul and Tancredo would do well where our RKBA is concerned, but I'd have to give the tip to Tancredo because of Paul's anti war vote(he voted for that "non-binding resolution" thingie).

Woody

God gave us guns for a reason. It wasn't so we could lament the lack of them when we need them. B.E. Wood

nico
February 21, 2007, 12:38 AM
I'm not incredibly optimistic, but it's too early to really say who has a chance. McCain is in the process of self destructing, and who knows if people will get over Guiliani's ability to give a good speech and realize what a RINO he is. I'm very tempted to register as a Republican so that I can vote for him in the primary.

3rdpig
February 21, 2007, 12:40 AM
Sure, he's got the same chance as Mitt Romney, which is that of a snowball in hell.

Speer
February 21, 2007, 01:10 AM
Well, either Paul or Tancredo will be gettin' my vote. As far as that meaning anything, God, I hope so.

Lew
February 21, 2007, 01:16 AM
For what it's worth, here's some of his thoughts on the resolution. http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr021407.htm

I'll vote for him, absolutely. Nothing makes me gag like when I hear about "wasting votes."

Zedicus
February 21, 2007, 01:22 AM
You know, with comments like many that I have seen both in this thread and other Ron Paul threads, as well as in various threads about getting rid of gun control laws, I can't help but be reminded of one line in the trailer for the movie "Astronaut Farmer" that line being.

"Somewhere along the line, We stooped believing that we can do Anything"

That applies so well to so many things today that it is completely ridiculous.

When you realize this and think about it, it seems as if something has figuratively Ripped the heart out of the USA.

tdubya
February 21, 2007, 01:26 AM
where is the Paul Tancredo ticket..............or the Tancredo Paul Ticket

In my humble opinion both of them would make a good choice, they both seem to be men who will stick to their beliefs. Since leaving the GOP and making the move to a Independent i swore off party primaries but i now may have to vote in the GOP one to try to give one of my guys a chance

jeepmor
February 21, 2007, 01:37 AM
Honest guy who does what he says, states his principles and stands by them....In Washington, at the White House level? Who the heck is going to support that? You and me, sure, but none of the fellow politicians will play fair, that is a well known fact.

Regardless of how "good" they are, unless there is a huge wave of support for this candidate, he's doomed. And unfortunately, any votes outside of the Republican front runners is a vote for Hillary. I don't think any of us want that considering her name is on many AWB proposals already.

Much like voting for Nader was a vote for Bush in the previous elections. He really may have been the best "honest man" candidate (I don't want to argue semantics, this is an example only) we had to choose from, but the 800lb gorillas play the game too well and have too much financial support.

It saddens me to think this way, but again, I don't want Hillary in office either.

Oleg Volk
February 21, 2007, 01:39 AM
I will vote for Ron Paul.

If you were in 1939 Poland, would you vote for Hitler or Stalin...or "throw away your vote" for Rydz-Śmigły? To me, acquiescence to evil seems ill-advised. Even if the third party is too small, making is bigger than it was previously requires other parties to consider it as an ally in their battle for supremacy with the other evil. That's how US became independent, but backing a "no chance" movement while the two Leviathans (UK and France) bled each other white.

STAGE 2
February 21, 2007, 01:45 AM
The only reason I know who Ron Paul is, is because I'm a memebr here. That alone should tell you folks something. I firmly believe in voting one's conscience. That said I'm also a believer in smart voting.

One of the reasons why we now have to contend with the possibility of a renewed AWB is because too many people didn't consider the repurcussions of their vote.

Find a pro gun candidate, or wheever your issue or issues may be. But don't do so at the cost of common sense. After all, we all compromise. If we truly wanted the perfect candidate we would each write in our own name.

Zedicus
February 21, 2007, 01:57 AM
Oleg Volk: If you were in 1939 Poland, would you vote for Hitler or Stalin...or "throw away your vote" for Rydz-Śmigły? To me, acquiescence to evil seems ill-advised. Even if the third party is too small, making is bigger than it was previously requires other parties to consider it as an ally in their battle for supremacy with the other evil. That's how US became independent, but backing a "no chance" movement while the two Leviathans (UK and France) bled each other white.

+1

Prince Yamato
February 21, 2007, 01:59 AM
Stage 2 makes a good point. Sadly, I think it's lost here, as in about 2 seconds you're going to be bombarded by the libertarians who will tell you that they're going to win a position in some election, some point in the next thousand years. I have libertarian ideals, but I'm still throwing my vote to the Republican. I won't get exactly what I want, but it'll be closer to what I want than the Democrat. A vote for a third party is a waste... unless you're a Democrat voting for Nader, in which case, your vote is very important :)

Oleg Volk
February 21, 2007, 02:00 AM
Common sense lead Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia to surrender to the USSR. A third or more of their citizens were promptly murdered. Uncommon sense - valor -- led Finland to resist and, against all odds, preserve their independence. Sometime fighting a losing battle makes more sense because the enemy's strength is less than we think it to be. Other times, it is worth fighting because it is the right thing to do.

Juna
February 21, 2007, 02:01 AM
Well said, Oleg.

Prince Yamato
February 21, 2007, 02:08 AM
Keep telling yourselves that voting third party works. Well, scratch that, it will work... to get Hillary elected. Folks, we're a two party system, like it or not. You may not LIKE the Republican option, but they'll still have to bow to the party base, which is pro-gun. Even if it IS Giuliani, he will have to grit his teeth and tow party line. Record Schmeckord, he'll have to change his opinions if he wants to play ball. I really don't care if he has to bend his principles and support legal AWs, as long as he SUPPORTS legal AWs. He supported the ban before, well, that was crappy. If he doesn't support it now, well, he changed his opinion. If he DOES support it, then his base will give him hell. Look 2008 is going to stink, but don't make it worse by throwing your vote away (which is what the third party vote is). Politics is a game folks. Learn the rules.

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 21, 2007, 02:08 AM
One of the reasons why we now have to contend with the possibility of a renewed AWB is because too many people didn't consider the repercussions of their vote.


That's a good point. How many people voted against incumbent GOP congresspeople in the 06 election in order to "send a message" to them about being dissatisfied? I heard it a lot on this board. And what do we have now? A whole slew of new gun control laws sponsored by them Dems who filled the void we created.

I'm gonna vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. But when it comes down to the actual presidential election, I'm gonna vote for the candidate who has the best chance of defeating the Democratic runner...and it won't be an Independent.

I'd really like Ron Paul as president. But I have to be clear, if he doesn't get past the primaries, my main goal is going to be keeping the Dems out of the White House, even if it means voting for Rudy or McCain.

Zedicus
February 21, 2007, 02:13 AM
Keep telling yourselves that voting third party works. Well, scratch that, it will work... to get Hillary elected.

That has nothing to do with Ron Paul, he is running as a REPUBLICAN.

Cosmoline
February 21, 2007, 02:13 AM
The mainstream media is trying hard to bury him in favor of the RINOs. But remember they tried hard to push McCain on the GOP and bury GW. The party still gets to decide.

nico
February 21, 2007, 02:14 AM
And unfortunately, any votes outside of the Republican front runners is a vote for Hillary
Really? I wasn't aware that she was running in the REPUBLICAN primary. Voting for the lesser of two evils makes a lot less sense in the primaries than it does in the general election. With the way people have been talking around here lately, you'd think they don't realize that Guiliani, McCain, Clinton, and Obama are not all running against each other at once:scrutiny:

Besides, between McCain and Guiliani, which is the lesser of two evils? McCain has recently shown that he has no integrity and will say anything to get elected (ie: going from pro-choice to calling for roe v. wade to be overturned), and I'm not all that sure that Guiliani is more conservative than Clinton.

eta: Since it'll be my fault if Guiliani/McCain loses the general election to Clinton/Obama (I refuse to vote for any of the four), who's fault will it be if Guiliani/McCain becomes president and signs AWB II into law?

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 21, 2007, 02:25 AM
You're right nico, but I think that other people were indeed talking about the actual election, not primaries.

The sad facts are, the general election will more than likely involve either Klinton and Obama, or Rudy and McCain.

So you have to ask yourself when it comes to that point, "who is going to be the least harmful to my individual rights, in general, and as a gun owner?" And I think the answer the that is pretty clear: We cannot allow Klinton or Obama to be elected President.

nico, you're also right about "between McCain and Guiliani, which is the lesser of two evils?". But I'm gonna have to say Rudy is slightly better, but only by a few microns. Both McCain and Rudy have terrible records when it comes to voting, but Rudy at very least seems to be a bit more honest about it. McCain is trying as hard as he can to portray himself as a true Conservative, which we know he's not. Rudy on the other hand seems to be more or less showing his true face on purpose(for now). That face may be one of a gun-grabber, but it really is him.

I'll take a semi honest gun-grabber(Rudy) over a lying gun grabber(McCain) any day.

Zedicus
February 21, 2007, 02:29 AM
Voting for a Lesser of two Evils is Still Voting for Evil!

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 21, 2007, 02:31 AM
And voting for the worse of two evils is also voting for evil. And not voting at all , or voting for an impossible candidate is still allowing the worse of two evils to win.

So what's your point?

nico
February 21, 2007, 02:33 AM
So you have to ask yourself when it comes to that point, "who is going to be the least harmful to my individual rights, in general, and as a gun owner?" And I think the answer the that is pretty clear: We cannot allow Klinton or Obama to be elected President.
I did that last election. The problem is the "choices" have only gotten more repugnant. Whoever the lesser of two evils ends up being in the general election, none of the four front runners from either party are "less evil" enough to get my vote. IMO, the Republicans need another Ross Perot to scare them straight.

btw, all of this is really insignificant in my case, as my state will go to the Dem candidate in the general election no matter what. I'm thinking I should register as a Rep so I can vote in the primaries and it might mean something.

Zedicus
February 21, 2007, 02:40 AM
voting for an impossible candidate is still allowing the worse of two evils to win.

Really? and whom might I ask is deciding Who is an "Impossible Candidate" ?:scrutiny:

Prince Yamato
February 21, 2007, 02:51 AM
Really? and whom might I ask is deciding Who is an "Impossible Candidate"

They mean a libertarian who won't win. If I were a gambling man, I'd bet a Polytech underfolder that a libertarian will NOT win the 2008 presidency. That's how sure I am of it. Really it is common sense that a libertarian will NOT win the 2008 presidency. As far as Ron Paul goes, sure vote for him in the primaries, but he won't win. He's great for gun owners, but only 50% of us know who he is. Then you have to realize that there are a few other issues that people will be voting on such as, the Iraq War, abortion, health care, and gay marriage. Ron Paul doesn't offer a stance on his website. Guns are my primary issue, but I also look at the other issues as well. Politics is a game. Learn how to win. Your vote for libertarian candidate A or obscure republican B means nothing when you lose.

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 21, 2007, 02:52 AM
and whom might I ask is deciding Who is an "Impossible Candidate" ?

That would be "Math". Candidate A gets 45% of the votes, Candidate B gets 45% of the votes, and Candidate C gets 10% of the votes. It's not an opinion to say which one of the three is impossible. Mathematically and historically speaking, a candidate who is not a Democrat or Republican has a next to zero chance of winning. Does it suck? You bet. But that's the way the world is.


Ideals about "not voting for evil" and "sending a message" are great. But so is a sense of realism.

Outlaws
February 21, 2007, 03:08 AM
If you were in 1939 Poland, would you vote for Hitler or Stalin

Poland isn't the Soviet Union or German so you couldn't vote for them if you wanted to. :evil:

Sorry, I had to point that out.
(I know after the War they fell to Communist control, but that isn't to the point.)

Sylvan-Forge
February 21, 2007, 03:27 AM
Send some loot to Ron!

Put a sticker on your car!

Put a sign in your yard!

Tell everyone you know!

Make note of it in the forums you visit!

Put it in your sig line!

Mention him on talk radio!

Get the word out!

Patriot-Brewer
February 21, 2007, 03:29 AM
Hi all, registration finally worked, long time reader.

I think a lot of rightfully pissed off patriots are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We all know that more Republicans are our allies than Democrats. When you look at who controls the Democrat party we all know our Democrat allies aren't them.

The last election showed the value of voting your emotions. Vote your conscience in the primaries, vote for the one who will erode our freedoms the least in the elections.

"Rome" will probably fall someday, lets not help it. Are you going to be an "accessory" to our Constitution getting discarded in the short term, or the long term? I'd love a Libertarian to get into office. Reality says :neener: .

"REPUBLICANS PISSED ME OFF, I'M GONNA VOTE DEMOCRAT OR 3RD PARTY AND GET EVEN MORE PISSED OFF".

IMHO, that's what many are saying here, because if the Dems take all 3 branchesl, you're gonna wish the 06 elections didn't happen.

only1asterisk
February 21, 2007, 03:42 AM
Voting for Ron Paul would never be wrong, he is the right man for the job. I can't help that he doesn't win, I can only do would I can to help him. If there is another man that is half as good, with a better chance of winning, I'd like to know his name.

David

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 21, 2007, 03:43 AM
If the Dems win in 08(which means they have total control of all 3 branches) than we're going to be wishing A LOT of things didn't happen. If they win the White House, in addition to having control of Congress and activist judges, it will take 50 years to undue the damage they will cause, if it's possible at all.

only1asterisk
February 21, 2007, 03:46 AM
taurusowner,

Could you please name an acceptable Republican candidate?

David

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 21, 2007, 03:50 AM
For the Primary? Ron Paul.
For the election? Which ever Republican is running against the Democrats.

STAGE 2
February 21, 2007, 04:47 AM
Bingo. If any form of the awb passes, its on the heads of everyone here who voted anything other than republican.

The best thing for our rights in these upcoming elections is a vote in opposition of the anti's as opposed to a vote for a particular person.

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 21, 2007, 04:58 AM
Think of it like WWII. Did we really support the USSR? Of course not. But the alliance with them was 100% neccessary to defeat the real evil enemy: the Nazis. We fought with the USSR not because we liked them, but because we hated the Nazis more.

Don't vote Republican because you like them. Vote against the Democrats.

Defeat the greater enemy while you can.

Trueno
February 21, 2007, 05:49 AM
65-80 million gun owners can own the 2008 elections.

Please, commit yourself to voting when it comes time.

t

Tylden
February 21, 2007, 06:59 AM
This isn't a ball game we're betting on here. My vote is going to the candidate that best represents what in my opinion, would be best for the country......NOT whoever I think is going to win. At this point, I'm backing Ron Paul as a matter of principle. With that said, in the meantime I'm buying the politcally incorrect guns on my "want list" from private collectors, and stocking up on ammo and magazines (not to make a profit, but just to have what I want/need and plenty of it). Hope and fight for what's right, but prepare for the worst at the same time. If I become an outlaw for owning guns, then so be it. Screw the government.

Brett Bellmore
February 21, 2007, 07:10 AM
I'm with Nico. In two successive Presidential elections, I've voted for the lesser of two evils, and on each occasion, he won, and the choices have only gotten more evil.

At some point, you've got to prove to a party that there are choices so bad you'll just walk away, or they'll keep feeding you worse and worse choices. It's the rational thing for them to do! If their own side's votes are nailed down, they go after the other side's votes. If they're doing that, the other side is enabled to be worse. That's a proven voting dynamic!

Guliani, Romney, (We're familiar with Romneys here in Michigan.:barf: ) McCain... They're my choices too bad to stomach. If Paul makes it as far as the Michigan primaries, he'll have my vote. If one of the troika of evil get the nomination, I'm voting third party just so nobody thinks I didn't vote for the Republican because I was apathetic.

And, BTW, I'm getting sick and tired of being told that there's no way somebody we actually LIKE can get the Republican nomination, so we have to settle for deciding who we hate least. Primaries and caucuses have incredibly low turnouts, and gun owners, politically active gun owners, are a significant fraction of the population. IF we get together ahead of the primaries, and settle on a united front candidate, ideally in conjunction with some other largish interest group that's being similarly given the same treatment, (Opponents of illegal immigration come to mind.) we can decide the outcome of the Republican primaries.

The NRA has reasons for not being willing to do that, they're not totally irrational, but the price of not doing so is just getting too high to pay.

BryanP
February 21, 2007, 07:15 AM
Paul does not perfectly represent my views, but he comes closer than the rest of the pack. I do plan to vote for him. I have no hopes he will win, but my conscience will be clear.

hoji
February 21, 2007, 08:00 AM
Bingo. If any form of the awb passes, its on the heads of everyone here who voted anything other than republican.

The truly pathetic thing is.... a lot you actually believe this.:uhoh:

Your hero, GWB did all but push for an AWB while running and all of you apologists said" he's trickin them pesky dems"

I ask you this:
If GWB signs a new AWB passed by the House, whose fault is it for electing the scumbag?

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 21, 2007, 08:01 AM
And both Kerry and Gore would have passed an AWB II and III already.

The point is would you rather have someone who may pass an AWB or someone who WILL pass an AWB?

And yes, those are realistically your only choices.

Paul does not perfectly represent my views, but he comes closer than the rest of the pack. I do plan to vote for him. I have no hopes he will win, but my conscience will be clear.

Your conscience is going to be a lot less clear when President Obama or President Clinton the Second orders the confiscation of you weapons.


Rudy and McCain might sign a new AWB.
Obama and Clinton WILL.

coyote_jr
February 21, 2007, 08:18 AM
Your conscience is going to be a lot less clear when President Obama or President Clinton the Second orders the confiscation of you weapons.

Off your rocker:rolleyes: Not anytime that soon. But it's a step in that direction.

Bubbles
February 21, 2007, 08:34 AM
If the three conservatives (Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, & Tom Tancredo) in the race figured out amongst themselves who would run in the primaries, and the other two drop out, then that person would win the GOP nomination. Why? Because you'd have one conservative running against four or five RINO's, instead of the other way around as in too many past elections.

Personally I'll be voting for Ron Paul in the primary, if he's still in it by the time it's held in my state.

Titan6
February 21, 2007, 08:57 AM
Living in Texas my vote isn't exactly meaningful as it would be in say Florida. Sad to admit but I have not voted in a presidential election since 1984 when I voted for RR (I did not even hear of RP until 1998). Even though RR effectiveness was mixed and he did sell out the 2A on the full auto ban he at least had character and dignity; something we lack in our leaders these days. Even though we were at the height of the cold war I don't think he ever would have allowed a freedom grabbing piece of garbage like the Patriot Act go by him. I digress...

Do I think RP will win? Nope. Will I vote for him? You better believe it. He might well be the last hope we have for real freedom in this country. He also is a man of unwavering principal; something we have not had in national politics in our lifetime. You may be critical of his ideas but they won't change with next poll numbers either. If he does not end up on any ticket than I vote for the same candidate that I voted for the last 23 years: None of the above....

Hobie
February 21, 2007, 09:05 AM
No, I don't think so.

GoRon
February 21, 2007, 09:47 AM
GoRon...
Not with that attitude. What if everyone who believed in Paul said to hell with the chances, sacked up and voted for the man?
Oops, nevermind - that would require principles.
Biker

I may very well vote for him, I'll have to see who else there is on the primary ballot.

His diatribes exposing his thoughts on foreign policy kinda scare me.

Does my vote for him back in '88 count?

He should run for governor then make a run at the Presidency.

I guess I only have principles if I vote like you want me too :rolleyes:

ConstitutionCowboy
February 21, 2007, 09:48 AM
Your conscience is going to be a lot less clear when President Obama or President Clinton the Second orders the confiscation of you weapons.

If such a gun confiscation is ordered, my conscience Will be crystal clear as to what to do about it.

Woody


"Revolution is the Right of the People to preserve or restore Freedom. Those vested with power shall neither deprive the People the means, nor compel such recourse." B.E.Wood

"I swear to protect the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but I am not trigger-happy. I am merely prepared and determined in its defense. It's a comfortable place to be. I don't suffer doubt." B.E.Wood

"Knowing the past, I'll not surrender any arms and march less prepared into the future." B.E.Wood

Etc, Etc, Etc...

Biker
February 21, 2007, 10:25 AM
I should have been more clear. That was meant in the generic "you", not you personally.
No offense meant.

Biker:)

GEM
February 21, 2007, 10:30 AM
No - however, could him getting large enough numbers later influence the political structure of the USA?

Did Anderson, Nader, and Perot - that gave us Clinton?

Personally, I'm tending towards Richardson myself.

GoRon
February 21, 2007, 10:43 AM
I should have been more clear. That was meant in the generic "you", not you personally.
No offense meant.Biker

I knew that, just thought I would try and get a rise out of ya, lol.

Striker
February 21, 2007, 11:00 AM
Emotionally, I would hope so (but note the tag line in my sig).

Realistically? NO he doesn't.

At this point I see three options:
- not to vote (take your ball and go home and get shut completely out of the game)
- vote symbolically (same result as above)
- vote for the top tier candidate who will do the least harm (essentially mitigate/limit the damage to later undo it, while we get our act together for the future).

Flame suit on!

Titan6
February 21, 2007, 11:31 AM
Striker- Sounds like you are planning on hope working out for you. It didn't work with RR won't work with RG, or most of the others maybe McCain... but I doubt it and it is still only hope. Be persistent with your choice though and maybe it will pay off. But you will always know that if it goes badly that you will have assisted in putting that person in place. Just as I will have be guilty by association if RP wins and brings back the gold standard and destroys the world banking system and capitalism as we know it. (dont flame me this ain't an econ 101 forum).

RP is not so much a true libertarian (look at his speeches and deeds and you will see) as a true republican. He just talks the talk and walks the walk... I don't think he will win because too many people have given up on principals in favor of compromise for a certain perceived level comfort, safety and that which is familar. This has been and always will be the danger of a democracy.

Igloodude
February 21, 2007, 11:44 AM
At this point I see three options:
- not to vote (take you ball and go home and get shut completely out of the game)
- vote symbolically (same result as above)
- vote for the top tier candidate who will do the least harm (essentially mitigate/limit the damage to later undo it, while we get our act together for the future).

I fail to see how we're going to get our act together for the future, if the Republican Party continues to see us as a block of voters that they can take for granted.

Outlaw Man
February 21, 2007, 11:46 AM
If he can win the Republican nomination he has a legitimate shot at winning the election. Unlike Hilary, Paul has the distinction of having voted against the war from the beginning, and may be able to use that to his advantage against her. Unfortunately, she's making her recent opposition to the war a big deal, so it may be hard to get his message through the junk she's putting out.

Right now, the final election shouldn't be a concern. It's almost certainly going to be a Democrat or a Republican that wins the election. We should be focusing our efforts on making sure we have the best candidate in that position.

The big names in the running, on both tickets, all scare me.

nico
February 21, 2007, 11:47 AM
Bingo. If any form of the awb passes, its on the heads of everyone here who voted anything other than republican.
so, does that mean you'll take responsibility if Guiliani or McCain signs it?

I live in a state that's about as blue as they get, so my vote has no effect on who wins the election. It does, however, have an effect on the margin of victory. Last election, I held my nose and voted for Bush, only to have him claim a mandate and go on with the crap that made me have to hold my nose in the first place. I won't do that next year.

Striker
February 21, 2007, 11:51 AM
Titan,

My sig line referenced in the first sentence is:
"Hope is not a course of action, nor a method of execution..."

I should have clarified that my choice at this point is the third articulated, since I am in total agreement with you here:
I don't think he will win because too many people have given up on principals in favor of compromise for a certain perceived level comfort, safety and that which is familar. This has been and always will be the danger of a democracy.

Sometimes you have to conduct a retrograde operation (trade space for time) to preserve the resources to prevail. The current 2008 candidate slate may indicate it is time to do so.

On the other hand, if we could effectively harness the current Zumbo dynamic and apply it to the election......

My opinion (I'm just a dumb, old, retired infrantryman), YMMV.

gego
February 21, 2007, 11:56 AM
I think if people would quit voting for someone they think can win and instead vote their conscience, then Ron Paul would be the choice of the majority of freedom loving people.

I suppose most of you have heard of the monkey trap where a hollowed coconut is tied to a tree and filled with goodies. A monkey comes along and can barely get his hand in the cutout hole, but when he grasp the goodies inside, his fist cannot be pulled out and he just sits there holding onto what he has. He screams and pulls as the hunter comes up to club him over the head, but he never lets go of the pittance he has in his hand.

The problem with getting Ron Paul elected is that too many people do not believe in freedom; too many people who do are unwilling to take their hand out of the monkey trap; and the media is on the side of those who want state power over the population and Ron Paul is not one of those people.

Titan6
February 21, 2007, 12:06 PM
'I think if people would quit voting for someone they think can win and instead vote their conscience, then Ron Paul would be the choice of the majority of freedom loving people.'

I posted a poll lets see...

Patriot-Brewer
February 21, 2007, 12:12 PM
I completely agree w/Taurus and Striker

Voting our conscience will not stop the broken freight train, won't even slow it down. I can just see the Dem's laughing at the theory that a 3rd party vote will scare them, or the Rhinos for that matter. The final conclusion to this train ride isn't going to be stopped by voting your conscience...that power has been set aside like old socks a while ago.

Vote to slow the train as much as possible, not speed it up. The longer it takes for the train to derail, the more time there is for preparation.

If you vote for someone you know will not win, knowing full well it will help the "enemy" acquire their goal, what have you accomplished. All you'd be doing is destroying our 2A for our children instead of our grandchildren or great grandchildren.

Vote your conscience in the primaries-vote delaying tactics in the election

Patriot-Brewer
February 21, 2007, 12:22 PM
Gego, Titan...that's all well and good, and I wish it could happen but how are we going to do that? To get that kind of grass roots "I've had enough" thinking going on will take a HUGE screw you from our illustrious .gov, probably more than just our gun world can do on it's own.

It takes a lot of power and $ to get elected nowadays. We need someone with honor and integrity with lots of $ to put up a fight with some chance of winning. PLUTOCRACY is what happens when Capitalism runs astray and honor and patriotism are outcast.

I wish we could do what you want, I really do. We'll never get 60-80 million gun owners to focus together, look at the "Zumbony incident". That idiot showed the true problems within our beloved industry.

Titan6
February 21, 2007, 12:27 PM
You are so very right in everything you are saying. I unfortunately for me, live with a very antiquated moral code. In time I will go the way of the dinosaur and the dodo.... failure to adapt.

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 21, 2007, 12:32 PM
It's simple


Vote with you conscience in the primaries.

Vote against the worst candidate in the election.



How do we get our act together until a real candidate is in the actual election? Keep hyping the good candidates in the primaries. Talk to your friends about them, donate money, put links to their sites or quotes from them in your sig lines on forums, put up signs and bumper stickers, donate money. Do all you can to get them as many primary votes as you can. Do that every primary, and it will build up steam. Send your message that way.

BUT, until an actual good candidate builds up that steam and makes it to the real election, you need to vote against the worst candidate in November. Keep your hope and use it in the primaries. But when crunch time comes in November, live in the real world. Either a Democrat or Republican is going to win. Which one do you want to win more? Or more importantly, which one do you want to lose more? Which is going to be better for gun rights. Which is going to be worse for gun rights?

I'll vote for Paul in the primaries. That's what my conscience tells me. But if he doesn't make it, and I have a choice between, say, Obama and Rudy, I'm voting against Obama.

Patriot-Brewer
February 21, 2007, 12:35 PM
Titan, I respect you for that. Nothing wrong with it at all as long as you understand the outcome.

jerkyman45
February 21, 2007, 12:37 PM
I'm a conservative in a horribly liberal state, my vote doesn't really mean a damn thing anyways.

Sylvan-Forge
February 21, 2007, 12:38 PM
Practical, tactical, strategem, ... when is enough, enough?
The same strategy of compromise has been played out time and time again in all of those that actually think and vote that I know of. What has that line of thinking gotten them? Gotten you? Gotten us? Gradual erosion of rights with little in the way of federal repeal.


We have one last chance to stand on principle before the sky indeed comes crashing down. I plan to go out with a vote that I deem honorable. No more games.
No more compromises.

Biker
February 21, 2007, 12:41 PM
Well said, 007. Go out swinging and moving forward. Imagine if every American who supported Paul would fight to win instead of draw?

Biker

Igloodude
February 21, 2007, 12:45 PM
If the Reps and the Dems laugh so hard at third party votes, why do they show up in forums every other October alternating between begging with and browbeating anyone who says that they intend to vote third party? :scrutiny:

Anyway, the disconnect is clear. If you tend to favor the Republican Party platform, you'll tend to vote for the lesser of two evils come Election Day because one of them isn't really very evil at all. If you tend to favor policies of which some are Republican planks, some Democrat, and some that don't show up on either party's website, then you'll more than likely not worry so much about the slightly-more-evil Democrats taking power, because it is pretty much a matter of drinking hemlock, diet hemlock, or beer on that particular Tuesday.

GRIZ22
February 21, 2007, 12:51 PM
That has nothing to do with Ron Paul, he is running as a REPUBLICAN

If he has running he needs to get a better press secretary as no one in the Northeast has heard of him.

Patriot-Brewer
February 21, 2007, 01:03 PM
Voting 3rd party helps your enemy, whether your a Dem or Rep.

Going out with honor is fine, just remember to tell your grandchildren why they have no chance to shoot some of the firearms we enjoy. I'm not directing this at anybody but ego and emotion can get in the way of rationale thinking, I think we all need to remember that.

We can spend all our $ buying lottery tickets, our be practicle and put a little away every month for the inevitable "retirement" thats coming.

I respect you all who'll vote your conscience in the general election, I just don't think it's helping our cause. But, since we're all on the same side, except for Zumbo and his buddies, you have my understanding.

Augustwest
February 21, 2007, 01:10 PM
Vote to slow the train as much as possible, not speed it up. The longer it takes for the train to derail, the more time there is for preparation.

If you vote for someone you know will not win, knowing full well it will help the "enemy" acquire their goal, what have you accomplished. All you'd be doing is destroying our 2A for our children instead of our grandchildren or great grandchildren.

Couple/few things to keep in mind:

-Some of us don't see the train going any slower with one party than the other at the controls.
-Some of the worst abuses of Amendment II have been signed into law by mainstream Republican administrations.
-There are 7 Articles and 9 other Amendments that are in peril too, and the modern GOP hasn't been a friend to all of them...

flynnguy
February 21, 2007, 01:12 PM
By all logic, I'm throwing my vote away if I vote for anything other than Dem. since I live in the horrible state of NJ. Does that mean I'm going to stay home? Does that mean I'm going to vote for Hillary? Hell no! I will definitely be voting for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries. What if he doesn't win the primaries, will I still vote for him if he decides to run under the Libertarian platform?

Yes, and I'll tell you why... People think that by voting for a libertarian is stealing votes for a republican and voting green is stealing votes from a democrat but it goes much deeper than that. I've seen a number of people say they thought they were liberal but found out there were really a libertarian. So would you rather have a liberal vote for Hillary because a vote for Ron Paul is a wasted vote? Would you rather vote for a republican who takes away your freedoms and guns than "throw away" your vote?

I will gladly "throw away" my vote for Ron Paul in the hopes that everyone else who is debating on "throwing away" their vote makes the same decision I made and we start changing this country back to what it should be.

You're only really throwing away your vote if you vote for someone you don't truly believe in. (ie. voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil)

flynnguy
February 21, 2007, 01:15 PM
Going out with honor is fine, just remember to tell your grandchildren why they have no chance to shoot some of the firearms we enjoy.

And what will you tell them when it's the republicans who took it away? Or will you be too afraid that the government will listen in and record your conversation and label you a terrorist under the PATRIOT ACT?

Biker
February 21, 2007, 01:24 PM
I'm not intersted in seeing the train slow down. I want to see it stopped or wrecked. It's time.
Sometimes, there ain't nothin' at the end of the tunnel but a brick wall.

Biker

Titan6
February 21, 2007, 01:30 PM
Shoot I just noticed your loc on your post. Are you in **********?

(Takes out flame thrower)
How is that slow 'em down strategy working for you out there? Now that the Republican Governator is out there running things should be right back on track hunh? With the AWB lifted you should be GTG. Oh wait, it didn't get lifted there did it?
(puts flame thrower away)

In the end we may lose and my kids may not be able to shoot grandpa's gun but I would still hope to have their respect. If you don't stick to your principals you may wake up some morning without any. The end result your way or mine will likely still be the same but I will be able to lok myself in the mirror every day knowing I made the right choice.

oldfart
February 21, 2007, 01:43 PM
My tin-foil hat may be a bit too tight but I've studied a whole bunch of general elections and their outcomes and I've reached a conclusion that I'm sure most of you will think is a load of BS. Anyway....

What makes any of you think your vote counts for anything? I don't remember right now who said it but it goes something like this: 'The voters don't matter as much as the vote counters.' How many of the most populous states (the ones with the most electoral college votes) are now using electronic voting machines? Sure, there's a call to change them so that individual voters get a receipt showing their choices, but anybody wanna bet whether or not such a change is instituted before the 2008 elections? And this is just the more modern version of ballot-box stuffing. How many of you remember the Governor's election in Washington State? Somehow, King County just "happened" to find a few more votes (paper ones) for Gregoire every time they needed them. I wish I could lay all this at the feet of the Democratic Party but I (and you) know full well that the Pubbies are just as bad. Frankly, I don't think it makes any difference how or even whether we vote. The outcome has been decided in a corporate boardroom somewhere in Belgium or Switzerland.
No, our quadrennial voting exercise can only be likened to the Roman games where the people would cry for the gladiator to live only to be overruled by the Emperor. If you think I'm wrong, then try to explain how Jimmy Carter won.

Ok, my tinfoil hat has been covered with nomex. Have at it.

only1asterisk
February 21, 2007, 01:49 PM
Throwing yourself under the train doesn't slow it down much. If Americans had been voting for the best man in the race all along we wouldn't be in this fix.

David

Biker
February 21, 2007, 02:03 PM
By God, that's truth in a teacup. Wish I could talk that purdy...:)

Biker

only1asterisk
February 21, 2007, 02:20 PM
Another way of looking at it might be having to choose between dangerous medicine and slow acting poison.

David

Sungun09
February 21, 2007, 03:34 PM
He'll get at least one vote... mine

Patriot-Brewer
February 21, 2007, 03:36 PM
Biker, I'd like to see the train wreck too, just not sure if we're ready is all.

Titan...if we gunnies in Kali always voted our conscience in the general election, we'd probably have NO semi's and less of everything else. I'm not saying that the Republicans are innocent, they're almost as bad as the Democrats IMO, but I'd rather have my firearms banned slowly then helping them get banned next year.

Please don't play that lame "your in Kali" game. Draw a 35 mile radius circle around LA and San Fran and make them disappear, and this state would have an A rating on this board. We're just trying to survive as long as possible. Not everyone can just get pissed and say "I'm moving!". There's a whole lot more reality then that...like the business my wife and I own, children, tons of family and friends. (Kali's problems is a whole other thread)

In a perfect, working government and election process, yes, I would vote my conscience throughout the entire process. Reality, IMO, dictates just trying to delay the inevitable, that's all.

STAGE 2
February 21, 2007, 03:42 PM
Imagine if every American who supported Paul would fight to win instead of draw?

It still wouldn't matter. I follow politics as closely as anyone I know and but for my membership on this board I wouldn't have known he existed.

I understand voting one's beliefs. I really do. My primary vote is going to either Hunter, or Tancredo. But when the nomination goes to someone other than those WHICH IT WILL, the BEST thing I can do for my rights is to put the person in office who is least offensive.

No one can argue with this last part. When your horse is out of the race it makes no sense to place a bet.

Everyone here who voted democrat or anything else in the last elections shot wack themselves over the head. If republicans still had control of congress this AWB would be non-existent. Becuase of theri stupidity and short sightedness we now have to put all of our duckets in the executive branch which is bleak to say the least.

Voting principle doesn't have to mean voting stupid.

bowfin
February 21, 2007, 03:44 PM
He will have my vote, my voice, and my contribution, even if the only votes he gets are mine and his own, and we have to gather aluminum cans together to buy posterboard for signs.

Igloodude
February 21, 2007, 03:46 PM
Voting 3rd party helps your enemy, whether your a Dem or Rep.

:banghead:

There's an awful lot of people that are inherently neither Dem nor Rep - most often, they're fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Patriot-Brewer
February 21, 2007, 03:48 PM
Only1...
I agree with your "if only" theory, but who decides "best candidate" for everyone. Are you talking guns, taxes, roads, environment, space, the color of fire hydrants? We can dream of all the "if only's" we want, but it isn't changing the current situation. And if I thought that a giant movement to elect our ultimate canidate was alive and well, I'd be carrying you on my shoulders to the polling booth.

Let's not forget ol' Ross Perot. He had a huge following and only succeeded in getting slick willy into office. I voted for him, being sick of the crap, as you are, but did it do anything? No, we got Billary for 8 years.

humbly,
P-B

Patriot-Brewer
February 21, 2007, 03:52 PM
Igloo, I agree, but election results don't show it. We live in a 2 party system, realistically, whether we like it or not.

Igloodude
February 21, 2007, 04:00 PM
And the two parties actively conspire to keep it that way. Have you taken a look at the membership of the Federal Election Commission? Do you think any new voting scheme that makes the "lesser of two evil" issue fade is going to make it through a legislative branch that is 99% evil? One of the reasons I don't see Dems as being appreciably worse than Reps is because the Reps do everything in their power to make sure that the Dems remain a viable opponent.

Deanimator
February 21, 2007, 04:01 PM
No, no chance at all.

Ron Paul's ONLY chance to see the inside of the White House except on Congressional business involves ALL of the other candidates of BOTH parties being killed in a freak electrocution a la the movie "King Ralph".

I know that makes some people sad, but I almost never cater to people's irrational fantasies. It's why I gave up religion. It's why I disdain socialism. It's why I oppose gun control.

Titan6
February 21, 2007, 04:09 PM
Rudy G gets nominated and is on the ticket running against Clinton. There is something in the water so on election day he is down 20 points in the polls and it is likely that the only state he will carry is New Hampshire who will you vote for?

If you say Rudy G than you are throwing your vote anyway. So why do it? You don't really believe in what he stands for and he has no hope of winning so why?

Titan6
February 21, 2007, 05:10 PM
The answer of course is that you would not.

If your argument falls apart under the light logic and reason than it is not a good argument.

This country was forged on spirted political debate much more so in the past than these days where the candidates read canned answers in front of a tele-prompter that don't really hold them to anything. Now we have the internet and its use as a forum for debate and medium for communication is rapidly changing politics in this country.

Trueno
February 21, 2007, 06:25 PM
Well said, 007. Go out swinging and moving forward. Imagine if every American who supported Paul would fight to win instead of draw?

Biker


Well said both of you! What's gettin' me up to a slow burn is that sprinkled throughout this thread is the same old comment "throwing away a vote". Is that the mindset of some whooped wannabes? Somebody mentioned "reality"...how about WE create (VOTE) our own reality?

Heck, I thought page 4 would start to turn this thread around but the naysayers are in full swing. Hey you bunch of MORIARTY'S, what's with the negative waves?

"They" got you beat down already?

80 million gun owners, put up or shut up.

t

PS > never heard of Ron Paul? that's okay 'cause I sure don't know who in sam blazes Tancredo or Romney are either.

rhubarb
February 21, 2007, 06:28 PM
Patriot-Brewer wrote:

Voting 3rd party helps your enemy, whether your a Dem or Rep.

What if you aren't a Dem or Rep and consider them both your enemy?

For whom <wrings hands> should I vote?

:confused:

xd9fan
February 21, 2007, 06:40 PM
Common sense lead Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia to surrender to the USSR. A third or more of their citizens were promptly murdered. Uncommon sense - valor -- led Finland to resist and, against all odds, preserve their independence. Sometime fighting a losing battle makes more sense because the enemy's strength is less than we think it to be. Other times, it is worth fighting because it is the right thing to do.

trying to beat this logic into mainstream Republican voters is hard.
The neocons are not gettting how they are "Pro-Govt"

Trueno
February 21, 2007, 06:41 PM
Quote:
Patriot-Brewer wrote:
Voting 3rd party helps your enemy, whether your a Dem or Rep.


What if you aren't a Dem or Rep and consider them both your enemy?

For whom <wrings hands> should I vote?
__________________
-Rube
-------------------------------------------------------

I don't have a clue, seems like this crowd has already counted RP out've the race. :confused:

t

ConstitutionCowboy
February 21, 2007, 07:12 PM
The time to vote for whom you REALLY want is during the primaries to get them on the ballot. If that fails, make sure the worst do not get elected.

We will win this battle for our freedoms. Let's just hope some scumbag dictator doesn't think otherwise and force armed conflict. The more stubborn we are, the better. The despots will either seek easier ground or be forced to show their hand and we can kill them.

Woody

You can live free holding the stock and possibly never have to pull the trigger, or you can try to live free at the muzzle. I prefer to hold the stock and live free. Those at the muzzle never seem to fare quite so well. B.E.Wood

Titan6
February 21, 2007, 07:28 PM
Woody said:
'We will win this battle for our freedoms. Let's just hope some scumbag dictator doesn't think otherwise and force armed conflict. The more stubborn we are, the better. The despots will either seek easier ground or be forced to show their hand and we can kill them.'

We still live in a democracy. Let us exercise our right to vote. We are a long, long way from grabbing the torches and pitchforks for real. There are much better ways of dealing with people ie Zumbo.

hoji
February 21, 2007, 07:47 PM
And both Kerry and Gore would have passed an AWB II and III already.

The point is would you rather have someone who may pass an AWB or someone who WILL pass an AWB? How, pray tell would they have gotten this done with a "Republican" House and Senate? The fact is, had Gore won in 2000, the so called "conservatives in Congress would have acted much more like conservatives and blocked Gore at every step.

Lew
February 21, 2007, 07:49 PM
We are a long, long way from grabbing the torches and pitchforks for real.

Maybe we shouldn't be. What I mean is, for me, the worst is how much of a tolerance this country has built up against government control. Liberty is becoming a dusty memory, and not enough people notice or care. If they did, if Mr. and Mrs. America gave two nickels about our nation's state of affairs, we wouldn't still be hearing about you-know-who on every GD news channel!

Someone said it though. The primaries, man. That's where it happens.

TrybalRage
February 21, 2007, 07:55 PM
I think alot of you guys aren't giving RP the credit he may be due. I have been seeing his name pop up on sites that have NOTHING to do with the second amendment.

Many people who would normally vote R didn't last time around simply because of a single issue - Iraq. Ron Paul has been against it since the start.

I first heard of him on a radio show fan site, and all of it was positive. People like this guy, they like the idea of the gov. getting the hell out of their lives.

He appeals to a MUCH broader range of people than any of the other R's in the running.

Pro-gun people, anti-iraq people, small gov people, low tax people, people concerned with the national debt, people concerned with immigration, anti-nafta/cafta people, pro marijuana/hemp people, anti-capital punishment people, etc. It is a broad, broad range.

Don't be so quick to discount this guy - he really grabs some people that don't give a hoot about our cause.

Sindawe
February 21, 2007, 08:00 PM
Hey you bunch of MORIARTY'S, what's with the negative waves?Wow, talk about an obscure reference. ;) Pro-gun people, anti-iraq people, small gov people, low tax people, people concerned with the national debt, people concerned with immigration, anti-nafta/cafta people, pro marijuana/hemp people, anti-capital punishment people, etc. It is a broad, broad range.I have to agree with that one.

Funny that, how a REAL supporter of individual Liberty can cut across special interest lines and attract all sorts of people.

Titan6
February 21, 2007, 08:07 PM
So spread the word. The media won't even if he is the elephant in the room.

Donate money. BB won't they are afraid of losing corporate welfare.

Give up time. If we have time enough to complain we have time enough to do something about it.

Whatever happens, happens.

ConstitutionCowboy
February 21, 2007, 08:08 PM
We still live in a democracy. Let us exercise our right to vote. We are a long, long way from grabbing the torches and pitchforks for real. There are much better ways of dealing with people ie Zumbo.

Don't misunderstand me, Titan. I'm not advocating starting anything; just finishing it if some despot decides to take with arms that which he couldn't obtain with votes.

People like that exist. This is what the Second Amendment is for. Should this ever come to pass, it shall compel preservation of our freedom, so don't vote for anyone who would attempt to deprive us of the means.

Woody

How many times must people get bit in the (insert appropriate anatomical region) before they figure out that infringing upon rights sets the stage for the detrimental acts those rights are there to deter? B.E.Wood

Matt King
February 21, 2007, 08:25 PM
No. Too many people either haven't heard of him, or refuse to vote third party.

TrybalRage
February 21, 2007, 08:35 PM
But he would be running as an (R). So half the argument goes out the window.

People will know. I have been spreading word around, even at the office. Some people who would never vote for the standard-issue cookie cutter republican are liking what they hear about this guy.

Matt King
February 21, 2007, 08:40 PM
But he would be running as an (R). So half the argument goes out the window.

People will know. I have been spreading word around, even at the office. Some people who would never vote for the standard-issue cookie cutter republican are liking what they hear about this guy.

Yes, he is running this time as a Republican, but he is still a Libertarian at heart. He switched parties, because he knew that he was never going to win anything when he ran as a Libertarian.

Dan from MI
February 21, 2007, 08:45 PM
Yes he has a chance:

In the sense that he has a chance to get his name on the ballot in the primaries and earn enough votes and delegates to win.

It's a real longshot, and the only way he can win is with one hell of a grass roots campaign as he won't have a lot of money or party establishment support. He'll need to outwork the others 10-1 - and I've seen Romney and McCain up here 5 times. Tancredo twice. I've never seen Ron Paul.

I'm a GOP activist up here. I'm the type of person that votes in all primaries. I'm the type of person that Ron Paul needs to talk to - as well at 200,000+ people that are like me.

I like Ron Paul and he has a shot to earn my vote, but he'll have to work for it, since I won't vote for a non-existant campaign. I'm not going to waste my time.

.41Dave
February 22, 2007, 12:06 AM
Want Ron Paul to win? Because I sure do. Anyone who wants to can contribute here:

https://www.ronpaulexplore.com/forms/contribute.cfm

Johnnybgood
February 22, 2007, 12:21 AM
Ron Paul. I will vote for who I want, NOT the lesser of two (three?) evils. :mad:

Johnny_Yuma
February 22, 2007, 01:11 AM
NO! Americans are too stupid to read the Constitution, much less elect a guy like Paul.

mordechaianiliewicz
February 22, 2007, 01:25 AM
Why are we in this basket? Why is it going down? Why is snow falling, shouldn't it be getting hot?

rockinrussky
February 22, 2007, 02:26 AM
This Ron Paul seems to remind me of another well respected politician. Does Barry Goldwater come to mind at all? RP is most likely the last chance we'll ever have of a president being even close to that sort of a man (too bad he couldn't even win). For primaries, my vote is for Ron Paul all the way. If he doesn't get the nomination... *sigh* I guess we're stuck between a rock and a hard-place.
-Andrey
(oh yea, this is my first post by the way)

STAGE 2
February 22, 2007, 03:58 AM
Ron Paul. I will vote for who I want, NOT the lesser of two (three?) evils

Good. At least I'll be able to know who to blame when Madame Hillary signs the AWB into law.

Biker
February 22, 2007, 08:01 AM
Reserve a spot for me on that list of yours.

Biker;)

flynnguy
February 22, 2007, 08:36 AM
Say the election comes down to Giuliani and Hillary? Giuliani (a R) has a history of passing very Anti-gun laws in NYC. Also GWB has said he would sign the AWB if it came to him.

What you are implying is that a Republican is less likely to sign an AWB? I'd say if it came across right now, GWB would sign it and if Giuliani wins, I can almost guarantee he'll sign it.

And it goes deeper than just an AWB. GWB has extended the Patriot Act, Giuliani has already created a police state in NYC and I would bet that he would extend it too.

I am hoping that Ron Paul wins the primaries because I feel if he does, he stands a very strong chance to win the election. (Even possibly getting a few D votes.) Even if he doesn't, if he chooses to run as an Independent, I will most certainly vote for him.

KD7ONE
February 22, 2007, 08:47 AM
He has a chance, but he would increase his chance if he joined the CFR.

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 22, 2007, 08:54 AM
Say the election comes down to Giuliani and Hillary? Giuliani (a R) has a history of passing very Anti-gun laws in NYC. Also GWB has said he would sign the AWB if it came to him.

What you are implying is that a Republican is less likely to sign an AWB? I'd say if it came across right now, GWB would sign it and if Giuliani wins, I can almost guarantee he'll sign it.

And it goes deeper than just an AWB. GWB has extended the Patriot Act, Giuliani has already created a police state in NYC and I would bet that he would extend it too.

I am hoping that Ron Paul wins the primaries because I feel if he does, he stands a very strong chance to win the election. (Even possibly getting a few D votes.) Even if he doesn't, if he chooses to run as an Independent, I will most certainly vote for him.


So let's assume that both Rudy and McCain have a very high chance of signing a new AWB. And we don't have to assume with Obama or Hillary. We already know they would.

So by that token it would appear that there is really no difference between the 4 candidates right?

Wrong. While all 4 may have the same personal desire for a new AWB, there is a crucial difference. Rudy or McCain constituents would be against it. They would be losing point with those the elected them. So there is a slight chance they would think twice about an AWB, if only for the sake of looking good. What they want and what their GOP base wants are in conflict, so they have to weigh that out.

The Dem candidates have no such conflict. The people who would get them elected want a new AWB as much as they do. So they will go ahead with no hesitation.

That's what it comes down to. The GOP candidates would at least hesitate about signing. The Dems will not.

rhubarb
February 22, 2007, 08:58 AM
Enough already.:banghead:

Ron Paul has a chance. Of course he does.

From now on, stop "what if" posts. Stop the "Does Ron Paul Have A Chance" posts. From now on, any thread in reference to Ron Paul must be entitled, "I'm Looking Forward to President Ron Paul."

We must start ingraining it into people's minds that he is a contender. Once people take him seriously and give him a good look, they will vote for him. I firmly believe that the American people want a leader that is made of honesty substance and principles, which is more than I would say of any Washington politician except Mr. Paul. For the last week I have been writing emails to online news outlets requesting news updates on Ron Paul's campaign. I have contributed to his election fund, but he must be in the news.

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 22, 2007, 09:13 AM
rhubarb. That's a really great position to have up until the primaries. I think we should all do whatever we can to make Ron Paul our election candidate.


But after the primaries are over and it's either:

Hillary vs. McCain
Hillary vs. Rudy
Obama vs. McCain
Obama vs. Rudy


Then we have some different decisions to make. Practical real world decisions.

Igloodude
February 22, 2007, 09:16 AM
Here in New Hampshire, he's going to be on the primary Manchester tv station's news doing the "Ask a candidate" bit at least. I'm going to see if Gun Owners of New Hampshire might endorse him early (or at all), and there's a couple local talk/politics radio shows (Jay Severin for one) that should hear his name from callers. Jay Severin is a self-described little-L libertarian/libertine Republican political campaign manager who is currently talking up Romney like he's the second coming of Abraham Lincoln... :barf:

Titan6
February 22, 2007, 09:27 AM
That's what it comes down to. The GOP candidates would at least hesitate about signing (sic AWB). The Dems will not.

Totally disagree. Neither side will think. They will consult the polls, their lobbyists, talking heads and determine what the best course of action is for #1. The only real principal that most politicians are dedicated to is how to stay in power for one more election.

True the democrats are the more scary fascists of the bunch but there is no real difference these days between the two.

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 22, 2007, 09:47 AM
And where do polls get their numbers...?


As much as both parties are equally power hungry and self serving; at some point, they all go back to what actually got them elected: their constituents. Of course when they do go back to that, it will only be to get elected again, or to look good when one of their scandals comes out, but the fact remains, each politician does look to what his supporters elected him for. Not for any honorable reason, but they look there just the same.

If an AWB comes up in 2011 or early 2012, if there is GOP pres, he will probably vote against it. But the Dem pres will vote for it. Why? Because that's what their supporters want them to do. And that's what gets the votes.

Election year politics, while shameful and telling of the dishonesty of the other 3 years of a term, do get some things done that the supporters of whoever is in power wants. The same with a scandal. Both parties are self-serving and power hungry. But if the SHTF during a term, the try to draw the attention away by trying to do something good. While that is also shameful, the actions themselves can turn out good.

Augustwest
February 22, 2007, 10:07 AM
If an AWB comes up in 2011 or early 2012, if there is GOP pres, he will probably vote against it.

If you take a look at the history of gun control legislation, you might think differently.

Most incumbent Republican Presidents would be more likely, IMO, to take a position counter to what their base wants in order to draw whatever votes they can from the other side, because, as we're seeing here, many members of the Grand Old Party will vote GOP no matter what their candidate stands for.

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 22, 2007, 10:19 AM
August, that is an interesting and probably very valid point. I had not thought of that angle. That being said, I still think we have a better chance with someone who may vote for an AWB than we do with someone who will vote for one.

Titan6
February 22, 2007, 10:23 AM
A man goes to all the trouble of setting up a carefully laid ambush and you go and steal all my thunder....

Yep, what he said. That has what history has shown us.

rhubarb
February 22, 2007, 10:41 AM
But after the primaries are over and it's either:

Hillary vs. McCain
Hillary vs. Rudy
Obama vs. McCain
Obama vs. Rudy

Then we have some different decisions to make. Practical real world decisions.

Thank you taurusowner for providing a clear example of the attitude I was chastising in my post. Until we begin to regard Ron Paul as a "practical real world" candidate, he will not be one.

I for one look forward to calling Ron Paul "Mr. President."

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 22, 2007, 10:46 AM
But he will also not be one for a while after we begin. Your ideas work great for primaries, and through the primaries we can look forward to a day when real candidates have a shot. But this isn't magic. It's not a switch we can flip where if we just believe in Paul, he will all of a sudden be able to overcome the political climate pervading America. It's going to take time. And in the mean time, realism for this election is necessary. One step at a time.

Igloodude
February 22, 2007, 11:03 AM
So a Republican president might actually sign an AWB because of all those "vote against the AWB by voting Rep" folks?

It's an interesting thought, not least of which because then Stage2 can be on my list to blame when it happens. ;)

only1asterisk
February 22, 2007, 11:17 AM
I will not vote for Giuliani, Romney or McCain. Not for president, not for dog catcher. If that means President Hillary, then so be it. Things can't be allowed to continue as they are. If the status quo is working for you, then do what you think is right.

David

Deanimator
February 22, 2007, 11:21 AM
Try to look at it this way...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rudy G gets nominated and is on the ticket running against Clinton. There is something in the water so on election day he is down 20 points in the polls and it is likely that the only state he will carry is New Hampshire who will you vote for?

If you say Rudy G than you are throwing your vote anyway. So why do it? You don't really believe in what he stands for and he has no hope of winning so why?

If it comes down to a Rudy/Hillary race, I just stay home, since there's no "None of the above" choice.

Titan6
February 22, 2007, 11:25 AM
You are starting to sound a lot more like a GOP apologist with every post.

This has little to do with primaries and a lot to do with doing the right thing. If we give up our rights in pieces or all at once why do anything at all? We could just bury our heads in the sand and do what 48% of the population does and not vote at all and have the same result as the path you are suggesting. So why vote for someone that you know for certain will not fully support your position? As someone else pointed out hope is not a method....

Libertylover
February 22, 2007, 11:59 AM
I just LOVE the false logic pervading here that a vote for Paul in the primaries is somehow a vote for the Hilldabeast in the general election. Paul's likely smart enough to stay out of the general election race if he doesn't get the nomination in the primary or picked up for the VP slot, no matter how well he does in the primaries. Do you think HE wants to see the Hilldabeast as president? Do you think HE wants to be seen as a "spoiler" by conservatives?

My guess is that if we get out there and talk the guy up, spread his name around, spread the principles around, and get attention on him, he can do well in the primaries. NH is key to presidential politics due to our primary. We also have a strong libertarian streak, though it's being diluted by the influx of socialists from MA and other places. The neo-cons are also extremely unpopular, which leaves a distinct opening in there for an anti-war, anti-empire Republican to snatch up votes in the primary.

If Paul recieves enough votes in the primary, he shifts the debate farther towards small government for the Republicans. The neo-cons and other RINO's need to be sent the message that they can and will be tossed out or at the very least damaged at the primary level if they abandon the base and republican principles of small government. And we need to do our part, as advocates of smaller government, to help shift the debate more in our favor.

I'm hoping that there's a mobilization of the small l libertarians in support of Paul, as well as the liberty caucus of the Republican party, in support, to at the LEAST help shift the discourse more in our favor, and HOPEFULLY get him a VP slot due to popularity, much like the Dems went for Edwards as Kerry's running mate due to his popularity in 2004.

Drysdale
February 22, 2007, 12:12 PM
Maybe Ross'll run for Boss again....

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 22, 2007, 12:26 PM
Titan:

I'm an anti-democrat. I'll vote with my conscience in the primaries, and by God I hope Paul makes it. But in the election, my goal is absolutely clear: defeat the Democrats. I'm not a GOP apologist, I just hate everything about the Democratic party. Every issues, not just RKBA. In the general election, I will vote for whoever I think has the best chance of running the Democrat candidate into the ground. If it's Paul, all the better. But if it's not, than it's not.

The GOP may be disappointing, but the Democrats are dangerous. "Doing the right thing" and honor are great sentiments to have, but they will be little real comfort if the Democrats seize all 3 branches of government. The damage they will do will be irreparable and devastating. I'm a realist. I don't like a lot of what the GOP does. It's self serving and greedy. But they are not out to harm me. They will harm me if it serves them, but harming me is not a gaol by itself.

I see harming me as one of the Democratic parties goals by itself.


I just LOVE the false logic pervading here that a vote for Paul in the primaries is somehow a vote for the Hilldabeast in the general election.

Liberty, exactly who, if anyone, has said that votes in the primaries affect votes in the general? I'm not quite sure what you mean.

cbsbyte
February 22, 2007, 01:19 PM
I am not a Republican, but I know He has a snowball chance in hell to win the primary. The corporations and big money that fund the Republican party would never back a person like Paul. He would do better if he ran as a independent where he could appeal to the majority of the people. Personally, I have given up all hope on the Republican party to change from within, Its not going to happen. We have a better chance of trying to convince moderate Democrats to be pro gun than change the Republican leadership.

Augustwest
February 22, 2007, 01:47 PM
That being said, I still think we have a better chance with someone who may vote for an AWB than we do with someone who will vote for one.

It surely is your right to think that. I've just been disappointed enough times in the past not to buy it. And I'm just now sort creeping up on middle age - I'm not that old...

On a side note, it's a veto, not a vote.

Derby FALs
February 22, 2007, 02:15 PM
Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee (http://www.ronpaulexplore.com/)

STAGE 2
February 22, 2007, 04:14 PM
So a Republican president might actually sign an AWB because of all those "vote against the AWB by voting Rep" folks?

It's an interesting thought, not least of which because then Stage2 can be on my list to blame when it happens.

All of you guys are totally ridiculous. Vote for whoever you want in the primaries. My vote will probably go to Tancredo though I know he won't win. But when Paul doesn't win, AND HE WON'T, why in the world would you waste a vote?

Thats exactly what is is. A waste. I can't believe that the people here that LOVE it when Nader runs are the same people that are going to "do the right thing" and vote for a non-candidate.

Wise the hell up. A democrat in the oval office will GUARANTEE a passed AWB. A republican candidate may or may not sign it. No matter what you believe WE HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF DEFEATING ANY AWB WITH A REPUBLICAN ON OFFICE.

Your lofty morals won't be much good when we go back to the days of 10 round mags and no ak's or ar's. The writing is on the wall. If you choose to ignore it, you are part of the problem.

Remember. This is a war. The winner is the one who fights smart. Not the one who hopelessly rides into battle because its a "matter of honor". Kind of the whole concept of making the other poor bastard die for his country, ya know.

SVT93
February 22, 2007, 04:48 PM
I keep hearing "you should vote for the lesser of two evils", but if we can get him to win the republican primarys we won't have too. All this complaning that he can't win the primarys and that some how a vote for him a waste and will some how help the democrats is crazy.

Trueno
February 22, 2007, 05:33 PM
STAGE 2 sez...

1) All of you guys are totally ridiculous. Vote for whoever you want in the primaries. My vote will probably go to Tancredo though I know he won't win.

2) But when Paul doesn't win, AND HE WON'T, why in the world would you waste a vote?


In part 1, you say you'll vote for someone that won't win.
In part 2, you say that if I vote for someone that won't win, that I'm wasting my vote (and that I'm totally ridiculous).

:confused:

And in the realistic world, have any of you frequented the Gun section at the DU lately? Lots of conversation there by Demo gun owners about "teaming up" with Republican gun owners. The reason? They are startin' to see the light about bans and are as concerned as you and me.

I'd give serious thought to the idea of a very large chunk of Dems voting for RP on gun rights alone.

Matter of fact, that's exactly what I'd like to base this election on...RKBA.

t


PS: Taurus, You would do well not to wait until the primaries to lift a finger. "Wait"? Heck no, help to create the choices. ;)

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 22, 2007, 06:21 PM
I keep hearing "you should vote for the lesser of two evils", but if we can get him to win the republican primarys we won't have too. All this complaning that he can't win the primarys and that some how a vote for him a waste and will some how help the democrats is crazy.

All of us who are talking about the lesser of two evils understand 100% that it has nothing to do with the primaries. We are only talking about the general election. We're going to vote for who we think is actually the best in the primary. I'm voting for Ron Paul. Now the general election is a whole different issue. If Ron Paul doesn't make it into the election, than we really are faced with 2 evils, and that's it.


Does everyone here understand the concept of a split vote?

Say there are 3 candidates. 1 lib and 2 conservatives. 10,000 people vote for the lib. 9,000 vote for conservative 1, and 2,000 vote for conservative 2. Who wins? The lib. Why because 2,000 people wasted their voted on a hopeless candidate, and now all conservatives lost.


Please, for the love of God, or xenu, or whoever, vote with your conscience in the primaries. Let us all try our hardest to get Paul or Tancredo to win the Republican nomination. BUT if both of them lose the primary, and the Republicans are stuck with a McCain or Rudy, please do not vote third party in the general election.


Conservatives and libertarians CANNOT afford to split their votes and and let Obama or Hillary divide conquer us. In the general election, we NEED to unite and defeat the Democratic party. And the sad fact is, the only way to defeat the Democratic party is to get the Republican party to win.



Look what happened last election. A bunch of people tried to "send a message" to the Republican party by either not voting, or voting third party. And what was the message then ended up getting through? "We want the Dems to win." And they did. And now we have AWBII. AWBII is on the heads of everyone who did not vote to defeat the Dems. And the same will be said in the general election if we don't wise up and deal with the sad reality of a 2 party system.

STAGE 2
February 22, 2007, 06:28 PM
In part 1, you say you'll vote for someone that won't win.
In part 2, you say that if I vote for someone that won't win, that I'm wasting my vote (and that I'm totally ridiculous).

This may be why we have the problem that we do:rolleyes:

I'm going to vote for who I believe is the best candidate in the primary. If a majority of republicans decide the nominee should be someone other than Tancredo (which they will) or Paul (which they most certianly will) then the GOP is going to throw all of their time money and resources behind that particular person.

If you place a vote for someone other than the person who has the backing of the GOP in the general election its a wasted vote. You are completely spitting into the wind, and helping the democrats while you do it.

Thats the difference.

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 22, 2007, 06:31 PM
Primaries are not about defeating the democrats, they are about picking the best contender to defeat the democrats. Once a contender is picked, we must unite behind that person to defeat the democrats in the general election.

only1asterisk
February 22, 2007, 06:51 PM
Once a contender is picked, we must unite behind that person to defeat the democrats in the general election.

That's the party idea, but it only serves the parties. I want to elect people, the kind that will serve The People, in a manner consistent with the constitution. I'm not a Republican, I'm an American. I want to elect other Americans. I'd rather elect a raging democrat like THRís own benEzra that any of the big three Republican likely nominees. I may have to fight him everyday on taxes, gov. programs and other issues, but Iíd feel more secure in my basic rights.

David

Trueno
February 22, 2007, 07:20 PM
This may be why we have the problem that we do

I'm going to vote for who I believe is the best candidate in the primary.

Me too.
(see, no disagreement...as far as action taken at the primary is concerned).

If a majority of republicans decide the nominee should be someone other than <snip>

Your initial comments were how to vote concerning the primary (see above), I said nothing about what to do/what not to do concerning ROP nominations (after the primary).

thanks anyway, and keep that spirit!

t

STAGE 2
February 22, 2007, 07:40 PM
That's the party idea, but it only serves the parties. I want to elect people, the kind that will serve The People, in a manner consistent with the constitution. I'm not a Republican, I'm an American. I want to elect other Americans. I'd rather elect a raging democrat like THRís own benEzra that any of the big three Republican likely nominees. I may have to fight him everyday on taxes, gov. programs and other issues, but Iíd feel more secure in my basic rights.

Thats fine, and its what many others here have said. You all are putting your "feelings" above your rights. I hope your feelings are enough when they come around to collect your guns.

only1asterisk
February 22, 2007, 07:53 PM
STAGE 2,

Think what you want, but I've decided further compromise is the wrong path. In the end we'll see which of us sells his rights more dearly.

David

STAGE 2
February 22, 2007, 08:05 PM
Looks like Patton was right:scrutiny:

Biker
February 22, 2007, 08:13 PM
Principles tanscend 'feelings'. Some fights are worth fighting even when you know you're gonna lose.

Biker

Titan6
February 22, 2007, 08:26 PM
Taurus Said

Conservatives and libertarians CANNOT afford to split their votes and and let Obama or Hillary divide conquer us. In the general election, we NEED to unite and defeat the Democratic party. And the sad fact is, the only way to defeat the Democratic party is to get the Republican party to win.

But I say:
Conservatives and Libertarians in no way equal each other. Conservatives want to maintain status quo and their own power. Libertarian want to dismantle this out of control .GOV built up by both both parties.

RP is not truly a libertarian. He disagrees with their party on a several major issues. This is why he is now a repub. The problem is repubs are hypocrites and he is not. The party lost its soul many years ago and he is probably the last true one.

STAGE 2
February 22, 2007, 09:50 PM
Principles tanscend 'feelings'. Some fights are worth fighting even when you know you're gonna lose.

This isn't the Alamo or Thermopylae. Statements like that sound great in a movie or in a speech, but mean squat in the real world.

The choice is simple. You can either fight smart and have something to show for it, or do your best impression of Custer and have your gun rights share the same fate.

Trueno
February 22, 2007, 09:52 PM
Principles transcend 'feelings'. Some fights are worth fighting even when you know you're gonna lose.

Biker


+1 ! Self-respect also fits in your equation, ya may have gotten yer butt whooped but the other guy will wonderin' for days "what the heck was that!"

Stealin' a line from Ian:
the train it won't stop going, no way to slow down.

t

Biker
February 22, 2007, 09:59 PM
You're wrong, STAGE 2. If you don't get it now, it can't be explained. Sometimes it's *the fight* that counts, not the outcome.
Best o' luck...

Biker

STAGE 2
February 22, 2007, 10:08 PM
No Biker, I do understand, but such a decision is going to compromise the rights of millions of other gun owners hwo are trying desparately to keep them.

I understand principles, but making a point at the expense of other peoples rights is where I draw the line.

Biker
February 22, 2007, 10:12 PM
I *am* voting for the man who will best represent me and my rights. *You* are voting for someone you're hoping won't put too much sand in the Vaseline.
I'm told ya get used to it after a while. Be sure to let us know...;)

Biker

oldfart
February 22, 2007, 10:52 PM
Long ago, in a squandered youth, I thought I was going to be the next light-heavyweight champion of the world. I wasn't quite championship material but my manager managed to line up a few real losers for me to whet my skills on. One night, after a six-rounder in San Diego, I sat alone in the dressing room. My eyes were swollen almost shut, my mouth had blood running out of it from the cuts and into it from my nose and my shoulders hurt like I'd been beaten with a club... and I had won! That was my last match.
Now we have a real fight on our hands; one that can cause pain and suffering long after it's over, not only for us but also for our children and grandchildren. Unlike that night in that smelly dressing room, we have the advantage of being able to look back at a first-round knockout for our inspiration.
We gunnies, hunters, paper punchers, skeet shooters and plinkers have flexed a muscle that few of us thought we possessed. In a nationwide fit of anger we dispatched a quisling in our midst. The sheer volume of angry e-mails flooding corporate offices was merely mind-boggling at first but soon became overwhelming. No one can really know just how many shooters actually took the time to post messages to all those companies but at least one writer estimated that only about 5% of all the gun owners and shooters in this country did so.
Think about it!! If 5% of shooters can sway the business instincts of several big corporations, what could 20% do? If four times as many messages were relayed to individual congresscritters regarding gun-control legislation their offices would have to be enlarged to handle the paperwork!
Of course, all the messages would have to say pretty much the same thing or the legislator would have no qualms about ignoring them. And isn't this the problem we're discussing here? If we split our own individual vote by voting on principle in the primary and then turning around and voting on expediency in the general election aren't we splitting each and every vote?
When some Greeny talks about global warming, I dismiss the whole idea as ignorant arrogance. This earth has been here a long time while we humans have only been here an eyeblink. Human beings are little more than mold on the face of this globe. The earth will continue long after we are gone.
Those who worry that their vote might be "wasted" are (IMHO) are about as arrogant as the Greenies. Take the time to look at the voting list for your precinct. How many names are on it? Divide the numeral "1" by that total and see just how much weight your vote carries.. Now go back to that 20% I mentioned earlier. If they - all of them - were to vote the same way...
We'll probably never know just what could happen. Too many people are too concerned with "wasting" their infinitessimal vote. Too many people think "principles" were left behind in high school.

only1asterisk
February 22, 2007, 11:04 PM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=3139577#post3139577

xd9fan
February 23, 2007, 12:09 AM
I am an army of one.

STAGE 2
February 23, 2007, 12:36 AM
I *am* voting for the man who will best represent me and my rights. *You* are voting for someone you're hoping won't put too much sand in the Vaseline.
I'm told ya get used to it after a while. Be sure to let us know...


Nope. Not so idealistic as that. Once the primary is over and Paul doesn't even get 10% of the vote, there is no reason to support him. Its just marching off the cliff.

only1asterisk
February 23, 2007, 12:41 AM
Its just marching off the cliff.

Beats standing in line for the shower at the reeducation camp.

David

STAGE 2
February 23, 2007, 01:38 AM
Beats standing in line for the shower at the reeducation camp.


Not hardly. My scenario means a possibility of retaining our rights. Yours is sure to destroy it for everyone. No amount of lofty language is going to change the fact that these are the 2 real choices that everyone has.

Dress it up any way you want but that doesn't change the bottom line.

Furthermore, the idea that because you didn't get something exactly the way you wanted it you're going to let anti's walk all over you is a sure way to lose all of our rights. As long as there are stupid people, we are not going to have things the way they should be. Thats the nature of politics and the nature of humanity.

This is no reason to not take as much as we can when we can.

only1asterisk
February 23, 2007, 01:56 AM
STAGE 2,

This is no reason to not take as much as we can when we can.

When did we last take anything? Did I miss it? What did we take?

Nothing! We are being sold down the river bit by bit. Further delay just makes us weaker.

It is like we are being crushed by a constrictor and we are arguing whether we should stop breathing or let our last breath out as slowly as possible.

David

Limeyfellow
February 23, 2007, 01:59 AM
That's the party idea, but it only serves the parties. I want to elect people, the kind that will serve The People, in a manner consistent with the constitution. I'm not a Republican, I'm an American. I want to elect other Americans. I'd rather elect a raging democrat like THRís own benEzra that any of the big three Republican likely nominees. I may have to fight him everyday on taxes, gov. programs and other issues, but Iíd feel more secure in my basic rights.

+1

The party idea has been responsible in giving us a string of antigun Republicans. The likes of Nixon, Reagon, Bush Sr and even though he wasn't elected Ford have really hurt gunrights and were worse than alot of the Democrats running today but they get a flying pass just because of what party they belong too. We had a good half a decade of antigun candidates that have stripped away rights from both parties but people only seem to remember Clinton. Short memories in my opinion.

What I be really interested in if Rudy Giuliani gets the nomination and he is considered by many the favourite amongst the Republicans what the hell is going to happen since he makes Clinton look like a RKBA member.

Many of the others aren't much better including other front runners like McCain and god help us if someone like that loon Brownback gets in power.

Patriot-Brewer
February 23, 2007, 03:01 AM
All of you "NO COMPROMISE" voters, while noble, are stabbing yourselves in the foot and, unfortunately, we'll get the same result as the last election.

Sometimes compromise is the only way to take a step towards a larger goal. One shouldn't get frustrated and throw away the gains we've made. Hell, the very thing you all are fighting to protect is one GIANT compromise, both the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I understand your frustration and reasoning, I just don't agree with the tactic at this time...there isn't enough back up yet.

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 23, 2007, 05:30 AM
Fighting the good fight means absolutely nothing once you lose.

Igloodude
February 23, 2007, 08:04 AM
PB,
The paradox is that the backup will never get here if the gun lobby collectively continues voting for anti-gun Republican presidents. The message we send Republican candidates is "ignore us, we'll vote for you anyway" and that not-as-fast slide toward a complete gun ban will still speed up.

Sylvan-Forge
February 23, 2007, 08:39 AM
Fighting the good fight means absolutely nothing once you lose.

How can you win if you do not fight?!

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 23, 2007, 08:58 AM
Some fights are worth fighting even when you know you're gonna lose.

No.

Winning is what matters. Once you've lost, you're principles have lost as well.

I fight the fights I can win, and do it in the way that will make me win. Voting third party will not make me win. It will make me lose faster. More glorious? Perhaps. But stupid.

A man who goes down with glory is just dead.

Derby FALs
February 23, 2007, 09:00 AM
All of you "NO COMPROMISE" voters, while noble, are stabbing yourselves in the foot and, unfortunately, we'll get the same result as the last election.

Sometimes compromise is the only way to take a step towards a larger goal. One shouldn't get frustrated and throw away the gains we've made. Hell, the very thing you all are fighting to protect is one GIANT compromise, both the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I understand your frustration and reasoning, I just don't agree with the tactic at this time...there isn't enough back up yet.

You are doing the same thing for a different reason.

Sylvan-Forge
February 23, 2007, 09:12 AM
Understand that America is in peril right now.

Every canadidate, save one, will be a willing participant in carrying out plans for the destruction of the sovereignty of this once, great nation.

The plan to create the North American Union is real.

The constitution rewritten. The Bill of Rights will be no more.

It is that simple.

Sylvan-Forge
February 23, 2007, 10:00 AM
taurusowner said:

I'd really like Ron Paul as president. But I have to be
clear, if he doesn't get past the primaries, my main
goal is going to be keeping the Dems out of the White
House (snip)

I'll vote for Paul in the primaries. That's what my conscience tells me. (snip)

Primaries are not about defeating the democrats, they are about picking the best contender to defeat the democrats. Once a contender is picked, we must unite behind that person to defeat the democrats in the general election.


I respect your stand on the matter.

Let us work together to assure Ron Paul makes it through the primaries so that you may not be faced with having to pick the lesser menace among the utterly corrupt.

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 23, 2007, 10:02 AM
I respect your stand on the matter.

Let us work together to assure Ron Paul makes it through the primaries so that you may not be faced with having to pick the lesser menace among the utterly corrupt.

That's something I think all of us can agree on.

Crimp
February 23, 2007, 10:47 AM
I'll vote for Paul in the primaries. That's what my conscience tells me.

But, what if, going into the primaries, Ron Paul's polls show him with 3% of the vote, but Tom Trancredo or Duncan Hunter has 18 or 20% of the polls.

Would you still vote for Paul or try to push Trancredo or Hunter over the top against Giuliani?

Titan6
February 23, 2007, 11:47 AM
Maybe Tancredo, IMHO he is better than every other candidate in the field except Paul. Hunter is simply too much politician for me to stomach.

Rudy G = Clinton H, except he is a slightly smarter and a little less crooked.

Edit: See what happens when you post without thinking? (dang coyote hunting...) Just recalled Tancredo voted for Patriot Act also, so no, not a chance. Never, ever. I am a two issue voter: freedom and liberty.

Patriot-Brewer
February 23, 2007, 03:05 PM
Damn Crimp, that's a good question. Where's the popcorn?

Trueno
February 23, 2007, 07:45 PM
taurusowner: A man who goes down with glory is just dead.

Sigh...:scrutiny:

t

Biker
February 23, 2007, 07:54 PM
Yup, Trueno, sometimes you just have to shake your head and shine it on. Some things can neither be explained or taught.

Biker

SolaScriptura139
February 23, 2007, 10:57 PM
A man who goes down with glory is just dead.

Tell that to those who died for your freedom.

Titan6
February 23, 2007, 11:03 PM
He is a young soldier he will learn.

If you enjoyed reading about "Does Ron Paul have a chance?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!