Does Ron Paul have a chance?
- Thread starter Ragnar Danneskjold
- Start date
- Status
Cosmoline
Member
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
Member
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
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
Member
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.
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.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
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?
So what's your point?
nico
Member
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.
Prince Yamato
Member
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
Member
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
Member
Poland isn't the Soviet Union or German so you couldn't vote for them if you wanted to.
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
Member
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!
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
Member
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
.
"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.
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
."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
member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,412
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
David
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
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
member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,412
taurusowner,
Could you please name an acceptable Republican candidate?
David
Could you please name an acceptable Republican candidate?
David
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
For the Primary? Ron Paul.
For the election? Which ever Republican is running against the Democrats.
For the election? Which ever Republican is running against the Democrats.
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.
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
Member
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.
Don't vote Republican because you like them. Vote against the Democrats.
Defeat the greater enemy while you can.
Tylden
Member
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
Member
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.
) 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.
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.
) 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
Member
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.
The truly pathetic thing is.... a lot you actually believe this.
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
Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
- Status
