Ron Paul the flunkie
- Thread starter STAGE 2
- Start date
- Status
Let me clarify something (especially for you "haters" out there). I am NOT a single issue voter. Never have been. There are people on this board that are, or at least 2nd amendment issues predominate for them.
Its THESE people that I am addressing. If you have fundamental differences with a candidate then by all means vote your conscience. This is completely outside the scope of my argument.
What I AM saying is that for those people for which the 2nd amendment IS their issue, and IS pretty much the only litmus test for who they vote for, wasting a vote on Ron Paul makes no sense.
For these people, why is it better to waste a vote on someone, which will do nothing for our rights, than to elect someone that is not quite as perfect, that will likely push our rights further, or at least not let them erode any further.
You can't look at things as separate. There is a big picture here. We want to keep increasing our rights to where they should be. THIS is the important thing. You don't vote to put a specific person in office, you vote to get things done becaue you can't be there to do it yourself. Why vote for someone who will never get things done.
Its THESE people that I am addressing. If you have fundamental differences with a candidate then by all means vote your conscience. This is completely outside the scope of my argument.
What I AM saying is that for those people for which the 2nd amendment IS their issue, and IS pretty much the only litmus test for who they vote for, wasting a vote on Ron Paul makes no sense.
For these people, why is it better to waste a vote on someone, which will do nothing for our rights, than to elect someone that is not quite as perfect, that will likely push our rights further, or at least not let them erode any further.
You can't look at things as separate. There is a big picture here. We want to keep increasing our rights to where they should be. THIS is the important thing. You don't vote to put a specific person in office, you vote to get things done becaue you can't be there to do it yourself. Why vote for someone who will never get things done.
The reading comprehension around here has faltered somewhat. VOTE FOR WHO YOU WANT TO IN THE PRIMARIES. By all means put the X by Paul's name. I'd prefer Hunter since hes got a much much better chance of being elected, but if Paul is your fancy then so be it.
However, when he doesn't win the primary, there is no reason to vote for him again. He won't win. I know it, you know it, everyone here knows it. If everyone here on this board voted for Paul, and 2 friends of everyone here voted for Paul, he still wouldn't clear 4% in the polls... and thats just in the primary.
WHen your horse is no longer in the race, the "right choice" changes.
If you voted for a dem in the last election, and this AWB gets passed then you deserve to have all your toys taken away. Its your fault that this thing got to see the light of day.
RevolvingCylinder
Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2006
- Messages
- 782
Too late to vote now I guess. It seems all the elections are done in polls now. I guess we need to welcome our new President Guiliani who will be succeeding Presidents Kerry and Dean who won the previous polls.
The corporate media also represents the opinions of the overwhelming majority of Americans everywhere as well.
And people wonder why I have little hope for the Republic. Party loyalties are put before values and beliefs.
The corporate media also represents the opinions of the overwhelming majority of Americans everywhere as well.
And people wonder why I have little hope for the Republic. Party loyalties are put before values and beliefs.
LawBot5000
Member
The Democrat power brokers aren't looking out for our interests and the libertarians still dont understand what a power broker is.
Libertarians seem to think that because power is evil they should refuse to acknowledge its existance until it points a gun in their face.
Igloodude
Member
The "pure single-issue RKBA voter" would do better with a non-frontrunning Republican Ron Paul than a non-frontrunning Republican Duncan Hunter. The reason being, Duncan Hunter wants the Federal Government to have more power over where you can spend your money (Voted YES on banning Internet gambling by credit card), how you travel (Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists), what you say (Voted YES on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting, Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration), and how it can listen to you (Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight). It seems to me that the Second Amendment (and indeed pretty much the entire Bill of Rights) is in letter and in spirit a restriction of the power of the Federal Government, and to advocate a more powerful Federal Government except where the Bill of Rights draws the line (and even then amending the constitution to bend the line where desired) is ultimately harmful to the RKBA in any case.
nico
Member
When has Guiliani done anything to show that he'll do either of the above? This isn't a guy who was lukewarm on the 2nd Amendment. This is a guy who SUED gun manufacturers for the acts of criminals. He has never been a friend to gun owners and hasn't done anything to try to gain our trust, so he's not going to get it from me
I've asked (and been ignored) in other threads: Since you're so willing to throw anyone who won't blindly vote Republican under the bus, are you willing to take responsibility if Guiliani signs an AWB?
Titan6
member
Stage 2, You never answered my question
If RG was running and on election day you knew he had absolutely no chance of winning would you vote for him anyway?
The answer is no you would not.
Because if you say yes than you do so knowingly wasting your time means you are only doing it on principal, so you must beleive in him and what he stands for.....
If RG was running and on election day you knew he had absolutely no chance of winning would you vote for him anyway?
The answer is no you would not.
Because if you say yes than you do so knowingly wasting your time means you are only doing it on principal, so you must beleive in him and what he stands for.....
First, hypotheticalls are pointless here. Paul will not win. Second, if Guliani had the best chance out of any R than I would give him a long hard look.
I care about my rights, not the person in office. Politicians come and go, but lost rights are gone forever. Defending my rights sometimes means voting for the best candidate, but sometimes it means preventing the biggest danger from occupying office.
Beatnik
Member
Here is a non-hypothetical for you.
Of course Paul will not win - because the conservatively bent population has far too many people such as yourself, who spend all their effort convincing people that their effort should be spent on people other than who they believe in.
The hypothetical we're arguing is that if you spent as much energy supporting the idea that we should vote according to how we want to be governed, instead of voting according to election-winning hairstyles, then we'd be that much closer to solving the problem.
As it is, whether you mean to or not, you're supporting the idea that we should vote for hairstyles, and hope that the politics follow.
Titan6
member
'First, hypotheticalls are pointless here. Paul will not win. Second, if Guliani had the best chance out of any R than I would give him a long hard look.
I care about my rights, not the person in office. Politicians come and go, but lost rights are gone forever. Defending my rights sometimes means voting for the best candidate, but sometimes it means preventing the biggest danger from occupying office'
When you say Paul can not win you are talking hypotheticals... Unless you have some new age crystal ball that I would like to see.
I think RG is the biggest danger, probably bigger than Clinton maybe not so much as Obama. To aruge that the VP can somehow control him his not a very tenable position. Historically this has never been shown to have happened.
If you really think that Hunter is pro rights you might want to take a closer look at the legislation he voted on give it some thought. I did and that is not what I came away with at all.
I would like nothing better than for a popular Republican Congressman from California to be pro freedom, liberty and Constitution. Hell, that might save the Republican Party. But that is not what we have.
I care about my rights, not the person in office. Politicians come and go, but lost rights are gone forever. Defending my rights sometimes means voting for the best candidate, but sometimes it means preventing the biggest danger from occupying office'
When you say Paul can not win you are talking hypotheticals... Unless you have some new age crystal ball that I would like to see.
I think RG is the biggest danger, probably bigger than Clinton maybe not so much as Obama. To aruge that the VP can somehow control him his not a very tenable position. Historically this has never been shown to have happened.
If you really think that Hunter is pro rights you might want to take a closer look at the legislation he voted on give it some thought. I did and that is not what I came away with at all.
I would like nothing better than for a popular Republican Congressman from California to be pro freedom, liberty and Constitution. Hell, that might save the Republican Party. But that is not what we have.
Igloodude, don't be so sure that social conservatives are quite what you think. I am what you would call a far-right social conservative, probably disagree with you on most issues, but I am against the WOD, and totally pro-RKBA and, believe me, there are many more like me out there. While you and I may not vote for each other based on other issues, on a lot of things we aren't too far apart.
Completely wrong. If myself and every other person that has been voicing opposition to Paul was completely silent he still would have zero chance of winning.
To win the executive, you need lots of money, national exposure, and party support. Paul has NONE of these.
No, I'm not. Can I tell you with 100% mathetical certianty that Paul won't win the election, no. Its completely possible that all of the candidates but Paul could die in a freak accident.
However, I am 99.8% sure that Paul won't win. Hypotheticals are one thing, but everybody that is honest with themselves here knows Paul won't even start the race.
Titan6
member
You Are On!
Okay Now we are talking real gambling.... Okay I put up $5.05 bucks at 998 to 1. If Hunter wins either VP or Pres I give you $5. If Paul wins either you give me $5000.
Put your money where your mouth is....
PHP:
However, I am 99.8% sure that Paul won't win. Hypotheticals are one thing, but everybody that is honest with themselves here knows Paul won't even start the race.Okay Now we are talking real gambling.... Okay I put up $5.05 bucks at 998 to 1. If Hunter wins either VP or Pres I give you $5. If Paul wins either you give me $5000.
Put your money where your mouth is....
Last edited:
Titan6
member
SHOW ME THE MONEY!
Come on YOU said $5G's earlier. I think that is a good number but do you want to make it 10?
I actually have a much better chance of dying prior to the election than Paul being elected so you would have to pay off my heirs.
This is not about voting for who you think will let us down the least when we need it the most. This is about doing the right thing for the right reasons. This quaint outdated concept is a rarity in our world of compromising away our rights and freedoms for comfort and safety. When and where do we stop? For me it ended a long time ago when I realized the futility of it. Paul may not win but at least I will have a clear concious.
Come on YOU said $5G's earlier. I think that is a good number but do you want to make it 10?
I actually have a much better chance of dying prior to the election than Paul being elected so you would have to pay off my heirs.
This is not about voting for who you think will let us down the least when we need it the most. This is about doing the right thing for the right reasons. This quaint outdated concept is a rarity in our world of compromising away our rights and freedoms for comfort and safety. When and where do we stop? For me it ended a long time ago when I realized the futility of it. Paul may not win but at least I will have a clear concious.
Titan6...
I'm with ya. Fact is, if everyone voted their conciense instead of voting out of fear, Paul *could* win. The American people are afraid of just about everything these days and base important decisions based upon fear which just lets the bullies continue their reign of terror.
Well, I'm here to tell ya once a whupped dog remembers that he still has teeth, he starts bitin'.
Whada ya say, fellow Countrymen?
Ruff! Ruff!...
Biker
I'm with ya. Fact is, if everyone voted their conciense instead of voting out of fear, Paul *could* win. The American people are afraid of just about everything these days and base important decisions based upon fear which just lets the bullies continue their reign of terror.
Well, I'm here to tell ya once a whupped dog remembers that he still has teeth, he starts bitin'.
Whada ya say, fellow Countrymen?
Ruff! Ruff!...
Biker
Dravur
Member
<yawn>
OK, Ron PAul is the Hero to save the world....Hurrah.... If, by some miracle, he is placed on the ballot amidst the fact that my dad, who is as conservative as they come has never even heard of the guy, and he has the name recognition of Skippy, The Donut Boy, I will happily vote for him.
If, and this is FAR more likely, he will be forgotten in the primaries 10 seconds after they annoint RG as the presidential candidate, RG will still get my vote. Is it the lesser of two evils? yep, probably. However, sometimes you need to do the dirty things as the alternative is so much worse.
I am also not a single issue voter.... If the hildabeast came out tomorrow and said that she would personally hand me a NFA weapon of my choosing and repeal every gun law, I would still not vote for her or her socialist agenda. I sometimes have to go with the lesser of two evils....
I will vote for RG when he is running. If Ron Paul gets the nod, I will vote for him as well.
OK, Ron PAul is the Hero to save the world....Hurrah.... If, by some miracle, he is placed on the ballot amidst the fact that my dad, who is as conservative as they come has never even heard of the guy, and he has the name recognition of Skippy, The Donut Boy, I will happily vote for him.
If, and this is FAR more likely, he will be forgotten in the primaries 10 seconds after they annoint RG as the presidential candidate, RG will still get my vote. Is it the lesser of two evils? yep, probably. However, sometimes you need to do the dirty things as the alternative is so much worse.
I am also not a single issue voter.... If the hildabeast came out tomorrow and said that she would personally hand me a NFA weapon of my choosing and repeal every gun law, I would still not vote for her or her socialist agenda. I sometimes have to go with the lesser of two evils....
I will vote for RG when he is running. If Ron Paul gets the nod, I will vote for him as well.
Good for you, Dravur. Having said that, you can take your *yawn* to your proctologist and ask him to *Please be gentle* on my behalf.
M'kay?
As long as you're willing to vote for the 'lesser of two evils', that's exactly what you're gonna get.
Maybe your children will forgive you someday. I wouldn't, but maybe they will.
Biker
M'kay?
As long as you're willing to vote for the 'lesser of two evils', that's exactly what you're gonna get.
Maybe your children will forgive you someday. I wouldn't, but maybe they will.
Biker
Ah, yes.
Let me get this straight: libertarians really have to vote Republican, even if we don't agree with the Republicans on 70% or more of their platform, because to do otherwise is wasting our vote.
Even if we disagree with 90% of what Republicans actually do once in office, we should keep voting for them anyway, so we can change the party from within. That's the line we keep being fed.
So now, when a minor miracle occurs, and there is a Republican candidate who accurately reflects and supports our views, we should NOT vote for him or promote his cause in any way, because to support this Republican candidate would be wasting our vote. Right ...
I am beginning to suspect that the agenda here has nothing whatsoever to do with the 2nd Amendment, and not a lot to do with Republicans either. I think it has an awful lot to do with hating the types of freedom that libertarians believe in and hold most dear.
pax
Let me get this straight: libertarians really have to vote Republican, even if we don't agree with the Republicans on 70% or more of their platform, because to do otherwise is wasting our vote.
Even if we disagree with 90% of what Republicans actually do once in office, we should keep voting for them anyway, so we can change the party from within. That's the line we keep being fed.
So now, when a minor miracle occurs, and there is a Republican candidate who accurately reflects and supports our views, we should NOT vote for him or promote his cause in any way, because to support this Republican candidate would be wasting our vote. Right ...
I am beginning to suspect that the agenda here has nothing whatsoever to do with the 2nd Amendment, and not a lot to do with Republicans either. I think it has an awful lot to do with hating the types of freedom that libertarians believe in and hold most dear.
pax
Prince Yamato
Member
No, Paul will not win because nobody besides a couple THR members and his immediate family know who the hell he is. He won't get past the Republican primary. And Stage 2 isn't trying to tell you not to vote for him in the primary, he's trying to tell you how to actually KEEP your 2A rights. A libertarian candidate WILL NOT win the coming presidential election. Ron Paul will not get past the Republican primaries. Giuliani probably WILL be the Republican candidate. Oh, he's just NOW changing his position on gun control. What? Can't people change their positions on things? His views were wrong in the past, so he's damned forever? I used to fully support abortion, now I don't, does that mean I'm permanently pro-choice, regardless that I did a 180?
I know, Giuliani's record. It's nowhere NEAR perfect. Will our gun rights advance far under him, no. But they'll go farther than they will under hillary. You know what else? GWB isn't perfect for gun rights either, but I fear less under him than I do under a Democrat. Giuliani was a New Yorker most of his life, he sees things from that perspective. He moves out of New York, he'll see things differently. I did.
No, it has to do with practicality. Your libertarian candidate will NOT win a presidential election. I consider myself libertarian, but realistically, they won't win. So choose the closest candidate that will win. So a republican only supports 30% of your values. A Democrat supports 0%. Which would you rather have, a little of something or a whole lot of nothing?
That's actually not true.
The Republican platform hits around 30%. In practice, the Republicans themselves hit around 10% or less. The current President has managed to hit around 5% or less.
The Democrat platform hits around 30%, too. In practice, Dems hit around 20% or less.
So whom should I vote for? None of the above very accurately represents my actual preference. Given a choice between two rapists, I'll choose neither.
pax
And yet the sad fact is that you are going to get one of them no matter what. The federalists have about as much chance of winning a branch of government as libertarians do. You guys are the Ralph Nader's of the right.
Keep your heads in the sand folks, the liberals are crossing their fingers that you do.
Dravur
Member
So....
Let me get this straight? Every Republican and Every Democrat is totally corrupt? Tom Tancredo comes to mind, solid on immigration and pro gun. There are a few Republicans who I agree with for the most part.
Yes, yes, I know, someone will trot out a vote on something he did that will be construed as anti-something, but that is inevitable. Back to the "you will never agree with 100% of what any Politician will do"
Suffice it to say that in General, the Republican coalition is far more protective of gun rights than the Demos. Look at Ron Paul vs Dennis Kucinich for example.
In this case, PArty trumps person as I want my coalition in power. Yes, and you can hold your protest party and vote for whomever you like, you can even vote for Jeff, the Wonder horse. In a national election, your vote will be wasted. And yes, I know, if we all did it, it would send a message... Yep, a message of hope to Hillary.
Oh, and Biker, not very high road on the procto comments...
And my children will have to make these same hard decisions based on reality, not some vague notion of "We're gonna show them nasty republicans by getting gun control here ASAP."
Work from within your party to elect people you agree with. Stop wasting your time on a blog and get involved. Change it locally, then nationally. Look at Montana for an example.
Also, the fact is if everyone voted their conscience on the high road and voted for the Libertarian candidate for example, then the libertarian candidate would still lsoe with ;ess than 1% of the vote, jsut as the green candidate or the communist candidate has people voiting for them using their conscience. It swings both ways.
Let me get this straight? Every Republican and Every Democrat is totally corrupt? Tom Tancredo comes to mind, solid on immigration and pro gun. There are a few Republicans who I agree with for the most part.
Yes, yes, I know, someone will trot out a vote on something he did that will be construed as anti-something, but that is inevitable. Back to the "you will never agree with 100% of what any Politician will do"
Suffice it to say that in General, the Republican coalition is far more protective of gun rights than the Demos. Look at Ron Paul vs Dennis Kucinich for example.
In this case, PArty trumps person as I want my coalition in power. Yes, and you can hold your protest party and vote for whomever you like, you can even vote for Jeff, the Wonder horse. In a national election, your vote will be wasted. And yes, I know, if we all did it, it would send a message... Yep, a message of hope to Hillary.
Oh, and Biker, not very high road on the procto comments...
And my children will have to make these same hard decisions based on reality, not some vague notion of "We're gonna show them nasty republicans by getting gun control here ASAP."
Work from within your party to elect people you agree with. Stop wasting your time on a blog and get involved. Change it locally, then nationally. Look at Montana for an example.
Also, the fact is if everyone voted their conscience on the high road and voted for the Libertarian candidate for example, then the libertarian candidate would still lsoe with ;ess than 1% of the vote, jsut as the green candidate or the communist candidate has people voiting for them using their conscience. It swings both ways.
- Status
