USSR
Member
No way that a liberal Republican like Rudi can make it thru the primaries and be the Republican nominee, so start thinking (gag) McCain.
Don
Don
Rudy Giuliani vs. Hillary Clinton .. Next President & Gun Control
- Thread starter Gary H
- Start date
- Status
CAnnoneer
Member
Quote:So you'll be voting republican after all.
Only if the shoe fits. Many things can happens in the next 1-3 years. If nothing changes and no new leaders emerge, I will have to vote based on record and favor the side that produced a record surplus over the side that produced a record deficit.
Frankly, I don't give a rat's a$$ what new rhetoric the ideologues on any side come up with. We all know they are just whoring for votes. Accomplishments on the other hand always speak louder than any words.
Only if the shoe fits. Many things can happens in the next 1-3 years. If nothing changes and no new leaders emerge, I will have to vote based on record and favor the side that produced a record surplus over the side that produced a record deficit.
Frankly, I don't give a rat's a$$ what new rhetoric the ideologues on any side come up with. We all know they are just whoring for votes. Accomplishments on the other hand always speak louder than any words.
Silver Bullet
Member
Sounds great, except ...
1. Some sides produced record surpluses by turning a blind eye to work that needed to be done, and some sides produced record deficits from having to clean up the messes produced by the side that left the work for the next administration.
2. Some sides inherited an economy on an upswing, and some sides inherited an economy on the downswing.
3. Economic imbalances are easier to rectify than rolling back accumulated bad gun laws.
CAnnoneer
Member
I think we all should look inwards and ask ourselves what our highest priorities are. For example, what and how much we are willing to sacrifice in exchange for what and how much. Once we consciously recognize that, I think we will have a better understanding of ourselves and the motivations behind the positions we hold.
As regards myself, I think the prosperity and freedom of the nation is the most important issue. IMO they go hand-in-hand, because no pauper is free. If you are an economic slave, there is no chance that you would be politically free (at least not for long) (e.g. all poor countries in the world), and if you are a political slave, you most certainly are also an economic one (e.g. USSR and co).
From that perspective, policies that throw millions of Americans into poverty and destroy the middle class are just as dangerous as policies that endanger our political freedoms through statism and big government. And I don't give a damn if that is done by incompetence, malice, or best intentions, because the result is the same and history is a compilation of results.
As regards myself, I think the prosperity and freedom of the nation is the most important issue. IMO they go hand-in-hand, because no pauper is free. If you are an economic slave, there is no chance that you would be politically free (at least not for long) (e.g. all poor countries in the world), and if you are a political slave, you most certainly are also an economic one (e.g. USSR and co).
From that perspective, policies that throw millions of Americans into poverty and destroy the middle class are just as dangerous as policies that endanger our political freedoms through statism and big government. And I don't give a damn if that is done by incompetence, malice, or best intentions, because the result is the same and history is a compilation of results.
Mr. James
Member
Boy, howdy, ain't THAT the truth. Just yesterday a friend and I were waxing nostalgic, thinking wouldn't JFK make a fine Republican candidate...
I'd love to see George Allen of Virginia take a run, but I don't believe he's ready. Appears he's going to try to keep his Senate seat, where at least he can countermand all the damage done by the worthless RINO shill, John Warner.
Silver Bullet
Member
I have a different set of guidelines. I am essentially a small ‘l’ libertarian. I want much less government than what we now have, especially much less centralized government. In a Presidential election I have to evaluate which candidate I should vote for to achieve that end. Is it the Democrat, Republican, or Third Party ?
Note that achieving that objective is not necessarily the same as voting for the candidate who most exemplifies those ideals. For example, in 2004 I looked at the candidates and decided that the election of Bush would be better than the election of Kerry insofar as the Republicans are pushing us towards socialism more slowly than the Democrats. The Third Party in 2004 did not have a realistic chance of winning, so the effect of voting Third Party was to take a vote away from Bush, and thus help Kerry. Accordingly, voting for Bush was the best way to slow the trend towards socialism, even though a Third Party candidate might have been a better choice if elected.
But this creates a quandary of sorts, a catch-22. Third Party can’t get votes because it can’t get elected; it can’t get elected because it can’t get votes.
I see two possible ways around this.
One is to do what the socialists did with the Democrat party: infiltrate and take control of the Republican Party. Libertarians could join the Republican Party and leverage off its funds, political organization, and public acceptance. I think this is what Ron Paul did, and I don’t see a downside other than being so outnumbered that “taking control” is difficult.
Another idea is to vote Third Party at every pre-election poll you can find. This would be a way of assessing the real Third Party candidate strength; with nothing to lose you could test the waters. If there are enough polls, it would seem that more and more voters would be emboldened by the previous poll to venture into Third Party voting if they were truly dissatisfied with the Rs and Ds. If the polls just before the election showed your Third Party choice running at, say, 30%, you have a good shot of winning. If the polls still show your guy at 5%, it would probably be time to regroup and hope for a better result in four years.
Note that achieving that objective is not necessarily the same as voting for the candidate who most exemplifies those ideals. For example, in 2004 I looked at the candidates and decided that the election of Bush would be better than the election of Kerry insofar as the Republicans are pushing us towards socialism more slowly than the Democrats. The Third Party in 2004 did not have a realistic chance of winning, so the effect of voting Third Party was to take a vote away from Bush, and thus help Kerry. Accordingly, voting for Bush was the best way to slow the trend towards socialism, even though a Third Party candidate might have been a better choice if elected.
But this creates a quandary of sorts, a catch-22. Third Party can’t get votes because it can’t get elected; it can’t get elected because it can’t get votes.
I see two possible ways around this.
One is to do what the socialists did with the Democrat party: infiltrate and take control of the Republican Party. Libertarians could join the Republican Party and leverage off its funds, political organization, and public acceptance. I think this is what Ron Paul did, and I don’t see a downside other than being so outnumbered that “taking control” is difficult.
Another idea is to vote Third Party at every pre-election poll you can find. This would be a way of assessing the real Third Party candidate strength; with nothing to lose you could test the waters. If there are enough polls, it would seem that more and more voters would be emboldened by the previous poll to venture into Third Party voting if they were truly dissatisfied with the Rs and Ds. If the polls just before the election showed your Third Party choice running at, say, 30%, you have a good shot of winning. If the polls still show your guy at 5%, it would probably be time to regroup and hope for a better result in four years.
+1. If ever there were an epitome of the "lesser of two evils" - lol. Now why did you have to go and give my subconsious fodder for more nightmares?
Hillary would never ever be elected - too many people can't stand her, for whatever reasons - even otherwise slightly liberal folks I know strangely enough. But, it will be interesting to see whether the Dems are dumb enough to nominate her and hand the white house over again in 08. Now, put someone like Zell Miller vs. Rudy Guliani and I'd vote Miller. Heck, I'd probably vote for Howard Dean over Guliani - He said leave gun control issues to the states; not the fedgov's business; makes sense to me.
Marshall
Member
Howard Dean...there's a stable mind. 
swampsniper
Member
"Finally, it seems to me some of you guys are so focused on the gun issues that seem willing to support virtually anybody, who among other things, is even marginally pro-gun, and then defend him with claws and teeth no matter what kind of other pooh he produces on a regular basis. Do you guys really believe guns is the SINGLE most important issue of our times? That reminds of the old lady I heard about who vehemently hated Bush but voted for him because she hates gay marriage even more".
================================================
I figure that people like DiFi must know that they will have to kill a lot of people, to collect all the guns, and I assume that they are comfortable with the idea. I don't want that kind of people in power, at any level.
You don't believe that everyone would just walk in, hand over Grampa's shotgun, with no more than a whimper, do you?
================================================
I figure that people like DiFi must know that they will have to kill a lot of people, to collect all the guns, and I assume that they are comfortable with the idea. I don't want that kind of people in power, at any level.
You don't believe that everyone would just walk in, hand over Grampa's shotgun, with no more than a whimper, do you?
CAnnoneer
Member
Nah, my expectation is that if it comes to that, suddenly there will be a mysterious wave of "lost" and "stolen" registered firearms 
bjbarron
Member
No one is more distressed than I how the country has moved to the left over the past 40 years....but
Conservatives never had much of a voice until lately. Until very few years ago books were all we had. The media was and is hard left. Now with radio and the internet we see that there really are other conservatives out there. The silent majority speaks.
I believe it is possible to reverse the trends of the past few decades.
Some comments....
Newt said on Hannity this afternoon that he was headed to Iowa (Hmmmm...Iowa).
Very few senators have ever been elected President...mostly it's governors. McCain cannot win the primaries and Hillary cannot lose. McCain could grab the Presidency, and Hillary cannot win it. As much respect as I have for Rudy, he would make a lousy President.
The only reason BJ Clinton was elected (with 41%) was because too many guys like me voted for Perot....never again will I make that mistake. It's only the Republicans that get hammered by third parties. It will be a cold day in hell before the Libertarians actually run someone electable.
There would be little difference between a Hillary and a McCain Presidency.
You can complain about Bush (and I do), you can dispair about the Stupid party (and I have), and you can wish on a star for judges that respect the constitution, or a party to control immigration. But, think about the alternatives....
Gore
Kerry
Hillary
Did you really want those guys to be in control....or their friends?
Schumer
Kennedy
Boxer
Fienstein
People handed over their dogs in Denver. Women cried and the men just stood there. Would guns be any different. Any one who resists would be a nut...or so the paper would say.
Conservatives never had much of a voice until lately. Until very few years ago books were all we had. The media was and is hard left. Now with radio and the internet we see that there really are other conservatives out there. The silent majority speaks.
I believe it is possible to reverse the trends of the past few decades.
Some comments....
Newt said on Hannity this afternoon that he was headed to Iowa (Hmmmm...Iowa).
Very few senators have ever been elected President...mostly it's governors. McCain cannot win the primaries and Hillary cannot lose. McCain could grab the Presidency, and Hillary cannot win it. As much respect as I have for Rudy, he would make a lousy President.
The only reason BJ Clinton was elected (with 41%) was because too many guys like me voted for Perot....never again will I make that mistake. It's only the Republicans that get hammered by third parties. It will be a cold day in hell before the Libertarians actually run someone electable.
There would be little difference between a Hillary and a McCain Presidency.
You can complain about Bush (and I do), you can dispair about the Stupid party (and I have), and you can wish on a star for judges that respect the constitution, or a party to control immigration. But, think about the alternatives....
Gore
Kerry
Hillary
Did you really want those guys to be in control....or their friends?
Schumer
Kennedy
Boxer
Fienstein
People handed over their dogs in Denver. Women cried and the men just stood there. Would guns be any different. Any one who resists would be a nut...or so the paper would say.
- Status
