What presidential candidate are you leaning towards?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lenin, Stalin, Clinton, Obama, the legacy continues!!!
 
Last edited:
No more "Lesser of Two Evils"

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • cthulu.jpg
    cthulu.jpg
    5.2 KB · Views: 149
Why not Tancredo?

He's anti-immigrant. I'd really like not to hijack the thread, but I have a big problem with the idea that we deserve what this nation has to offer because we were born here but others don't because they weren't. It's an assault on the idea of equal opportunity.

Again, not to hijack the thread ;)
 
Aaaaalllllrighty then - consider my bandana throw into the ring. Sec State sounds good to me.:cool:

Biker:)
 
He's anti-immigrant. I'd really like not to hijack the thread, but I have a big problem with the idea that we deserve what this nation has to offer because we were born here but others don't because they weren't. It's an assault on the idea of equal opportunity.

He's anti-illegal immigrant. Big difference! :cool:
 
Another vote for Ron Paul, if he doesn’t run, my vote will go to the libertarian party. I think having a highly educated man in office would be good. Ron Paul might be a chance to get some libertarian values to high levels in the government. Republicans and Democrats have proven themselves incapable of good leadership.

Any candidate with an anti-gun agenda is automatically transferred to my s&*% list, so it'll either be Ron Paul, or the Libertarian candidate.

However, I'm not very optimistic, I think a different bunch of un-qualified idiots will be running our country after 2008. To be quite frank, and a little sarcastic, Jefferson was the last president I really liked.
 
He's anti-illegal immigrant. Big difference!

So I assume, therefore, that he's in favor of loosening visa restrictions so more unskilled Mexicans can enter legally, right? :rolleyes:
 
Durruti...

At this point in time, we *should be anti immigrant* with few exceptions. A 10 year moratorium is in order, I believe, to give the immigrants already in place a chance to assimilate. Additionally, whatever gave you the idea that we owe anyone who is not an American 'equal opportunity'?
A fair question, I believe.

Biker
 
Alright, we've now gone where I hoped not to. I've been sucked into accidentally hijacking the thread.

I'll respond to presidential candidate stuff, but anyone who wants to discuss immigration itself should PM me.

Back to the original topic :)
 
It's still very early in the race. I don't think the person I will be voting for is a blip on the radar...yet. I think this person will enter later in the season
 
Gov. Bill Richardson

Richardson if he makes it to the finishing line.

An Hispanic that sent NM Guard to close the NM border without asking.

A Democrat that puts most current Republicans to shame.

An admitted gun owner that favors CCW (at least didn't make it too hard to achieve)

He is knowledgeable, commands respect naturally, and no one has found any serious skeletons in his closet (yet).

The man respects the manners of the Old West.

Decent Governor, could be a decent president.

Has experience in running a state, the others have more experience running their mouths.
 
I'm going to hedge my bets and support both Dr. Paul and Governor Richardson. I think Richardson has a much better chance of gaining traction in the Democratic primary race than Paul has in the Republican race. It looks like the RNC machine has all but nominated either McCain or Gulianni.
 
You Ron Paul supporters are part of the reason that the Democrats, anti-gun all, have a good chance of winning. The Libertarians received under 2% of the presidential vote 20 years ago, and more recently have lost ground! Do you really think you are helping the cause of supporting the 2nd Amendment by voting for a fringe candidate with NO, repeat NO chance of winning. As bad as some of the Republican leaders are on gun rights the Democrats are far worse. Settling for the lesser of evils, when that lesser has a chance of winning, in much more likely to maintain our gun rights that stupidly wasting a vote on a total loser. While the current Republican front runners, Guliani, McCain and Romney are all less than ideal from a gun rights point of view, they will want the support of gun owners and will move toward our position enough to try to keep us from not voting or from voting for a Ron Paul like character that only strenghens the Democrats chances of winning. Don't forget that when Clinton won in 1992 he had far less than 50% of the vote. He only won because a sizable number of conservatives voted for Ross Perot and thus denied the presidency to the Republican incumbent, the first George Bush. Wake up and grow up; this is a two party country and the only way to make your vote count is within the two party system.
 
You are saying that we should vote for an anti-gun Republican to keep from getting an anti-gun Democrat in office? Do you really believe that these Republicans will change their stripes once elected? McCain has already made clear that he will tell the NRA to spoon geese, and Gulianni is as likely to support 2A rights as he would be to liberalize the gun laws in New York City. Now you are telling us that we are wrong to support a 2A Republican in the primaries? If we are just supposed to roll over and get reamed by both parties, why should we even vote at all? That sounds like the most cowardly path we could possibly choose. You go right ahead, but I'm not going to roll over and urinate on my soft underbelly in submission until at least a year from now, after the primary season.
 
I'm rolling over for no one ever again. The candidate that most deserves my vote will get it and damn the torpedoes.

I'm still hoping for a Paul/Tancredo ticket.

Biker
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top