For RP supporters

Would you hold your nose and vote for Huckabee or Thompson in the general election?

  • NO

    Votes: 21 32.3%

  • Maybe when confronted with the thought of HillBama in the White House

    Votes: 16 24.6%

  • YES

    Votes: 28 43.1%
  • Total voters
    65
  • Poll closed .
Hahah...perfectly in form, Pat.

...and you folks wonder why you're having trouble garnering any real support?

:rolleyes:
 
Then, I'd suggest you get behind Ron Paul's candidacy for the Republican nomination.
Click to expand...

:D Nice try.

If Ron Paul had his way during our history we'd have never made the Louisiana Purchase or the Purchase of Alaska.

The more I see of Huckabee the more I like Fred Thompson. But I can see voting for Huckabee, not Paul.
 
But I can see voting for Huckabee, not Paul.
Click to expand...
So, let me see if I've understood you correctly. You'd vote for Obama/Hill/Edwards when Paul is the nominee of the Republican Party?
 
Yes, Pat, that response makes perfect sense, because watermelons don't have feathers in April.

Your nurse will be by in a few minutes, I'm sure.
 
Here's an editorial from the Huntington News, Huntington, WV.
Jan. 5, 2008

EDITORIAL: Ron Paul's Big New Hampshire Moment Days Away

Certain states seem tailor-made for a particular kind of candidate. As seen over the weekend, Iowa was a most fertile bit of soil for former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and Illinois's U.S. Senator Barack Obama.

And while most polls indicate a slug fest between former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Arizona's U.S. Senator John McCain on the Republican side of the fight, another Republican has been waiting behind the curtain for some time now: Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

Paul has endeared himself to legions of supporters with his grandfatherly conviction and steady, libertarian-style message against the Iraq War, for downsizing goverment with lower taxes, and against the erosion of Constitutional rights. Paul's voters are enthusiastic and oftentimes angry. But they have purpose to their anger, fueled as it is by the outrage of seeing America drift ever closer to a socialist "Nanny State."

Ron Paul's fund raising has been not only impressive but phenomenal: $20 million raised for a guy some pundits tried to dismiss as a "fringe candidate." Fringe candidates don't amass a war chest like that! How Paul spends his money and casts his message is of utmost importance during the next few days before the New Hampshire primary on

Tuesday. If Paul can come into the first tier of candidates, say at least fourth or third, his campaign picks up new legitimacy as he will be introduced to America by the mainstream press.

What many traditional Republicans miss is that Ron Paul, like him or not, truly helps show America that the Republican Party is not all lockstep behind the Bush/Cheney Administration when it comes to foreign invasions and domestic surveillance. Since Bush's approval ratings have been in the deep cellar for two years now, having Ron Paul handy to make articulate arguments on liberty and a more prudent foreign policy shows a Republican Party that acknowledges its mistakes.

That's healthy. That's real. That's Ron Paul.
Click to expand...

Paul/Goldwater in 2008.
 
So, let me see if I've understood you correctly. You'd vote for Obama/Hill/Edwards when Paul is the nominee of the Republican Party?
Click to expand...

No, but I'd seriously consider sitting it out if Ron Paul were the Republican nominee. Same as for Rudy Giuliani.
 
Since the majority of Paul supporters will not vote for any other Republican, and since you non-Paul Republicans believe in voting the less of 2 evils, the answer is obvious. By your own reasoning a split Republican vote is bad, so QUIT SPLITTING THE VOTE. You believe in voting anyone but Dem, so to prevent a split, YOU MUST VOTE PAUL.
Click to expand...


Sounds about right.:D
 
Since the majority of Paul supporters will not vote for any other Republican, and since you non-Paul Republicans believe in voting the less of 2 evils, the answer is obvious. By your own reasoning a split Republican vote is bad, so QUIT SPLITTING THE VOTE. You believe in voting anyone but Dem, so to prevent a split, YOU MUST VOTE PAUL.
Click to expand...

no no no, you have to vote for who THEY want you to; it doesnt work the other way around. sorry, theres not much you can do. its science.
 
no no no, you have to vote for who THEY want you to; it doesnt work the other way around. sorry, theres not much you can do. its science.
Click to expand...
That's correct. We're tired of bozo's, weirdo's, retread's, my-turner's, and crook's being elected by the "lesser of two evil's" method, so we're playing hardball.

You want the most pro-Constitution candidate in office, or a Democrat. Choose wisely.
 
My thought on who to vote for should be considered a strategy - If we all agree that by hanging out on this forum, guns have a significantly important role in our lives, then we should stay focused on that.

For now, consider any republican nominee you feel you like (for me, it's currently Huckabee) - But, if your candidate doesn't make the cut, and you choose to vote democrat, you are cutting your own throat if guns are important to you.

Sure, Ron Paul has faults. Sure, Huckabee has some faults. Sure, the other republicans do too. But we all know the fault pertaining to guns that the dems share in common. SO, why not at least rally together and accept whomever gets the Republican nomination to be our choice as a collective group of pro gun people??

Say no to the Dems!!!
 
Prediction: Ron Paul stuns in NH?

On the eve of the NH primary:

1. Inexplicable?? blackball of Ron Paul from the Fox news republican debate last night. Fox news was getting terribly flamed in "comments" last night on their website. I noticed this morning fox has scrubbed all traces of these comments and related stories...these are PRECISELY the kind of shenanigans that NH voters typically react to; I wouldn't be surprised if this alone adds 5-10 points to Ron Paul's primary numbers, from the large independent, undecided bloc of voters.

2. One unreported statistic comes from this link: http://ronpaulgraphs.com/donors.html

The map shows NH has the highest density of unique Ron Paul donors per capita, of any state. Much higher than Iowa, where Ron Paul finished better than expected. Anyone catch the random comments sometimes leaked out on TV about the preponderance of Ron Paul yard signs in NH?? I think that the pre-election polls are systematically missing the dynamics of the Ron Paul phenomenon; among independents and first time voters. My bet is that polling techniques will be changed in the future to reflect this.

Anyway, I'll go out on a limb, and predict that Ron Paul lands in a strong third place finish in the NH republican primary, beating Huck, Guiliani, and Thompson. And his detractors will be scrambling to spin this result as a fluke, that can't be repeated in other primary states.

You heard it here first.
 
Sadly though, I have no hope that Fox will invite him to the SC debates. Somehow, Fox has aligned itself against him, probably by Hannity and O'Riley pronouncing him such a freak so often. Maybe not outright, but why did they block him from the debates last night? Giullianni should have been out a seat since Paul beat him in IA.

Regardless, the most important thing for the RP volunteers to do tomorrow is go to those supporters and get them to the polls. If he places 3rd there, or even 4th, donations will continue and he can keep fighting.

I don't think there is a more pro-2A man on either ticket. Period. You'd have a hard time making a case against that statement unless you willingly wanted to violate the constitution to be pro-2A, which would make no sense. Circular logic tends to run in election years though.
 
I'd willingly vote for Fred, I've donated to the Thompson and Paul campaigns... I'd love a Ron Paul/Fred Thompson ticket! Or a Ron Paul/Walter E. Williams ticket... :D

Huckabee strikes me as a social liberal hiding behind religion, he's certainly no conservative but I may be able to hold my nose and vote for him. I vote 3rd party before I'll vote for Romney, McCain, or Giuliani, media anointed 'frontrunners' but no different than Hitlery or Obamma so why bother...
 
I voted No. Ron Paul is the only candidate who could garner my vote for the Republican Party. If there isn't a good Libertarian candidate then I will lament the fact that "None of the Above" is not an option.
 
You want the most pro-Constitution candidate in office, or a Democrat. Choose wisely.
Click to expand...

And that is what is called a false dichotomy and is precisely what was beign discussed in the other thread about "paul supporters turnoffs". If you don't vote for Paul then you don't support the constitution.

Well you'll have to pardon me, but even if Paul was a viable candidate, which he isn't, I and others have some serious disagreements with him that prohibit use from voting for him. If he wins the nomination, then it goes without saying I shall vote for him. But that is simply because I hate liberals more.

The map shows NH has the highest density of unique Ron Paul donors per capita, of any state. Much higher than Iowa, where Ron Paul finished better than expected.
Click to expand...

And thats the problem. NH is a kooky independent state. Pat Buchannan won NH and bombed in the election. McCain won New Hampshire and lost the nomination. If NH is the state with the most Paul support then hes tanked. The primaries aren't decided by NH, they just start there.

As far as Paul doing better than expected in Iowa, Paul himself said he was hoping for at least a 3rd place win when being interviewed on CNN. If all he expects after months and month of campaigning in Iowa is 5th place, then I suggest he saves his money and time and packs it in.
 
If you don't vote for Paul then you don't support the constitution.
Click to expand...
Relative to all of the other candidates, that's correct. If one supports a candidate that makes a mockery of the Constitution and has for his/her entire career, then is that person not anti-Constitution at the core?

I would submit that he/she is precisely that.
 
Or a Ron Paul/Walter E. Williams ticket
Click to expand...

I like the sound of that.

They could be President and Vice President of a new country created by separating Tx an La from the rest of the Union.

We will try a return to the system of government our founding fathers invisioned, and see how it fairs compared to the current big government, socialist debacle.
 
Relative to all of the other candidates, that's correct. If one supports a candidate that makes a mockery of the Constitution and has for his/her entire career, then is that person not anti-Constitution at the core?

I would submit that he/she is precisely that.
Click to expand...

There you have it folks. If you don't vote for Paul, you're pissing on the constitution.

Of course there's the argument that Paul's idea of foreign policy is so ignorant and dangerous that it would certianly result in us being attacked. Of course protecting America is the number one function of government and to not do so is not living up to the constitutional obligations required of the president and congress.

That would make Paul incredibly constitutionally deficient, which would make you guys the one's pissing on the constitution right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top