The lesser of 2 evils

No need to get all flustered and silly in your responses.
Click to expand...

Nah, no worries, just another political debate...:D

My main point being this...I completely understand that you do not like the choices, as a matter of fact, I would say that we agree on all of that, McCain is not a true conservative in any sense of the word. Hillary and Obama are not what this country needs ever. What I am saying is that I agree with you, but at the same time I still see the need to do what is best for this country by voting for who is best for this country (GIVEN THE CHOICES) I hate voting for someone who does not agree with me on things, and hate even more when they claim to be a conservative when their voting history reflects otherwise, but what I do understand is that there are two other candidates that are extremely popular with a large portion of the country, two other candidates who would not hesitate to sign a gun control bill, a universal (socialized) healthcare bill, an amnesty bill, and a variety of other things that I find very detestable. Knowing that and their records (Obama's list is a little shorter on his records) I will vote for the best person out of the three, which in this case is McCain. He may not be my number 1, I may not agree with him on a lot, but there is common ground we agree on. This country's future, while terrible as it may look now, is still a great nation to live in, the world is not falling, the sun still comes up. My disgruntled vote for a third party candidate is a waste (YES, I know it actually counts) as it takes away a potential vote from McCain, in essense narrowing any gap between him and the other candidates, which could result in a close election.

Now, I understand your side for wanting to not vote for McCain and I respect that, I really do. Up until a few months ago, I wasn't sure that I would vote for McCain, but tell me, other than you keeping with your values, which are extremely important, other than feeling good you didn't vote for the lesser of two evils, how did it really accomplish anything in the election as a whole? Sure it shows the RNC that they lost some support, but lets be real, they could care less. I still believe that if you want to change the way the platform is, you have to start from the ground up. You cannot expect that the RNC chair will analyze the votes from this election and say hey, lets be more conservative so we get more votes. It will never happen, they are all politicians, I wouldn't trust any of them, R or D.

With all of that in mind, I am not trying to convince you to vote for McCain, but I am just making you aware, which I am sure you are already, that sometimes we just have to take a big gulp and pull that lever for someone to keep someone else out. Just my .02

Voting for Mccain, Obama, or Hilliary, Is like getting shot in the foot, shot in the leg and getting shot in the ass. Either way it's not good.
Click to expand...

Completely agreed.

It may suck a little more in the short term, but in the long run it's worth it.
Click to expand...

Help me understand how "its worth it" What do you mean? How does doing that help the country, try to steer it in any direction at all and be worth it? Maybe if I understood that rationale it would be more clear to me.
 
The notion that a protest vote will somehow help change things is a fantasy. So exactly how did voting for Ross Perot in 1992 change the Republican Party? So exactly how did voting for Nader in 2000 change the Democratic Party? Phui, a "protest vote" is nothing more than wishful thinking.

All it will do is help put a neo-socialist in the White House.

It's not about being a good Republican. It's about keeping Obama or Hillary out of the the White House.
 
Hindsight don't work on this board sometimes, given the short-term memory of so many. Remember when Mitt Romney was essentially coronated as the GOP candidate? Or was that Guliani? Remember how McCain was no bigger than a blip on the radar screen, some old, old guy running a shoestring campaign? Or how Thompson was pegged as SCR, the Second Coming of Reagan? All the pundits had their eyes on Romney and Thompson. Or Huckabee coming out of nowhere?

Then something very surprising happened. People went to the polls. They voted in the primaries. McCain won. It's not a GOP conspiracy. Hell, I doubt much of the GOP is infatuated with McCain. But the voters decided.

Tinfoil alert! There is no conspiracy. There are some Ron Paul followers would like to have everyone believe that.

Antipitas said:
* Advocacy Threads: Threads whose only purpose is to state that this candidate is the only constitutionalist; the only Republican; the only Democrat; the only conservative; the only liberal, etc. Likewise, threads whose only purpose is to denigrate a particular candidate will also fall under this rule.

** "Conspiracism is a particular narrative form of scapegoating that frames demonized enemies as part of a vast insidious plot against the common good, while it valorizes the scapegoater as a hero for sounding the alarm." Berlet, Chip; Lyons, Matthew N. [2000]. Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. New York: Guilford Press.
Click to expand...

WINSTON THE WOLF said:
Screw the party for the way they have treated Dr. Paul. Paybacks a B_tch
But the way the GOP has rigged the election system. Mccain will probably win with Florida.........Like they did last time. Go Diebold!!! The best election, opps I mean, machine money can buy
Click to expand...

WINSTON THE WOLF said:
He is a really bad liar, He lied about being in the CFR, and the end of America the NAU,
Click to expand...
 
It will be difficult for me to pull the lever for John McCain because I do not vote for liberals. I am sorry that the GOP put their weight behind a liberal. It is unfortunate. Honestly, if I wanted to vote for a liberal, I would vote democrat. I don't look to the republican party for liberalism... I look to them (used to anyway) for conservative candidates. Obviously things have changed.
Click to expand...

Bingo!!
The GOP will continue to fall if they don't figure this out.
 
I understand what you mean ACCT. but when do you say enough is enough?
Ron Paul is my only choice. I don't care if people call him a nut, I don't care if he got a small amount of votes.( He got them on his own)Not the party favorite and even with most of his party and Main stream media are against him. He is still getting votes. and is gaining more and more delegates everyday. It is a long time till election day.Think about this He has raised his own funds, a very small amount compaired to mcccain and public funding 54mill. But he is still gaining ground. Why is that? Because he tells the truth.

Look at this. and think why this is happening?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdriCrjGIaY
 
It's not about being a good Republican. It's about keeping Obama or Hillary out of the the White House.
Click to expand...
+1

Some would say it's about keeping a Bush clone out of the White House.
Click to expand...
So, would you rather have a "Bush Clone" in the White House (never mind that he's not a clone of Bush), or a neo-Socialist gun grabber? Personally, given only those 2 choices, I'll rather take the former. Since that's what our options are going to be, that's the way I'm voting.

It's still the difference between someone who is merely distasteful and yet won't completely sell us down the road, or someone who will wreck the republic and do their very best to take away our means to resist. It's a no-brainer in my book.
 
If McCain is the GOP man then its 1991 all over again.
Didn't see any Bush stickers that year (even by gunners).......I dont see ANY, not one, McCain sticker out there this year.(even by gunners).

All I see are the dems and Ron Paul's(gunners).
 
And what is it that is so bad about the Bush administration?

1) He didn't ban automatic weapons.
2) He didn't let federal funding go to embryonic stem cell research lines
3) He actually went after the organization(s) who attacked the WTC (unlike the previous President.
4) He believes the American citizens are able to live their lives and solve their own problems with minimal government intervention.
5) He has strong moral conviction.
6) He's not pro-abortion.
7) He appointed two very good Supreme Court Justices who actually understand the true meaning of the Constitution.
8) The economy has been rather strong, especially considering the 9/11 terrorist attack (Supply-side economics works!). (Until recently which is a result of DEMOCRAT politicians prohibiting drilling for oil on American soil and push ethanol mandates.
9) We haven't had another successful terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11.


So if Bush is so bad, who is the good president that you compare him to?
 
No, not everything is great, but it's been 20 years since we had a better president.

The things I dislike about the President are:

1) He supports amnesty for illegal immigrants
2) Big spender
3) Money going to the middle east islamic schools which support terrorists
4) Too chummy with Saudi Arabia, the largest supporter of islamic terrorism
5) Acceptance of global warming/climate change

Winston, you still haven't told me what president you thought was better.
 
Kennedy, But we know what happened to him..... I did like Regan a bit. I am 45 I really got into polictics. When I saw what a global effect it has on the world. I still think we live in the greatest country in the world. But we need our leader to live up to that.
 
GPossenti -- it seems that we are reading off of the same page. My gripes with the Bush administration pretty much mirrors your own.

Other gripes:

> I feel that Rumsfeld should have gone sooner, not that he was bad, but he wasn't the right guy for the job at the time.
> That "faith based initiative" thing was a boondoggle.
> He just hasn't used the "Bully Pulpit" of his office to lean on the Dems nearly enough. Like many 'Pubs, he really does need to grow a spine when it comes to dealing with political enemies.
> He kowtowed to the Dems on the Alaskan drilling thing. He kowtows to the Dems on just about all energy related issues.
> He allowed himself to be smeared on the Katrina thing. And then he turned a blind eye to the treasury plundering and graft that followed.

That said, he is still way better than the alternatives we were presented at the time. I touched the screen for him both times, without regret. The alternatives were just too awful to do otherwise. As is the case of the election facing us this autumn.
 
Kennedy, But we know what happened to him..... I did like Regan a bit. I am 45 I haven't really gotten into polictics. Till I saw what a global effect it has on the world. I still think we live in the greatest country in the world. But we need our leader to live up to that.
Click to expand...

Kennedy? Really? Kennedy who almost started a nuclear war with his failed bay of pigs? Kennedy who appointed his own brother Attorney General (nepotism)?

What did Kennedy do that you liked?

> I feel that Rumsfeld should have gone sooner, not that he was bad, but he wasn't the right guy for the job at the time.
> That "faith based initiative" thing was a boondoggle.
> He just hasn't used the "Bully Pulpit" of his office to lean on the Dems nearly enough. Like many 'Pubs, he really does need to grow a spine when it comes to dealing with political enemies.
> He kowtowed to the Dems on the Alaskan drilling thing. He kowtows to the Dems on just about all energy related issues.
> He allowed himself to be smeared on the Katrina thing. And then he turned a blind eye to the treasury plundering and graft that followed.
Click to expand...

1) It seems by the time Rumsfeld left, the Iraq war was in a cul-de-sac. His replacement has made progress.
2) I understand the faith based initiative thing. It's the idea that private organizations can tackle problems in society much more efficiently than the Federal government. It's the truth. It works. Most things are more efficient than the Federal Government.
3) I agree about the bully pulpit. It took years for him to finally blame the Senate for the high gas prices and economic pinch due to ethanol mandates. It also took years for him to shoot down the Dems comparison of Iraq and Vietnam, citing that when the U.S. left Vietnam, the commies killed all that opposed them.
4) The response of local government in Louisiana was appalling, as was their inflammatory rhetoric. Blanco and Landrieu sure know how to shoot their mouths off without getting anything done themselves.
4)
 
he didn't start a nuclear war. When the brass told him to. As it turned out it was the right thing to do. During the cuban missle crisis.

what about Jeb bush and the presidant? what about daddy bush, do you really think GW had a chance if it wasn't for daddy. What about Cheneny and haloburton? He is making millions from the war. The secrecy of the current administration.

JFK speech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS7l6i4w11U
Many people think he was killed because of this speech.
 
The failed bay of pigs was the right thing to do?

You still haven't said what you like about him. What were is successes or achievements? What were his convictions? Why do you think he was so good?
 
I dont see ANY, not one, McCain sticker out there this year.(even by gunners).

All I see are the dems and Ron Paul's(gunners).
Click to expand...

Where are you looking ?!?!?! :confused: The general is months away, the nomination has all been locked up at this point for the Republican and any signs that RP may still have out there are either from deadbeats who wont remove them (a ton in this area from the MD/VA/DC area for weeks after the primary) or people who are still insistent that he can win. You will see the McCain supporters, progunners, campaigning for him, myself included.

After the last 7 1/2 years, the Republicans deserve to lose the White House.
Click to expand...

Other than just a needless comment, please tell me WHY we deserve that? Let me hear your reasoning for this, I am curious. Your quips do nothing to continue an educated discussion, keep the lines of communication open and quite possibly you may realize you are not correct about everything, I know I have realized that on this board many times.

when do you say enough is enough?
Click to expand...

I don't know. But all I can say is look at the facts, the votes fell in favor of McCain, not Paul. With that in mind, what else do we have to do this time around.

Paul has shown a lot of people that we could have a chance to move the RNC back to the right...but that takes time, maybe by the next election it will make a difference in the votes, but it can't this time.
 
The failed bay of pigs was the right thing to do?
Click to expand...

Cuba and the Bay of Pigs Invasion
Main article: Bay of Pigs Invasion
Prior to Kennedy's election to the presidency, the Eisenhower Administration created a plan to overthrow the Fidel Castro regime in Cuba. Central to such a plan, which was structured and detailed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) with minimal input from the United States Department of State, was the arming of a counter-revolutionary insurgency composed of anti-Castro Cubans.[19] U.S.-trained Cuban insurgents were to invade Cuba and instigate an uprising among the Cuban people in hopes of removing Castro from power. On April 17, 1961, Kennedy ordered the previously planned invasion of Cuba to proceed. With support from the CIA, in what is known as the Bay of Pigs Invasion, 1,500 U.S.-trained Cuban exiles, called "Brigade 2506," returned to the island in the hope of deposing Castro. However, Kennedy ordered the invasion to take place without U.S. air support. By April 19, 1961, the Cuban government had captured or killed the invading exiles, and Kennedy was forced to negotiate for the release of the 1,189 survivors. The failure of the plan originated in a lack of dialog among the military leadership, a result of which was the complete lack of naval support in the face of organized artillery troops on the island who easily incapacitated the exile force as it landed on the beach.[19] After twenty months, Cuba released the captured exiles in exchange for $53 million worth of food and medicine. Furthermore, the incident made Castro wary of the U.S. and led him to believe that another invasion would occur.[20]
 
Great points BoringA.

what about Jeb bush and the presidant? what about daddy bush, do you really think GW had a chance if it wasn't for daddy. What about Cheneny and haloburton? He is making millions from the war. The secrecy of the current administration.
Click to expand...

What about Jeb Bush and the president? Jeb Bush was ELECTED in Florida in 1998, two years before W. was elected. George W. Bush was ELECTED by the people of the United States. Before that he was ELECTED Governor of Texas. Attorney General is APPOINTED by the President, NOT elected by the people.

A government cannot realistically have 100% transparency. It is impossible. What if the people knew all of the locations of every member of the U.S. military, CIA operatives and their names, etc. We couldn't win any wars ever.

The Halliburton accusation is ridiculous. The Dems already tried to cruicify Cheney over it, and they failed because he did nothing unethical or illegal.

What is the link or source for your article? Kennedy is lucky that Castro didn't retaliate, but it still resulted in a bunch of dead American soldiers. (blah blah, so did the Iraq war, blah blah). Would the Bay of Pigs be considered a preemptive strike like the Dems always attack President Bush over?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top