Time magazine poll on Hillary Clinton!

2nd,

Please note that there is a difference. Just as there is a difference in somebody that is anti abortion and somebody who would blow up a doctors office who is anti abortion. Hillary is/will be an activist(like Bill) when it comes to gun control. OTOH, somebody like McCain might not be as pro gun as I would like(certainly better then Hillary though), he would not be an "activist" when it comes to gun control---there is a difference!
 
MoW, Hillary will go after firearms and firearms owners with a vengeance(IF she has a Dem Senate to back her up). She'll go after higher taxes and certain conservative segments of society, too, but that's another argument. Rudy will do the same but, perhaps, to a less aggressive degree. McVain will do whatever the House and Senate want and go wherever the money leads.

As such, the only real difference is going to be in where we keep the CONgress oriented. The real differences between these presidential candidates are meaningless on their own "merits". One is as likely to intrude in your life, hobbies and incomes as another. Just depends on who we have opposing(or enabling) them.
 
If it comes down to a two person, two party, runoff for the office of the President, and the two people are Clinton, and McCain, it will be a fact that one will loose, and also a fact that the Country will absolutely loose.

Maybe a Third Party Candidate? Might be the time for one to step up to the plate, Who Knows?
 
As far as Rudy G and McCain and gun control are concerned.
Just because a New York mayor comes out publically for gun control in New york city where 75% of the population agrees with him, does not necessarily mean that he may pusue gun control schemes on a national level where he would not have the same popular support. Gulliani still needs party support to get elected and to govern.
I think he may be too smart to piss off the conservative base.
Mr McCain is also smart enough not to attack gun owners.
Have the PUBS ever won New York? seems to me that all but garantess and Rupublican president.
Also seems to me that campagne finance laws cleared the house, senate and the white house before becomming the law of the land, It wasn't just McCain.
 
So we're supposed to ignore what they HAVE done in favor of what they might do because, hey, Hillary is probably worse(depending, of course, on what they actually do)?
 
But my point is that the man, if he decides to appease conservatives for votes sake, but previously was anti-gun without a real change of heart is no candidate at all.

I know it is probably the part of playing the necessary evil of getting votes to get into office, but it makes me cinge to think about voting for someone who has been blatantly antigun.

I don't know. It seems the system, as it is, has failed and is failing.
 
2A-yes I would argue that when electing a president, what they are likely to do is more important than what they have done in the past.
And somtimes it is the lesser of two evils unfortunatley.
 
Hillary proponents have a small reed of hope to grasp in the 60% of independents that agree with Democrats that politically she's "somewhere in between" liberal and conservative.
Click to expand...
Now there's a big lie. Anyone remember her attempt at nationalize health care? And who her husband put on the Supreme Court? (That would be the former head of the ACLU, in case you don't remember.)

Polarizing figures rarely win, because they get their base, but no crossover. A successful candidate has to pick up some crossover. i.e. "Reagan Democrats."

I don't think she can win anywhere but the most Democratic states.
 
Gulliani

He is from NYC, where it is very difficult and very expensive to even own a gun.
He is NO friend of gun owners. He believes ONLY the police (a some special elite friends) should keep and bear arms.
 
Hillary??

I just can't believe the Dems would be so insane as to nominate such a polarizing figure as Hillary for Pres. But then again, they do seem to have a penchant for picking candidates who have zero charisma and hence, no chance of winning, eg, Dukakis, Kerry, et al. If Hillary is the best they can come up with, they might as well just concede defeat now and save their money: she is probably the most hated woman in America.

I certainly don't like ultra right war-mongering fascist neocon-type Republicans, but I would like to have the chance to vote for a fiscal conservative with a libertarian bent. However, that option doesn't seem likely.
 
2A-yes I would argue that when electing a president, what they are likely to do is more important than what they have done in the past.
Click to expand...

What they may do can only be logically extrapolated from what they have done. Assuming they will be different with no actual reason to believe it other than we want to change is just wishful thinking at best. It's potentially fatal at worst.
 
What they may do can only be logically extrapolated from what they have done. Assuming they will be different with no actual reason to believe it other than we want to change is just wishful thinking at best. It's potentially fatal at worst.
__________________.

As a NewYork mayor RG answers to new yorkers.
As a US president He would answer to Party and conservative voters that may elect him.
To possibly get elected he will certainly need to take a 2A stance and back it up.
What history seems to teach is that if you piss on gun owners you lose.
I think the party and Rudy know that already.
 
Although I agree that it will probably be a Hillary v. McCain ballot. I vote that we all write in for John Stewart and Steven Colbert for Office. That way, since it looks like we will lose one way or another at least their press confrences will be funny...:D

I think it is about time for a third party. I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.

Mike
 
I am baffled and amazed.

What Rudy/McCain et al know is that no Repub will vote for Hillary. As such they can do anything they want. In 8 years maybe gun owners might indeed get retribution. Yay. We can then take great pleasure in the single shots we are still allowed to own by then...with proper registration, of course.

Whatever, hope what you will.
 
Not a chance

She won't survive the Iowa caususes, let alone make a serious run. Two years is an eternity in political terms, and a pro-war candidate won't get through the primaries (a fact for which ALL americans should thank their respective dieties, democrats & republicans alike!)

I think it is about time for a third party. I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...

You said it brotha!!!

www.constitutionparty.org

I voted for Perot in 92, but made the mistake of reverting to the mainstream by voting for Dole in 96 and Shrub in 00. Learned my lesson - Badnarik in 04, and now third party forever, win or lose!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top