To Conservative TFL members: Will you vote if Ron Paul is not nominated?
- Thread starter Doug.38PR
- Start date
Dust Monkey
New member
Same answer can be applied to a Democrat running for President. Not no, but HELL NO.
Yes..but only for a Libertarian candidate. He or she may not win but it will be a protest vote at the very least. Alternatively I think that they should add NOTA (none of the above) to all ballots. I want to Republicans and Democrats to know that I would rather make use of a "protest" vote than vote for anyone they may be running.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Go Rudy go!
WildnothinbeatsanycitalianguyforpreswhereisfiorelloAlaska
WildnothinbeatsanycitalianguyforpreswhereisfiorelloAlaska
All of you who are saying Paul can't win are the cause of the problem. Get out there and help him win. Candidates need workers and money. Get on the bandwagon and be a force for change. Don't worry about the polls, they are run by the media and you already know how they will come out. no one ever won a fight by saying "Ah, we don't have a chance." Stop sniveling and make a difference. Vote Ron Paul.
to all of you who agree with lines such as these
when all is said and done....the same.
That's what neocons like Guliani, McCain, Romney, et al want, just vote for them, and shut the heck up. Well, I say "no." If that means the Democrats win, so be it. No reason to support any of those thugs...not even the ones that throw me a verbal bone that "they are for gun rights but not for guns" BS or "I am a Conservative "christian" smileyguy" BS or "I voted to cut thislongwindedpieceofnothingspendinginashuffleofpapers 2.6 percent when my opponent only wanted to cut it 2 percent back in 1995" BS or "I'm a great choice for president because I am a good enough compromising "conservative" elected by liberal State" BS. This is the lying sack of dog poop y'all want to vote for over Hellary Clinton or Barwreck Obama?....heck at least they are up front and honest about their plans.
Seriously, I don't mean any disrespect to any of y'all, but ^ is what it amounts to. Are y'all going to let them talk to you as though you have the IQ of 5 year olds? Y'all are playing right into their hands...in fact, it is they who disrespect you.
when all is said and done....the same.
That's what neocons like Guliani, McCain, Romney, et al want, just vote for them, and shut the heck up. Well, I say "no." If that means the Democrats win, so be it. No reason to support any of those thugs...not even the ones that throw me a verbal bone that "they are for gun rights but not for guns" BS or "I am a Conservative "christian" smileyguy" BS or "I voted to cut thislongwindedpieceofnothingspendinginashuffleofpapers 2.6 percent when my opponent only wanted to cut it 2 percent back in 1995" BS or "I'm a great choice for president because I am a good enough compromising "conservative" elected by liberal State" BS. This is the lying sack of dog poop y'all want to vote for over Hellary Clinton or Barwreck Obama?....heck at least they are up front and honest about their plans.
Seriously, I don't mean any disrespect to any of y'all, but ^ is what it amounts to. Are y'all going to let them talk to you as though you have the IQ of 5 year olds? Y'all are playing right into their hands...in fact, it is they who disrespect you.
Last edited:
mrawesome22
New member
AMEN
I will absolutely NOT vote for any Republican or Democrat besides Paul. Any such vote would be a vote against the Constitution, and I will never vote against the Constitution again.
Enough of this "lesser of two evils" business. I fell for that when I voted for Bush in his first term in order to keep Al Gore out of office. You see, back then I didn't know the difference between a REAL conservative and a NEO-conservative. The neocons have completely hijacked the GOP. The Democrats, of course, are the same as always.
How many here would vote for a Communist or a Nazi if those were the only two candidates who had a realistic chance of winning?
The most important issue in any election for me is gun rights, since you have NO rights whatsoever if you don't have the means to physically defend them by force. Make no mistake, Giuliani and Romney are anti-gun -- they would sign the same legislation that Clinton or Obama would sign. McCain says he's pro-gun, but that might mean he "supports hunting and target shooting." Anyone who doesn't believe Americans have the right to own military-grade firearms for the purpose of protecting their liberty against their own government (not against "blue helmets") is an anti-gun, anti-Constitution, and anti-freedom SOB. Ron Paul understands this (see my sig line). What other candidate does?
If Paul doesn't get the GOP nomination, then I hope he runs as an independent, in which case I will vote for him anyway. If he doesn't run at all, then I'll vote Libertarian, since Libertarians are always pro-gun and pro-Constitution (though I don't always agree with them 100% on some issues, like immigration).
Enough of this "lesser of two evils" business. I fell for that when I voted for Bush in his first term in order to keep Al Gore out of office. You see, back then I didn't know the difference between a REAL conservative and a NEO-conservative. The neocons have completely hijacked the GOP. The Democrats, of course, are the same as always.
How many here would vote for a Communist or a Nazi if those were the only two candidates who had a realistic chance of winning?
The most important issue in any election for me is gun rights, since you have NO rights whatsoever if you don't have the means to physically defend them by force. Make no mistake, Giuliani and Romney are anti-gun -- they would sign the same legislation that Clinton or Obama would sign. McCain says he's pro-gun, but that might mean he "supports hunting and target shooting." Anyone who doesn't believe Americans have the right to own military-grade firearms for the purpose of protecting their liberty against their own government (not against "blue helmets") is an anti-gun, anti-Constitution, and anti-freedom SOB. Ron Paul understands this (see my sig line). What other candidate does?
If Paul doesn't get the GOP nomination, then I hope he runs as an independent, in which case I will vote for him anyway. If he doesn't run at all, then I'll vote Libertarian, since Libertarians are always pro-gun and pro-Constitution (though I don't always agree with them 100% on some issues, like immigration).
This is like the people who bitch and complain about bans before anything is certain. You all go out and spend all your energy stocking up and buying this or that when you should be writing and calling representatives, to make sure the infringements on our right dont happen. People seem to forget that the government works for us. We elect them.
Dont ask questions like, If Ron Paul doesnt get the nomination....
Get him the nomination!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DO NOT DISCOUNT RON PAUL, GET BEHIND HIM!!!
No Giuliani
Moderator
What's strange? Everyone here knows that W/A is a supporter of A. the status quo and most things government does, and B. several forms of gun control.
I wonder what witty (ha ha) personal attack he'll drum up to respond to this.
oldbillthundercheif
Moderator
I will vote because I always vote.
If nobody worth voting for has a chance in hell of getting elected, I simply cast my ballot for the least offensive 3rd party candidate.
"Wasting" your vote is far better than not voting or voting by party lines alone.
Hell, in Chicago I voted for lots of wacky folks who ran against Dailey so I guess I love an underdog.
If I'm forced to write-in a candidate this time it won't be anything new. At least the R. Lee Ermey / Ted Nugent ticket will get one vote that way.
If nobody worth voting for has a chance in hell of getting elected, I simply cast my ballot for the least offensive 3rd party candidate.
"Wasting" your vote is far better than not voting or voting by party lines alone.
Hell, in Chicago I voted for lots of wacky folks who ran against Dailey so I guess I love an underdog.
If I'm forced to write-in a candidate this time it won't be anything new. At least the R. Lee Ermey / Ted Nugent ticket will get one vote that way.
JuanCarlos
New member
Not only do we need an NOTA option, but I think it should actually have consequences if it wins. Not sure what exactly, I'm thinking perhaps a one-term limit for whoever "wins" the rest of the vote. But something.AMEN
Of course I will vote if Rep. Paul is not nominated. For that matter, the greater chance for me NOT voting is if Rep. Paul IS nominated.
While I heartily support his stances on freedom issues (such as 2A rights) and limited government, I strongly disapprove of his stances on foreign policy which I feel are tantamount to being suicidal, especially in the realm of foreign policy pertaining to the Middle East. I disagree with his stances on those so strongly -- especially in the realm of Middle Eastern policy -- that I'd vote 3rd party before I'd vote for him. Of course, there is NO WAY that I'm going to vote for any sort of Democrat -- IMHO the whole lot of them are either stealth socialists or aiders and abettors of such.
Then again, I find it somewhat amusing that the latest Gallup Poll has what I'd call a pretty accurate picture of the real situation pertaining to Rep. Paul's actual popularity, sans on-line poll spamming by his supporters. It seems that Rep. Paul polls dead LAST amongst Republican candidates, pulling ZERO percent. Yep, I'd say that's about accurate.
Nope -- Even if a half-baked RINO of a Republican were to get the nomination (as appears quite possible), I'll still hold my nose and vote "R" (as usual) just because the alternative (whichever Democrat gets the nod) will be that much worse. The ONLY exception to that will be if Rep Paul gets the nod, in which case I'll vote 3rd party.
While I heartily support his stances on freedom issues (such as 2A rights) and limited government, I strongly disapprove of his stances on foreign policy which I feel are tantamount to being suicidal, especially in the realm of foreign policy pertaining to the Middle East. I disagree with his stances on those so strongly -- especially in the realm of Middle Eastern policy -- that I'd vote 3rd party before I'd vote for him. Of course, there is NO WAY that I'm going to vote for any sort of Democrat -- IMHO the whole lot of them are either stealth socialists or aiders and abettors of such.
Then again, I find it somewhat amusing that the latest Gallup Poll has what I'd call a pretty accurate picture of the real situation pertaining to Rep. Paul's actual popularity, sans on-line poll spamming by his supporters. It seems that Rep. Paul polls dead LAST amongst Republican candidates, pulling ZERO percent. Yep, I'd say that's about accurate.
Nope -- Even if a half-baked RINO of a Republican were to get the nomination (as appears quite possible), I'll still hold my nose and vote "R" (as usual) just because the alternative (whichever Democrat gets the nod) will be that much worse. The ONLY exception to that will be if Rep Paul gets the nod, in which case I'll vote 3rd party.
High Planes Drifter
New member
+1 to that sir.
mrawesome22
New member
I feel this is all a moot point BTW.
A Democrat WILL be elected in 2008. Why? Iraq.
It's just a cold hard fact of life at this point. All the media fed sheep drones that make up 99% of this country believe a Dem is going to pull us out of Iraq, and a Rep is going to keep us in Iraq. And most of the drones want us out of Iraq. No matter the consequences.
Food for thought LOL.
A Democrat WILL be elected in 2008. Why? Iraq.
It's just a cold hard fact of life at this point. All the media fed sheep drones that make up 99% of this country believe a Dem is going to pull us out of Iraq, and a Rep is going to keep us in Iraq. And most of the drones want us out of Iraq. No matter the consequences.
Food for thought LOL.
UH1-D Rotorhead
Moderator
Rudy for President (Republican)
Obama for Vice president (Democrat)
Al Gore for Secretary of State (Green...well...he should be)
How's that for Tri-partinsonship?
Obama for Vice president (Democrat)
Al Gore for Secretary of State (Green...well...he should be)
How's that for Tri-partinsonship?