To Conservative TFL members: Will you vote if Ron Paul is not nominated?

I second that JC. I don't think Thompson could take votes away from the Dems running as a third party guy. Or at least enough to make a difference.
 
The Dems will never vote for Thompson so I third JC's post. A third party candidate will only hurt the Republicans.

To those of you who won't vote for certain republican candidates I just want to remind you that Supreme court justices are appointed for life. If you refrain from voting it is the same as a vote for the liberals. The lesser of to evils stinks but not as bad as a liberal majority on the Supreme Court. Our country would be all but finished if that happens. Imagine rights for the enemy, new interpretation for the second amendment, God finished for good in our society, and of course the whole homosexual marriage thing. America as we new it and loved it would be gone for ever (or at least our life time). I want the good old days of a mans word being his bond. The time when America was strong, respected, and feared (by our enemy) around the world. The time when we had personal responsibility instead of blaming everyone else or society for our problems. The time when gun control meant being able to hit your target. The time when it was OK for Wal-Mart to say Merry Christmas. The time when our politicians wouldn't dare speak badly (in public)of our armed forces or even a president they disagree with at a time of war. The good old days. Thats why I will vote for the lesser of two evils.
 
Imagine rights for the enemy, new interpretation for the second amendment, God finished for good in our society, and of course the whole homosexual marriage thing.
Click to expand...
Well so far I'm only seeing one thing that I have a problem with and the current court is somewhat on the good side of the 2nd at the moment. :p So a liberal court would actually be quite appealing in many cases.

The time when our politicians wouldn't dare speak badly (in public)of our armed forces or even a president they disagree with at a time of war. The good old days.
Click to expand...
I don't see anything good about that, though. I think anyone behaving badly deserves to be spoken badly about. Fortunately our politicians are not speaking badly about our troops, merely the president. Which in this case is a very, very good thing to do.

The "good old days" were pretty crappy by many standards. Great by other standards but our current world of instant global communication, amazing medical technology, recognition of pollution and the attempt to reduce it, equal rights for all races and genders as well as the continuing fight for equal treatment of those of us that are not straight white male christians...all that makes the bad stuff worth while.
 
Fortunately our politicians are not speaking badly about our troops, merely the president.
Click to expand...

John Murtha look up his quotes.

Conservatives believe in equal rights for everyone Redworm just not special right for gays, minorities, etc. Religious freedom except for Christians yet another liberal mantra. BTW RW you have it back words white male heterosexual Christians are the most stomped on folks in America. I'm Hispanic and atheist and can see this.
 
John Murtha look up his quotes.

Conservatives believe in equal rights for everyone Redworm just not special right for gays, minorities, etc. Religious freedom except for Christians yet another liberal mantra. BTW RW you have it back words white male heterosexual Christians are the most stomped on folks in America. I'm Hispanic and atheist and can see this.
Click to expand...

Well said threegun.;)
 
Of course I'll still vote. :rolleyes:

You think I'm just going to stay home and let the Democrats choose who gets to be president ?

Even if I'm not happy with the other Republican nominees, there's still Supreme Court replacements to consider.
 
John Murtha look up his quotes.
Click to expand...
like what? http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/john_murtha/

Sure it happens but I can't think of many politicians that have outright insulted the troops.
Conservatives believe in equal rights for everyone Redworm just not special right for gays, minorities, etc. Religious freedom except for Christians yet another liberal mantra. BTW RW you have it back words white male heterosexual Christians are the most stomped on folks in America. I'm Hispanic and atheist and can see this.
Click to expand...
Yet conservatives stick their fingers in their ears when reminded time and time and time and time and time and time and time again that no one is asking for SPECIAL rights. Asking to be treated the same way you are is not asking for special rights. Asking to be given the same benefits as you are when you get married is not asking for special rights.

The liberal mantra is equal religious freedom for all religions and the equal right of those of us that don't want to have ANY religion. The reason christians feel they're under attack is because they're the ones trying to force their religion on the rest of us more than any other.

White male heterosexual christians are not the most stomped on folks in America. :rolleyes: Just because they're being reminded that they're not the only group allowed to control the country doesn't mean they're being stomped on. Oh boohoo.
 
Redworm, No special rights for minority's? Ever see what is considered gifted in schools? A white child would have to score higher than a Hispanic child and both would have to score higher than a black child. Ever try to get a job in which a less qualified minority got the job because of affirmative action? White man gets a 99 on his test the black man gets a 72 and the job. How about the homosexual who gets beaten up. The charge for beating him up (a hate crime) is higher than beating up on a straight man....same goes for the Blackman. He could be yelling take that whitey as he beats you up and he gets battery charge. Whitey yells take that blacky and he gets a hate crime charge. Things aren't equal by liberal design.
 
At SOME point, a "third party" may become a viable alternative to the "big two"....but I don't think that the timing is right.

While I would LIKE to see Ron Paul get the nod, he picked up a LOT of "baggage" to cart around during the Republican debate. Googliani is still riding high from Paul's stumbling around for words.

What I definitely do NOT want is another "Ross Perot"! Hey, if Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination, don't do anything STOOPID, such as not vote, or vote for a "loser"! I know that it might be difficult for many of you to "eat crow", but if Paul doesn't get nominated, we're going to have to SUPPORT whoever DOES get the nod! Better than getting ANOTHER Clinton, or an Obama in the White House!

There's still PLENTY of time! Gingrich and Fred Thompson are still "side-liners". Heck, I'd even vote for Bill Richardson....a DEMOCRAT....since he has the right ideas about guns! I don't think that he stands a snowballs chance in Hades, though.

What it REALLY boils down to is that we have to do our best to get almost ALL of our current elected representatives OUT of Washington!
 
Yep, I'd still vote

and only missed three elections since I first signed up (once because I was working full time, going to night school three-four nights a week and couldn't keep up with the dates). Here in CA it's always the lesser of two evils. I generally vote the the "loser" or even write in someone I like.
 
It looks like once again I will have to vote against the lying weasel I despise more than the other lying weasel. If voting made any difference it would be illegal. The only reasons I bother are: If you don't vote you have no right to bitch about the situation; the value of my vote is 1 over infinity but it's MY infinitescimal; heroes died to buy that right for me- not to use it is trivializing their sacrifice.
 
Will you even vote if Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination?
Click to expand...
I think you mean "when", not "if". If you think Ron Paul actually has a chance of getting the nomination, then you've got a poor understanding of politics.
Or will you settle for business as usual by voting for John McCain or Rudy Guliani?

For me, I won't be voting at all.....in fact, I would be tempted to vote for a liberal democrat just to spite the Republicans (but I won't do that).

Why continue to play their (Republican party) little game being their pawns?
Click to expand...
First off, if you don't vote, then you've got no business complaining about the policies of the elected.

Second off, I live in Massachusetts. As governor, Romney was anything but pro-gun. At best, he basically ignored both gun rights and gun control. Our current governor, however, is out there stumping for additional gun control measures each and every day. While Gov. Patrick's gubernatorial opponent, Kerry Healey, certainly wasn't everything a gun owner would have wanted in a governor, she was a whole lot better than Patrick.

It is surprising to me how many people fail to learn the lessons of even recent history. Back when Bush ran against Gore, many lefties and greenies voted for Ralph Nader, saying that there was no difference between Bush and Gore anyways. Bush then got elected and you know what? They now really, really regret their vote because there was a big difference between Bush and Gore.

Don't make the same mistake.
 
It is surprising to me how many people fail to learn the lessons of even recent history. Back when Bush ran against Gore, many lefties and greenies voted for Ralph Nader, saying that there was no difference between Bush and Gore anyways. Bush then got elected and you know what? They now really, really regret their vote because there was a big difference between Bush and Gore.
Click to expand...
But we're talking about the vote in the Primaries, not the presidential election. What you're saying would be true if Dr. Paul was running as a Third Party and with no chance to win (and that isn't a given; Perot had excellent polling numbers, as I recall). In that case he would be siphoning off Republican votes.

The only ways I can think of offhand that what you're saying is relevant in the Primaries is

1) If there is a much more electable Republican in the Primaries with nearly as good qualifications, in which case a vote for Dr. Paul might tip the Primaries to a Giuliani/McCain/Romney. If this case, please identify the other Republican candidate with Dr. Paul's qualifications.

2) If you're saying that Dr. Paul might win the Primaries, but have no chance in the presidential election. I totally reject this. He might not have name recognition now, but after a year of campaigning everyone will know his name, and I think a very large portion of the voters will respond to his message.
 
If you're saying that Dr. Paul might win the Primaries, but have no chance in the presidential election. I totally reject this. He might not have name recognition now, but after a year of campaigning everyone will know his name, and I think a very large portion of the voters will respond to his message.
Click to expand...

I have to agree. While not ready to consider myself a Paulista, I think it is fair to say that we are currently in only the name recognition phase of the campaign, those polling the highest being the most well known. There are a number of good examples where leading candidates faded or did not emerge until much later. It could be 9-10 months before we know who is really a viable candidate.

It might be useful to point out that nominees may come from Congress, but Presidents typically do not. I would expect one of the slicker Governors to have a very good shot.

If one is really hot on Ron Paul, he should be planning a donation of money, time, or both. Paul will need it, because he needs name recognition, face time; the press taking him seriously, perhaps forced to; blogger support, etc.

If not entirely comfortable with Paul, I think I have to yield to the question of who is better. That is a very good question. In the end though, I expect I will pick whoever stands the best chance of beating the Democrats. That could be Paul. We'll see.
 
"He might not have name recognition now, but after a year of campaigning everyone will know his name, and I think a very large portion of the voters will respond to his message."

I hate to even mention his name, but didn't Jimmy Carter start early and slow and then come on to win the election? If I remember correctly, a lot of news 'pundits' began by wondering who the Sam Hill he was and how a peanut farmer could hope to win the presidency. Granted he had been the governor of Georgia but who outside of Georgia knew anything about him?
Ron Paul just might surprise us. One thing he has over all the other candidates is his steadfastness. He may have a hard time coming up with a good sound-bite when hurried but he never changes his tune. All the others have had to explain why they voted for something before they voted against it.
 
Obviously a lot of contributors to this thread don't seem to understand the end result of an election. It is NOT to make you feel good about who you are voting for, or for your secret demonstration of disgust with the principle candidates, it is to put a person in office. Voting for a third party, or a fourth, or not voting has the effect of helping a candidate you can't stand. Picking the lesser of two evils is not something to be dismayed about. It still gives you a choice of who serves your interests better. Isn't it preferable to see someone elected that you agree with on 30% of the issues rather than on 10% of the issues? Fortunately there are people on the left as misguided as some on the right. While Perot voters gave Clinton the White House, liberal support for Nader gave Bush the election over Gore. My advice is to support the candidate you really want IN THE PRIMARIES, then go with the PARTY candidate that best represents your interests in the general election. Don't waste your precious right to vote.
 
Real Gun said:
Well, since he's not a conservative, sure. He's a libertarian. Hijacking the simple meaning of "conservative" is a shell game.
Click to expand...
Ron Paul is a right-wing libertarian and is easily the most conservative candidate in the race. He's anti-abortion, very pro-gun, opposed to big federal government, and opposes illegal immigration and foreign interventionism. In contrast, there is very little that's truly conservative about today's GOP -- especially Giuliani, who is an out-and-out NYC liberal.

It's the neocons who have hijacked the meaning of "conservative." That word has come to be defined in the public consciousness as "anyone who supports the big-government policies of the GOP and foreign military adventurism." But that is a bass-ackwards definition. Conservatism values small, decentralized government and an America-first foreign policy that avoids interventionism. Believe me, there is nothing the least bit conservative about liberally spending hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives forcing democracy on the Middle East.

When it comes to foreign policy, the best summary of the conservative viewpoint I've read belongs to none other than John Quincy Adams:

[America] has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
Click to expand...

http://www.thisnation.com/library/jqadams1821.html

Since libertarians believe in a complete return to the Constitutionally-limited government of the Founders, it could be argued that libertarians are the only genuine conservatives around today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top