ForksLaPush
New member
I wonder how many dufuses in Russia are sitting around wishing they had voted for the less perfect candidate rather than "sending a message" and letting Putin get elected.
would paulites support fred?
- Thread starter bigshooter
- Start date
- Status
Personally, I will vote against Clinton/Obama regardless of who wins the nomination. If the Dems get in office and with the age of our Surpreme Court, we could end up with a left-wing liberal court that could affect us all long after this election is ancient history.
Remember folks, appointment to the Surpreme Court is for life and THEY have the POWER to interpret the Constitution as they see fit. This simple fact scares the hell out of me and is my #1 priority in any election.
Fine, sit idly by if your candidate doesn't get nominated; however, don't complain when a liberal Surpreme Court further limits our rights as citizens...
Remember folks, appointment to the Surpreme Court is for life and THEY have the POWER to interpret the Constitution as they see fit. This simple fact scares the hell out of me and is my #1 priority in any election.
Fine, sit idly by if your candidate doesn't get nominated; however, don't complain when a liberal Surpreme Court further limits our rights as citizens...
Unregistered
Moderator
I agree that is a better way to word things. If you have a standard that a candidate much acheive in order to vote for them, and they don't meet that standard, then obviously you can't vote for that candidate.
The fact that, say, Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney does not meet that standard does NOT make them the same as Obama or Hillary. It does however mean that you can't vote for them.
In school, you would fail a test if you scored below 70. It didnt matter if you made a 69 or a Zero, you still failed. I would give most of the Republicans running a failing grade and therefore could not support them. Sure, they do better than Hillary, but an F is an F.
If Hillary or Obama get elected it will be because the Republican party would not pull its various elements together under a single candidate who had respect for all the elements. It would be unfair to blame the upcoming Republican loss on the voters. Its the candidates fault, not the voters.
Finally, the question is asked if Paulites would support Fred. A better question is does Fred support Paulites? I believe the answer is No. The major republican candidates roll their eyes, crack smiles, and generally treat Ron Paul and his ideas with disrespect. There was even an attempt by Fox news to not include him in the South Carolina debate. Fox did not interview him following that debate, though they interviewed all the others.
Its unfair for the Republican party to expect support from Ron Paul and his supporters considering the disrespect they have been given throught the campaign. They have attempted to marginalize them and make them look like an insignificant minority. Yet Paul just beat both Thompson and Giulinai in Michigan. Mocking people, calling them names, and treating them with disdain is no way to encourage them to stand united with Republicans in the General Election.
If I end up voting Republican, it will be simply to try to keep the Democrats from having simultaneous control of the House, Senate, and Presidency. After 6 yrs of Republican controlled fiasco, I fear what it would be like with Dems in complete control.
Another good question is, since Paul beat Thompson in Michigan, should Thompson throw support behind Paul instead of the other way around?
Last edited:
Brett Bellmore
New member
If Guliani gets in, with a Democratic Senate, you think he's going try to put Alex Kozinski on the Supreme court? Rudy might not appoint liberals, but he could appoint worse than liberals, judges who despise the ENTIRE Bill of Rights.
The set of judges who'd be acceptable to Guliani AND a majority of the Democratic Senate should terrify you. Romney, otoh, will probably go for standard issue liberals, and you can kiss your conservative court goodbye even if by some miracle we got a Republican Senate.
Ok, I cast my vote for Ron Paul last night, for what it was worth. Now let's see the eventual Republican nominee persuade me that he's better than whoever the Democrats puke up. (And I don't mean better in the sense that TB is better than Ebola.) Because he will have to persuade me, I'm not going to take it as a given.
Liberty.45ACP
New member
I agree with some of the other Paul supporters. I will not vote for the lesser of two evils again. If Paul doesn't win the nomination, then I will probably vote for the Libertarian candidate. I can't really stomach voting for any of the remaining Repubs and won't vote for any of the Demos.
---Bill
---Bill
This means that he's anti-Second Amendment, period.STAGE 2 said:
A candidate who supports another AWB is every bit as unacceptable to me as someone who wants ALL guns banned.
If we continue to compromise our rights away by voting for the lesser of two evils, then we will eventually have no rights left! Why don't people see that?! Eventually we have to say, "enough is enough."
To be perfectly honest, I'm not afraid of a universal gun ban. The reason is simple, and I've said it before: if Americans cooperate with such a ban, then they've proven themselves unworthy of gun rights or freedom anyway.
We could argue about the meaning or origin of "rights" until the cows come home, but one thing is clear: in a purely practical sense, you have no rights that you're not willing to fight, kill, and die for personally. Everything else is a privilege granted by those who rule over you, who see themselves as your betters, and who view you and your family as their property.
At this point the original question is near moot. Thompson may have had his high point in the Iowa caucus. South Carolina, next week, is supposed to be his "do or die" primary, and he's not polling very well. My bet is he'll withdraw from the race for "lack of money".
Ron Paul has more money. He can continue, even to the convention.
Maybe a more appropriate question is: "would thompsonites support Ron Paul?"
Consider this: if McCain can't get enough delegates at the convention, some of the runners up could be in a good position to dictate planks in the party platform, or other concessions, in exchange for pledging their delegates to put McCain over the top.
How about: Secretary of Treasury Ron Paul,
in a McCain administration. I'm just sayin.
Ron Paul has more money. He can continue, even to the convention.
Maybe a more appropriate question is: "would thompsonites support Ron Paul?"
Consider this: if McCain can't get enough delegates at the convention, some of the runners up could be in a good position to dictate planks in the party platform, or other concessions, in exchange for pledging their delegates to put McCain over the top.
How about: Secretary of Treasury Ron Paul,
in a McCain administration. I'm just sayin.Unregistered
Moderator
I think that is a good question. Given that Thompson is doing even worse than Paul, there really isn't hope for his campaign and anyone voting for him is wasting their time.
Brett Belmore said:
Truer words are not found on this thread. A lot of crap is, especially the risible and repeated contention that Paulistas (hey, I don't care who ya are, that's funny) are spreading a "lie" that the two establishment parties are indistinguishable in their results.
They by and large are, with plenty of divergence at the very edges.
So, the folks who scream "bogeyman," who tell us "this is THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN THE HISTORY OF THE FREE WORLD," who tell us that a vote for anyone without an "R" after his name "is a vote for Hilbama," come off it.
We keep voting for turds and hoping for eclairs. Well, it ain't gonna happen.
But thats not what we are talking about here. We are talking about whether they are the same. Clearly someone who wants to ban assault rifles is not the same as someone who wants to ban all guns. Neither support the 2nd, and neither are something any of us here want in a candidate BUT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.
I do realize that. However giving the election to the greater of two evils only makes the problem worse and we will have no righs left sooner.
And this is a steaming load of horse puckey. Are you constructing machine guns in your basement? Have you sold a gun through the mail without going through an ffl? Did you buy any hi-caps during the AWB? Im serious. Show me that you are "worthy" of gun rights under your own standard.
This macho internet BS is just that. Some of us have important things in our lives like families. As such, standing in the doorway screaming "say hello to my little friend" to the ATF or the FBI isn't a viable course of action for us.
Of course this assumes that you and others who hold your view would do this which I can guarantee you wouldn't. Everybody is rambo on the internet. Things are different when SWAT is outside.
You are absolutely right. As of today, I'm not going to kill anyone, or replay Iwo Jima in my front yard. The fact that you are so ready and so willing to do this tells me that you have never EVER been in a situation where killing someone, or being killed was a reality.
The reality is that we are not going to be voting from the rooftops anytime soon. The reality is that my obligation to my family supercedes any other obligation I have. The reality is that if you are representative of Paul supporters, then I consider our nation luck that he will never see real power.
I'm sure there were many who felt like you do in the Revolutionary War Stage2.
Luckey for us some had the fortitude to fore go all else and fight for liberty.
“I know not what others may choose but, as for me, give me liberty or give me death.”- Patrick Henry
So far at the present time things have not progressed to a point where bloodshed is warranted.
How bad would things have to get Stage2?
Would not having to give up your arms and your means to protect yourself, your family and resist tyranny be a crucial turning point?
Luckey for us some had the fortitude to fore go all else and fight for liberty.
“I know not what others may choose but, as for me, give me liberty or give me death.”- Patrick Henry
So far at the present time things have not progressed to a point where bloodshed is warranted.
How bad would things have to get Stage2?
Would not having to give up your arms and your means to protect yourself, your family and resist tyranny be a crucial turning point?
This is sheer nonsense. No one is driving down main street shouting "the liberals are coming, the liberals are coming". None of you are "fighting" for liberty so stop with the delusions of grandeur.
To comparing yourselves to the people who founded this country is ridiculous. Campaigning for Paul, or casting a vote is nothing like participating in an armed revolution with the most powerful nation on the planet. None of you have any idea what you would do if this actual situation arose. Its always the ones who have bever been shot at that are so quick to get things started.
Furthermore, the hypocracy of your position is enormous. You sit here and tell me that you are ready to kill other americans for your rights, and yet I can guarantee you that you fully comply with every gun law you state is unconstitutional. I ask you the same question as steelcore. Have you made any machine guns lately? Participate in any illegal gun sales? If the answer is no, then you've just made your argument irrelevant. If you're not willing to risk jail time, then you're sure not going to risk your life.
I'm not trying to get anything started, anything violent at least.
I'm not comparing myself to our founders.
I simply asked you if there was no point where you would consider armed resistance an option.
Lets just drop the subject its way off the thread topic and not appropriate to this fourm.
Someone might get the wrong impression of the members.
Unregistered
Moderator
I think if you admit that, you are in violation of the law.
Unregistered
Moderator
You are getting on dangerous ground, though, and I would be very careful in this day and age of terrorism to claim you would violently overthrow the government.
- Status