Would you be willing to have another Clinton...

Would another Clinton be worth standing by a conservative third party?

  • Yes, I would feel good that I voted how I truly felt, and didn't contribute to a decaying system.

    Votes: 29 33.7%

  • No, I think that if Clinton wins, good intentions aren't worth Hillarycare and AWB II

    Votes: 57 66.3%
  • Total voters
    86
G

G-Cym

Moderator
Gun owners are a principled bunch. We know what we believe, and we stand by it. A lot of people have said things like "I'll vote for who I agree with no matter what" and "I'll vote third party before I vote for Rudy or McCain."

So here's my question. It's November of next year and Clinton ends up getting 40% of the votes. Rudy or McCain get 35%, and a third party candidate like Ron Paul gets 20%, and the other 5% go to small third parties.

If you are one of the people who voted for Ron Paul, due not wanting to vote for a RINO like Rudy or McCain, would you feel that it was a good decision, after hearing about the new President Clinton? Would at least 4 year of Clinto be worth it?
 
Uh, let me think of how I want to go about phrasing this.

I won't really talk about the other candidates, but I personally feel like Rudy gives RINOs everywhere a bad name. The policies that you're so afraid old 'Hill will bring us are gonna be the same under him, except probably not as fiercly contested since there won't be between partying bickering. Hillary might consolidate the opposition. Remember, the POTUS isn't an end all be all position...

2008 is going to be an interesting year. These issues really aren't black and white. I hate to bring WildAlaska into this :), but politics of late are really begining to remind me of ancient Rome. Very deep, very murky waters where most truths are in various shades of grey.

I voted for the first option. I think Rudy is more trouble than Hill, but as with the last election none of the front runners represent my values anyway. I swallowed my pride last time, and voted for the "lesser of two evils". This time, I'm voting principle, and I hope all of America does likewise. The Founding Fathers would want, nay, EXPECT us to do only as much. Concede your values, concede your freedom.
 
If Hillary is nominated, and if the Republicans nominate a candidate who you don't like, voting for a third part candidate is giving a vote to Hillary.
We lost senate races in Montana and Virginaia in 2006 because of Liberatarian votes that could have put two Republicans in the Senate, had the Liberatarians voted Republican.

Martyn
 
So here's my question. It's November of next year and Clinton ends up getting 40% of the votes. Rudy or McCain get 35%, and a third party candidate like Ron Paul gets 20%, and the other 5% go to small third parties.
Click to expand...

Let me help you with that setup:

So here's my question. It's November of next year and Clinton ends up getting 40% of the votes. Rudy or McCain get 35%, and a third party candidate like Ron Paul, WHO HAS SAID HE WILL NOT RUN AS A THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE, gets 20%, and the other 5% go to small third parties.

There ya go.

In answer, despite Ron Paul's wishes, I would write in his name if Rudy were nominated. If you want my reasons, look here.

Also, I believe President Hillary might cause some Republicans to rediscover the virtues of cutting spending and restraining the power of the executive branch, while the same people would continue to spend like drunken sailors and dismiss any concerns about handing more power to a President Giuliani.

With the Bush administration drawing to a close and 2008 budget projections in the books, it is now possible to examine the growth in government spending under the Clinton and Bush administrations.

From 1993 to 2000, total spending grew from $1,409,500,000,000 to $1,789,200,000,000, an increase of about $380 billion. Total spending fell from 21.4% of GDP to 18.4% during that same time.

From 2001 to 2008 (if we are to believe the estimate) total spending will have grown from $1,863,200,000,000 to $2,901,900,000,000, an increase of a little over a trillion dollars. Total spending went from 18.5% of GDP in 2001 to an estimated 20% in 2008.

We can't afford a "more of the same" GOP which grows the government at twice the rate Bill Clinton did.
 
I could not, will not mark an x for Rudy or Hillary no matter the results I will
write in or vote 3th party whatever the choice.:mad:
 
The only purpose of a conservative "third party" at the national level would be to assure election of a Democrat . . . rather than getting the lesser of two evils (which is still evil!!!) we'd get the greater of two evils.

On the other hand . . . Rudy vs Hillary . . . hard to see who would actually be worse, although with a Democrat-controlled congress and the GOP acting like complete wimps (the ones that aren't RINOs) . . . :barf:
 
I voted for 'the lesser of two evils' in the past and I've felt guilty about it ever since. I'm not making the same mistake again. I will vote for the person I want to be my elected representative, even if I have to write their name in.

Even if they don't win, I will have a clear conscience, and hey, at least I can buy a bumper sticker that says 'Don't blame me, I voted for _____' :)
 
I have voted the "lesser of two evils" exactly twice in my life in 2000 and 2004 and still got the worst of two evils. I ain't doing it again. I will vote for the candidate who best represents my views even if I need to write him in.
Personally I see little difference in the putative front runners on gun control, the global WoT or any other civil rights issue I hold dear. I will be voting for Ron Paul in the primary here in WI to send a meesage to both parties I am tired of the status quo and we'll see where that gets us.
 
As much as I'd like to have the choice of a third party, it realistically is not going to happen in my lifetime.

In 1912 when Taft got the Rep. nomination, Teddy Roosevelt pulled away so many republicans with his Bull Moose party that the vote was split and Wilson was elected.

Exactly 80 years later, when Bush 1 betrayed the Second Amendment I (like almost 19% of voters) voted for Perot. Result? Vote was split and we got another 4 years of Billary and the AWB. I can only hope that Rudy will not get the Republican nomination.
 
clinton_at_levenworth.jpg
lamb.jpg



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw
 
Last edited:
...sigh... We aren't even past the the first page, and Godwin's Law strikes. ...sigh...

Godwin's Law: prov.

[Usenet] “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful. Godwin himself has discussed the subject. See also Formosa's Law.
 
I would never again vote for a 3rd party and risk another Clinton in the white house. Been there done that.
We all know thats how the first one got in and I don't see how anyone would do it again.
 
Put it this way. First off. Paul is not getting the nomination. But if you persist in that fantasy, picture this.

Hillary vs. Paul in the debate.

Hillary: (baited question at Paul)

Paul: (increasingly shrill answer, rising voice, more and more agitated)

Hillary: (smirking, another baited question)

Paul: (trembling, even more shrill)

Hillary: (smug satisfaction, smirking)

How would that play to the voting public? Who would appear to be in control?
 
Gun owners are a principled bunch.
Click to expand...

In the past few years I've regrettably have seen this to slowly fade away as fact...

If you are one of the people who voted for Ron Paul, due not wanting to vote for a RINO like Rudy or McCain, would you feel that it was a good decision, after hearing about the new President Clinton?
Click to expand...

If I were to truly vote for the candidate that I believe in, then yes it would be a good decision. This would apply to if I vote for Ron Paul or Obama. No matter what one believes in, they should vote for the candidate that they want to see in the White House. NO MATTER WHAT.

Think about it. If we keep voting for one of the candidates that represent the two major parties, how can the govt. see that there should be a third party or, MORE IMPORTANTLY, see the ramifications of NOT LISTENING TO THE PEOPLE? If the candidate of my choice doesn't get in and, say, Hillary gets in, then I only hope that one day people would see my vision. Maybe the Republican party would actually see the light. But, in reality, most of my fellow voters won't follow through. Whether voting for the nominated or, God forbid the ABSOLUTE WORST, not vote at all...

Of course, who am I to think the elected will see the light? The approval rating for Congress is hovering around 11% and all they do is bicker back and forth blaming the other party instead of taking responsibility for their own actions...or should I say inactions...

Principled? You bet. I will vote for the candidate that I feel best to represent my beliefs. If he/she doesn't get the nomination, I will consider the winner. But, if he/she doesn't fit the bill, I'll be using my #2 pencil and write instead of filling in the dots... Idealistic instead of realistic? Well, I think that's a very subjective opinion...
 
Here's what I fear however. That it will take decades of showing them through lack of support to get the Republican Party to be conservative again. And in that time the Dems will be getting more and more powerful. So by the time the GOP cares what we have to say, the country will be so dependent and supportive of the Dems through their social engineering, that the new truly conservative GOP has about as much chance as Ron Paul does now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top