Would you be willing to have another Clinton...

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


  • Total voters
    86
Good point, G-CYM.

However, there's also a good chance that the Dem. party would implode. I think the far left secular-progressives are already tainting the party as we speak. Perhaps the general public and fence sitters will see this by the next election cycle...
 
I will not vote for a candidate who wants to rob me of my rights. If that means that I voted for a third party, so be it. The republicans need to learn to put forth the best candidate. If the best thing you can say about your candidate is "Vote Republican, because at least we suck less than they do." You aren't gonna do it for me.

Rudy or Hillary, I see no difference. The best we can hope for is that the Executive and Legislative branches are divided and we spend the next 2-4 years in partisan bickering.

Until then, I am going to spend the next 15 months stocking up on guns and ammo.
 
So, do I vote for some 3rd party candidate rather than vote to keep Hillary out?

NO!

I feel that it is MUCH better to vote for the lesser of 2 evils than to vote for a more ideologically pure 3rd party candidate and have the worst possible candidate win. After all, in my case, a vote for the compatible 3rd party candidate amounts to a half vote for Hillary. Remember that even if Rudy wins, his main impact on the 2nd Amendment will not be legislative. His main impact will be on the basis of what Supreme Court Justices he appoints. Since he is going to be appointing those who are "Originalists", this still works in our favor.

Or, put it another way:
On the one hand, we have probable anti- (with an establised anti- track record) who has paid lip service to being at least somewhat 2A friendly (not that I believe him), but who will appoint "Originalist" judges. While this is painful in the short term, it works in our favor in the long run.
On the other hand, we have a confirmed, dyed in the wool anti- who will appoint judges who have a so called "Progressive" agenda. Ignore the fact that she has recently claimed that she will support the 2nd Amendment. She'll support it as far as the so called "progressives" see the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, which is a farce. This is disastrous in both the short term as well as the long run.

It is a "No Brainer" to me. If it ended up being Rudy vs Hillary, I'd hold my nose and vote Rudy. The alternatives are just too horrible.

Not voting for the lesser of 2 evils in this case is, in effect, knowingly engaging in a battle that is going to be at best a Pyhrric Victory. It is a victory in that you voted your conscience, but by doing so YOU LOST THE WAR. It was a tactical victory for you that was a strategic defeat for the cause of freedom. You didn't consider the long term consequences of your personal victory.
 
If someone tugs on Hillary's hair really hard it will come off and they will find a balding guy wearing makeup.


So you're telling me Rudy is running in both primaries, is that legal?
 
Newly Originalist?

if Rudy wins, his main impact on the 2nd Amendment will not be legislative. His main impact will be on the basis of what Supreme Court Justices he appoints. Since he is going to be appointing those who are "Originalists", this still works in our favor.

What makes you think that?

He will be going against beliefs held for most of his life if he does appoint such judges. This is the guy who went around for over 20 years saying CONGRESS should pass a law saying we must prove that we need a handgun before we are allowed to own one. He was a lawyer and a prosecutor for most of that time, so he had to know about the possible sources of federal authority.

The only possible conclusion is that his interpretation of the commerce clause was, for most of his professional life, the same as that expressed by Justice Stevens in such cases as Lopez and Raich.


Maybe he has abandoned the beliefs he held for most of his professional life, but I doubt it. More likely, he would give us nominees like Souter. Better than Ginsberg, perhaps, but not enough better to actually get a different result.
 
The premise in the original post is flawed. Rudy or McCain would have to be competitive in the general election without Paul in order for him to cost them the election.
If I were inclined to vote for the lesser of two evils (which I'm not) I'm not even convinced that Rudy is that candidate.

No. If Paul's running he's got my vote.
 
I can't vote for Hillary, Gulliani, or McCain. I'll write in or vote for Lyndon LaRouch :rolleyes:


Hillary: Hillary-Care, gutted military and intel budgets, gov't handouts, illegals to legal in the first 100 days.
Gulliani: RINO - check his record as mayor, Anti-2nd, illegals to legal in the first year.
McCain: Illegals to legal in the first day, McCain-Fiengold campaign finance 'Reform'.


Those are just the big points and my timetables are guesses.

Even if they run with a Tancredo or Thompson or Paul - NO WAY.
 
gb_in_ga

I feel that it is MUCH better to vote for the lesser of 2 evils than to vote for a more ideologically pure 3rd party candidate and have the worst possible candidate win.

We have been doing that for almost 20 years now. Look where it has us. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.
 
It is a victory in that you voted your conscience, but by doing so YOU LOST THE WAR.

GB, I understand your concern, especially with SC judges on the horizon to retire. However, my thinking is this:

How did we get into this position of having such lousy representation over the years? I will come out and say this with all due respect on those that do...because people sell themselves out. People keep voting for the candidate that they get even though they KNOW it's the wrong vote. People in general, including me, got us to this point because they didn't vote for THEIR candidate.

I don't think I'll ever vote for someone detestible(sp) again. It's time to take a stand. I really believe more and more people are jumping on board in the similar thought that I have. One of these elections it's going to happen. People for the most part will vote for whom they really believe in and an actual president that listens and does what is right will prevail. He/she will never get elected if he/she doesn't get the vote to begin with. That's the bottom line, IMHO.
 
How did we get into this position of having such lousy representation over the years?


What is really frightening to me is the fact people would vote for Hillary
or Rudy. The idea this is the best our country can offer is sad,but again
corporations+media control the elections and like sheep people follow
along and repeat what they hear/see on TV. I will never again vote for
the lessor of two evils, simply unless we take a stand at some point
America as we have known in the past will no longer exist.
 
+1 Wingman. I hope that if enough of us do this for long enough then TPTB will start to put forward decent candidates. Prob not, but hey if they don't and we hold out, they will continue to loose!
 
A couple of points ... first, beware what you wish for, you might just get it ... we got Bush, who protected the 2nd Amendment with good choices for Scotus, but who pretty much made a hash of everything else, thus dooming the GOP to second-rate status for the next few elections.

Any of the Demo candidates will be pretty much a disaster for the 2nd Amendment, IMHO. And without Congressional support, Repubs won't fare much better.

Anothr thing to think about ... if Hillary is elected, this nation will have been led --VP or Pres -- by a Clinton or Bush since 1981 .. Good Grief! 300m people and this is the best we can do .. turn over leadership to two families for decades ... maybe we should just bring back the king and get it over with.

---

Liberty, once lost, is lost forever ...
 
"Bush, who protected the 2nd Amendment with good choices for Scotus"

This is yet to be seen. We are all watching Parker closely I'm sure.

"Any of the Demo candidates will be pretty much a disaster for the 2nd Amendment"

Agreed whole heartedly!

"if Hillary is elected, this nation will have been led --VP or Pres -- by a Clinton or Bush since 1981"

I originally refused to vote for Bush in 2000 for this very reason....kicking myself for not sticking with Pat like I told myself I would. It is a mistake I will never repeat again.
 
The 545 People Responsible For All Of U.S. Woes
BY Charley Reese

(Date of publication unknown)-- -- - Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 235 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all but the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.

No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislation's responsibility to determine how he votes.

A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY

Don't you see how the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of Tip O'Neill, who stood up and criticized Ronald Reagan for creating deficits.

The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating appropriations and taxes.

O'neill is the speaker of the House. He is the leader of the majority party. He and his fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetos it, they can pass it over his veto.

REPLACE SCOUNDRELS

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in Lebanon, it's because they want them in Lebanon.

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take it.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone have the power. They and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees.

This article was first published by the Orlando Sentinel Star newspaper
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18568.htm
 
Not only would I vote third-party, I've found one that reflects most of my views......

If the GOP wants my vote again, they have to come here to get it back.....
 
For all of you "lesser of two evils" voters:
It seems to me that your priority is that Hillary does not win, thus it does not matter to you who wins, just that Hillary loses.
It should be obvious to you that most Paul supporters will not be voting for any other republicans.
So, instead of you urging us to vote for the lesser of our 2 evils, why don't YOU vote for the lesser of your 2 evils and vote for Paul? Why should the onus be on us to change?

You feel that even "if" Paul gets the repub nod, he will lose. I believe that any other repub will lose. So, if we are going to lose anyway, let's lose supporting the candidate who actively supports the constitution.
 
Personally, I’m far more worried about the Congress than the President. Anything Congress dreams up to limit or eliminate guns will be met with open arms by virtually all of the presidential hopefuls. The President has limited powers in this regard. Congress doesn’t.
 
Back
Top