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
The President has limited powers in this regard. Congress doesn’t.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Congress has limited powers, too. The president has the power to veto and congress has to have majority vote to override. Checks and balances...

If congress had unlimited power then we would have a form of dictatorship...
 
Tuttle8: Wrong. Congress has limited powers, too. The president has the power to veto and congress has to have majority vote to override. Checks and balances...
If congress had unlimited power then we would have a form of dictatorship...
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think that I heard that somewhere once before. :rolleyes:

I’ll re-word it. The President has limited powers (not limited enough for my tastes) in what he can dictate to us. The laws that congress can pass (provided the President approves or Congress has the votes to over ride the veto and the SCOTUS doesn’t nix it on Constitutional grounds) can do more harm.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Not so. If Ron Paul got the nomination, I would vote for him. I would love for a true conservative like him to be President. AND I think if he did somehow get the nomination, and ran against Hillary, Paul would win and be President.

He won't get the nomination.

It will be a race between a true Communist liberal and a "centrist" who is at least somewhat beholden to conservatives if only to save face.

I'd rather not bury my head in the sand and let a real live Communist become President.
 
So Bush didn't veto the S-CHIP expansion or cut taxes? He didn't oppose N. Korea's nuclear ambitions? Didn't oppose embryonic stem cell research from aborted babies?

Cause if he did any of those things, he would sound at least somewhat conservative at times. But I guess he didn't do any of that.
 
If Hillary wins, she will likely be accompanied by some new Dems in the Senate. If you're a productive American, you're the ATM for the hangers on. You think that's your money?
 
So Bush didn't veto the S-CHIP expansion or cut taxes? He didn't oppose N. Korea's nuclear ambitions? Didn't oppose embryonic stem cell research from aborted babies?
Click to expand...

He opposed S-CHIP because it diverted funding from his nation-building effort in Iraq....and approved of the Medicare Rx Program which cost even more....

He cut taxes ONCE in his first term....and squandered the golden chance to reform the tax code to something better (flat tax/sales tax/etc.)....

He opposed N. Korea's nuclear ambition....and gave China unprecedented favors in the name of "fair trade".....

He opposed Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research....but has taken no action to restrict the practice if privately funded....

And which gun laws or BATFE practices has he pushed to revoke?... :rolleyes:
 
We wouldn't be having this discussion if the Republican party had not been taken over by liberal globalists.

The Republican party has forgotten that they cannot win elections without the support of 2nd Amendment supporters, and religious social conservatives. If they run Rudy, I believe they will be reminded of this.

On the gun issue, there is little difference between Giuliani and Hillary. To convince yourself otherwise is only delusion.
 
It will be a race between a true Communist liberal and a "centrist" who is at least somewhat beholden to conservatives if only to save face.
Click to expand...
Not quite. Your premise assumes a third option: A true Goldwater conservative guided by the letter and intent of the Constitution. So you have 3 choices, not two.
You have already assumed that you cannot win without us. We have already made it clear that in this situation we're not voting for Rudy. You have already stated that you like Paul.
So if you want to be unified....why not do it behind the candidate you actually want?
 
As a Paul supporter, I have been frequently urged to look at the reputable national polls of people who, unlike me, actually answer their land line phones.

OK, I did. Let's talk about them.

Rasmussen:

Tuesday, October 16, 2007


For the second straight week, a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 64% of Americans would like to see U.S. troops brought home from Iraq within a year. Prior to this week’s results, support for bringing the troops home had increased in three consecutive weeks.

Twenty-eight percent (28%) who want the troops brought home immediately. That’s unchanged from a week ago but up from 20% five weeks ago.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of women want troops out of Iraq within a year. Fifty-five percent (55%) of men share that view.

Looking at the other end of the spectrum, 31% now want troops to remain in Iraq until the mission is complete.
Click to expand...

Are we going to buck the will of 2/3 of the people and win with a pro-war GOP candidate?

What does Gallup have to say?

The No. 1 problem facing the nation today, according to Gallup Polls, is the war in Iraq. By all measures, the American public perceives that the war in Iraq is going badly, and was ill-conceived initially. The public is also more likely to perceive that the Democrats would do a better job on Iraq than the Republicans.
Click to expand...

The prospects for a "more of the same" GOP nominee seem bleak indeed.
 
On the gun issue, there is little difference between Giuliani and Hillary. To convince yourself otherwise is only delusion.
Click to expand...

In my opinion there is little difference between the two on any issue
once in office that is why the press love both.

I voted for the present administration however I feel it has done more harm
to this country then past administrations and will take years to unravel
the "mistakes" I see none of the present candidates that could/would make
a dent in turning America around actually the top two would only make
matters worse so what is the answer other then a third party.:confused:
 
If you are one of those who wants the Dems to win the White House, why don't you move to North Korea or Venezuela? There they already have strong political influence over your daily life, with the help of higher taxes. Let us freedom lovers continue to have this one last county on the planet to live in.
 
sw florida, you must be one of those who believe the left wing fanatics are a bigger threat to freedom than the right wing fanatics. I fear theocracy more than I fear communism. Theocracy is alive and well in other places, communism is not viable so can not be implimented anywhere.

Socialism is a different matter. The EU and the US have proven that mild market socialism is the most viable economic alternative in this day and age. Most people in the developed world agree with this, it's just the details that they argue about.

From Fred Thompson to Obama and every viable candidate in between the policies would fit within a pretty narrow range. Of the more radical elements, who cares?
 
You have already assumed that you cannot win without us. We have already made it clear that in this situation we're not voting for Rudy. You have already stated that you like Paul.
So if you want to be unified....why not do it behind the candidate you actually want?
Click to expand...

Because gun owners are not really all that big of a chunk. Big enough to lose the election for the Republicans? yep. But big enough to win it for a whole new candidate? Not a chance.

Face the reality of this world: A third party candidate does not have a chance. Go look up some history.
 
Vote for the 3rd party or really conservative candidate in the primaries to try and get more attention to your candidate.

But if your ideal candidate doesn't make it as the Rep nominee, then you better vote with the Republican candidate.
 
Simply put.....

If you vote for Hillary or a third party candidate, which is the same as voting for Hillary, you better box up your guns and ammo and get them ready for the big turn in. She will outlaw all guns and ammo, one "For the children" gun control bill after another, which will be rubber stamped by the Leftist Congress. So go ahead and vote for a Third Party for "Principle" and then say "Goodbye" to your guns and "Goodbye" to your gun rights forever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top