Updated: Who will you vote for on Nov 2nd?

What's going on in Washington, D.C.?

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

How would you vote if today was election day

Romney
11
22%
Mcain
17
35%
Paul
19
39%
Obama
1
2%
Clinton
1
2%
 
Total votes: 49


frankie_the_yankee
Banned
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:24 pm
Location: Smithville, TX

Re: Updated: Who will you vote for on Nov 2nd?

#16

Post by frankie_the_yankee »

Tajovo wrote: Ron Paul voted against the Amber Alert bill because of a rider that was added to the bill at the last minute, what is known to some as the Rave Act. http://slander.revolutioni.st/protects_pedophiles.html

Ron Paul has my vote.
So this Amber Alert bill was ultimately found to be unconstitutional because of the Rave Act rider, right?

You mean, it wasn't?

So on one side of the issue you have 430 members of Congress, 98 senators, the president, and the entire SCOTUS.

On the other side you have - Ron Paul.

Now tell us something. With views that far out of the mainstream, (allowing for all of the millions of people who voted for all of the above senators, presidents, etc.), by what strategy does this guy intend to be elected president?

I know he has great 2A views, but let's be realistic here. With all the money he's raised, he can't crack single digits. And if he wasn't anti-war, he wouldn't even be cracking low single digits, and he would have been lucky to have raised one tenth as much money.

When the general election rolls around, anybody who doesn't vote Republican has only themselves to blame when the FCC wipes out free speech on TV and radio (via the so-called The Fairness Doctrine) and wipes out both the 1st and 2nd amendments to the constitution via a couple of SCOTUS appointments.

The Left knows what it it is doing.

Do we?
Ahm jus' a Southern boy trapped in a Yankee's body

Tajovo
Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:18 am

Re: Updated: Who will you vote for on Nov 2nd?

#17

Post by Tajovo »

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

So on one side of the issue you have 430 members of Congress, 98 senators, the president, and the entire SCOTUS.

On the other side you have - Ron Paul.

Yes, and it takes guts to look at a bill and say, I am all for the Amber Alert, but why are additional bills that have nothing to do with protecting kidnapped children being added to one that does? (Reeks of the regular political game, if I can't get something to legitimately pass on its own merit I'll just add it to a popular bill and see if I can sneak it in.) Some members of congress actually read the ENTIRE bill instead of the summary and KNOW what they are passing into law.

Now tell us something. With views that far out of the mainstream, (allowing for all of the millions of people who voted for all of the above senators, presidents, etc.), by what strategy does this guy intend to be elected president?

I'm not his campaign manager and I don't know Ron Paul personally. I would think that he would use the same strategy to get elected as president as he has used to win the congressional election for 10 terms. Apparently the voters of his congressional district don’t find him that far out of the mainstream.

I know he has great 2A views, but let's be realistic here. With all the money he's raised, he can't crack single digits. And if he wasn't anti-war, he wouldn't even be cracking low single digits, and he would have been lucky to have raised one tenth as much money.

He has cracked single digits more than once in the primaries. (From other posts you keep coming back to this point, its false, please keep track of the primary results.) Paul isn't anti-war, he's against the war in Iraq and has been from the start. What Paul is against is going to war without a formal declaration from congress. And wouldn’t you know, that just happens to be unconstitutional. (I feel another donation coming on.)

When the general election rolls around, anybody who doesn't vote Republican has only themselves to blame when the FCC wipes out free speech on TV and radio (via the so-called The Fairness Doctrine) and wipes out both the 1st and 2nd amendments to the constitution via a couple of SCOTUS appointments.

Sounds like fear-mongering to me. Does Bill O’Reilly send you fan mail?

The Left knows what it it is doing.

Do we?

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m still voting for Ron Paul.
Jeff
Beretta PX4 .40

frankie_the_yankee
Banned
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:24 pm
Location: Smithville, TX

Re: Updated: Who will you vote for on Nov 2nd?

#18

Post by frankie_the_yankee »

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... y-258.html

Paul's RCP average was 5.6% this morning. No sense quibbling.

One thing we know for sure, it ain't 25% or 35%, and it ain't gonna be.

I'm just looking at the big picture.
Ahm jus' a Southern boy trapped in a Yankee's body

Topic author
lawrnk
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 11
Posts: 1585
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:36 am
Location: Sienna Plantation, TX (FT BEND)

Re: Updated: Who will you vote for on Nov 2nd?

#19

Post by lawrnk »

Nothing good happens at Raves, I've been to a few in my former youth. It was a stupid move.

Tajovo wrote:
frankie_the_yankee wrote:
lawrnk wrote: In theory, I love Ron Paul.

In reality, he is frightening and unrealistic Mr. Magoo lookalike, and nothing more. He votes against a bill that helps kidnapped kids, since it is not "constitutional."
More accurately, because he doesn't think it's constitutional. (And let me add, the bill you refer to may or may not be AFAIK. I know nothing of it.) Like many "absolutists", he is convinced that his interpretation of the constitution is the only possible correct one. If others interpret the Commerce Clause differently, for instance, he is right and they are wrong (to him).

In his own way, he is a legislator who feels he has his own built in SCOTUS majority. While he fancies himself as some kind of constitutionalist, his view of the constitution is not the only one.

Ron Paul voted against the Amber Alert bill because of a rider that was added to the bill at the last minute, what is known to some as the Rave Act. http://slander.revolutioni.st/protects_pedophiles.html

Ron Paul has my vote.
Member- TSRA
Life Member- NRA

Doug.38PR
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 644
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:36 pm
Location: Northeast, Louisiana C.S.A.

Re: Updated: Who will you vote for on Nov 2nd?

#20

Post by Doug.38PR »

Ron Paul sees the Constitution as it was originally written. He interprets it's language as the original writers did (which is the proper way to interpret any document). The other's (Democrats and Republicans)make it's language to mean whatever they want it to mean today to suit whatever they want. Republicans might talk a lot about the Constitution and State's Rights, but it is just patriotic noise and no patriotic reality.

Ron Paul gets my vote

frankie_the_yankee
Banned
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:24 pm
Location: Smithville, TX

Re: Updated: Who will you vote for on Nov 2nd?

#21

Post by frankie_the_yankee »

Doug.38PR wrote: Ron Paul sees the Constitution as it was originally written. He interprets it's language as the original writers did (which is the proper way to interpret any document).
With all due respect, how can you know this?

It seems you agree with how he interprets it, and that's fine. But how do you know if that's the real meaning? What if I think it means something different? Am I automatically wrong, because Ron Paul and you, and maybe some others, disagree?

I keep saying this over and over, but people still seem to have a hard time with it. All any of us can have about the constitution is an opinion. That's all that the SCOTUS justices have, the same as you and me.

The difference with them is that they are the ones selected by our system to be the official arbiters of what the constitution means. And when a majority of them share the same opinion, it takes on the status of "a ruling". At that point, it's the law of the land, until or unless it is subsequently overruled by a later ruling, or the constitution is amended, or the Congress acts to limit the Court's jurisdiction.
Doug.38PR wrote: The other's (Democrats and Republicans)make it's language to mean whatever they want it to mean today to suit whatever they want. Republicans might talk a lot about the Constitution and State's Rights, but it is just patriotic noise and no patriotic reality.
In fairness, couldn't those same Democrats and Republicans say the same thing about the way they perceive others, such as Paul, to (mis)interpret its language?

Consider that there is an awful lot of case law stretching over a couple of centuries that would indicate that Paul's constitutional views are not widely shared. And this case law has been developed by our most respected practicioners of constitutional law. To me, this is at least a "caution flag" that Paul's views on the constitution may be, in some cases, problematic.

Or at least debatable.
Ahm jus' a Southern boy trapped in a Yankee's body

Doug.38PR
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 644
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:36 pm
Location: Northeast, Louisiana C.S.A.

Re: Updated: Who will you vote for on Nov 2nd?

#22

Post by Doug.38PR »

You look to what the Founding Fathers mean't when they wrote whatever given part of the Constitution you happen to be talking about. You first read the Constitution. You understand it they way the Founding Fathers intended. If you need help, you go to their writings and speeches. You think like they do.

You DON'T take a sentence out of context and use it for some modern political agenda. (such as liberals using "well regulated militia" to mean the national guard only can have guns) That is clearly not what they mean't. To use the Constitution subjectively and selectively like this is to pervert it and essentially say "we have no constitution"
User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 26852
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Updated: Who will you vote for on Nov 2nd?

#23

Post by The Annoyed Man »

Doug.38PR wrote:Ron Paul sees the Constitution as it was originally written. He interprets it's language as the original writers did (which is the proper way to interpret any document). The other's (Democrats and Republicans)make it's language to mean whatever they want it to mean today to suit whatever they want. Republicans might talk a lot about the Constitution and State's Rights, but it is just patriotic noise and no patriotic reality.

Ron Paul gets my vote
One problem I have with Ron Paul (among others) is that, when his own self interests are involved, his pedagogy goes right out the window. He derides other Congressmen for attaching riders to spending bills, but he also has a historical record of attaching his own riders to bills that he knows will pass without his vote, and then voting against those bills so that he can maintain the appearance of ideological purity. He gets to vote against pork, AND bring pork home, all in the same vote. So he's no better than the others in that regard. I am also bothered by his cynical unwillingness to distance himself financially from white supremacists and other mouth breathers who send him money. It's not even a lot of money in terms of overall political donations he's raised to date that we're talking about. It's the idea of it. He is trying to fly in the face of the reality that we are known by the associations we keep. If he is unwilling to sever those ties, then he will be known by them, and it will cripple him if by some small chance he were to actually gain the Republican nomination. And I don't even want to go into his record in the war on terror. Let's just say that Paul shares George Soros' opinion in the matter, and Soros is a traitor to the country that helped to make him richer than Croesus.

Additionally, Paul is failing to do better than an average of about 10% +/- in the primaries, which means that he has only an infinitesimal chance of actually capturing the Republican nomination. I have spoken with literally dozens and dozens of Ron Paul supporters who say that they hate the other Republican candidates so much that they will either sit out the general election or write in Paul if he fails to get the nomination. In a general race in which the difference between the Democrat and the Republican contenders will likely boil down to a 4%-6% difference, a scenario in which 10% of Republicans bolt the party to either write in Paul or to not vote at all will result in a Democrat victory. BTW, it was reported today that, in California, the state with the single largest block of delegates to the DNC and which participates in Sooper Toozdee tomorrow, Obama has pulled ahead of Clinton.

In the meantime, this is a forum dedicated to Texas CHL rights and issues. Obama says, "National legislation [emphasis mine] will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents." (David Mendell, "Democratic hopefuls vary a bit on death penalty," Chicago Tribune, February 20, 2004). Get that? A President Obama will work toward passing a national bill over-riding Texas' CHL laws, and all of you will have to surrender your CHLs and stop carrying if you wish to remain law-abiding citizens. What you worked hard to get, within the framework of the duly constituted laws of the State of Texas, will suddenly become criminalized, and there will exist a statewide database of those people to whom the licenses were issued. Good luck to you on your next traffic stop.

"What seems to be the problem officer?"
"Sir, are you aware that your CHL became void by national law 6 months ago? Are you carrying your firearm at this time? SIR!!! Get down on the ground, arms out at your side!!"

Welcome to Obama's world if you vote for Ron Paul in the general election as anything other than the Republican nominee.

...and don't expect a President Hillary Clinton to be any kinder to your concerns. So, for whatever my opinion is worth, even if an imperfect RINO gets the nomination, even if the nomination goes to a Mormon and you just can't stand that idea, even if the nomination goes to an evangelical preacher and you worry about church/state issues, and yes, even if that person turns out, however improbably, to be Ron Paul, hold your nose and vote for the Republican nominee. This is not an election where the nation can afford the luxury of "protest voting," or adopting the "I'm taking my voting toy and going home" mentality.

That's just my 2¢. I know that it's not a popular position - but political realities rarely make one popular.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT
User avatar

anygunanywhere
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 7875
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:16 am
Location: Richmond, Texas

Re: Updated: Who will you vote for on Nov 2nd?

#24

Post by anygunanywhere »

The Annoyed Man wrote:political realities rarely make one popular.
Voting for Dr. Paul sure doesn't. I have always voted GOP to protect the status quo. I will not anymore because the status quo has abandoned me. I know how Zell Miller felt four years ago. I don't hear him singing the GOP praise now.

Dr. Paul is the only one separating himself from all other candidates.

All other candidates will return us to business as usual.

I see no difference in the liberal Rinos and Dems.

Yes Dr. Paul has brought funds back to his district, but you do not hear him saying that it is his job to bring money back into his district.

Anygunanywhere
"When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote." Mike Vanderboegh

"The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." – Ayn Rand
User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 26852
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Updated: Who will you vote for on Nov 2nd?

#25

Post by The Annoyed Man »

anygunanywhere wrote:I see no difference in the liberal Rinos and Dems.
Frankly, I don't either. BUT... at least a Republican candidate, even a RINO candidate, has to pay lip service to conservative ideals, while the Democrat candidate is under no such obligation. I understand your attraction to Ron Paul, but how are you going to vote if he doesn't win the nomination?
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT
User avatar

anygunanywhere
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 7875
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:16 am
Location: Richmond, Texas

Re: Updated: Who will you vote for on Nov 2nd?

#26

Post by anygunanywhere »

The Annoyed Man wrote:
anygunanywhere wrote:I see no difference in the liberal Rinos and Dems.
Frankly, I don't either. BUT... at least a Republican candidate, even a RINO candidate, has to pay lip service to conservative ideals, while the Democrat candidate is under no such obligation. I understand your attraction to Ron Paul, but how are you going to vote if he doesn't win the nomination?
I have not decided yet and will wait to see what the ticket looks like in Nov.

Anygun
"When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote." Mike Vanderboegh

"The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." – Ayn Rand
User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 26852
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Updated: Who will you vote for on Nov 2nd?

#27

Post by The Annoyed Man »

anygunanywhere wrote:I have not decided yet and will wait to see what the ticket looks like in Nov.

Anygun
That's about all we can do, unfortunately.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT
User avatar

flb_78
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1277
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:17 am
Location: Gravel Switch, KY
Contact:

Re: Updated: Who will you vote for on Nov 2nd?

#28

Post by flb_78 »

The Annoyed Man wrote:
anygunanywhere wrote:I see no difference in the liberal Rinos and Dems.
Frankly, I don't either. BUT... at least a Republican candidate, even a RINO candidate, has to pay lip service to conservative ideals, while the Democrat candidate is under no such obligation. I understand your attraction to Ron Paul, but how are you going to vote if he doesn't win the nomination?

OK, so we elect a liberal RINO that get the republicans to vote with the liberals? So elect McCain so he can expand McCain Feingold and expand his views on gun control including background checks on EVERY gun sale, including private? So elect Romney so he can spread his form of gun safety that he passed in MA? You do realize that he supports the AWB and said that if it came to his desk, he would sign it as POTUS? Every candidate wants to expand the Federal Government except Paul, so my view is, voting for any other candidate then Paul is a vote for same damn thing we've been getting.

BTW, I'd probably vote Libertarian or the Constitution Party if Paul is not on the ticket. McCain/Romney/Obama/Hillary, it's all the same.

Actually, Obama is probably the safe bet because you actually know where he stands and hasn't wavered from his Liberal standpoint. At least we be getting stabbed in the chest instead of in the back from Romney or McCain.
http://www.AmarilloGunOwners.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar

boomerang
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 2629
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Updated: Who will you vote for on Nov 2nd?

#29

Post by boomerang »

The Annoyed Man wrote:
anygunanywhere wrote:I see no difference in the liberal Rinos and Dems.
Frankly, I don't either. BUT... at least a Republican candidate, even a RINO candidate, has to pay lip service to conservative ideals,
The main difference is the RINOs in congress might vote against socialist and totalitarian policies if a Dem is president. The past seven years prove they'll vote along party line no matter how much "W" tramples conservative ideals. Bush showed us a big-government RINO in the Oval Office can do more damage than a bull in a china shop.
The Annoyed Man wrote:I understand your attraction to Ron Paul, but how are you going to vote if he doesn't win the nomination?
As I've said before, if I'm going to vote for a democrat I may as well vote for one who is honest about it.
"Ees gun! Ees not safe!"
User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 26852
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Updated: Who will you vote for on Nov 2nd?

#30

Post by The Annoyed Man »

boomerang wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:
anygunanywhere wrote:I see no difference in the liberal Rinos and Dems.
Frankly, I don't either. BUT... at least a Republican candidate, even a RINO candidate, has to pay lip service to conservative ideals,
The main difference is the RINOs in congress might vote against socialist and totalitarian policies if a Dem is president.
Agreed, which is why I'm willing to hold my nose and vote Republican, no matter who the candidate turns out to be. Once liberties are lost, they are extremely hard, almost impossible, to regain. Whatever one can argue about RINOs, they are likely to be incrementally less damaging to our liberties than almost any Democrat - particularly when it comes to the RKBA and CHL. I realize that there are lots of other core issues which are important to conservatives, myself included, such as abortion, national defense, etc. All of those core issues will be further damaged by a Democrat president, while there is a chance that a RINO might not want to risk alienating any further the conservative base. A Democrat president will have no mandate to serve the interests of conservatives in any way, shape, or form whatsoever, and will likely foment a Dem party rebellion if he or she tries to coexist with conservatives in any way. Yes, Senator Obama may be honest about opposing everything that conservatives believe in, but that won't be helpful in the least if you are a conservative.

As I said earlier, vote for Obama, or in any way help to ensure his (or Hillary's) election by defecting from the Republican party, and you can kiss your Texas CHL good bye. If that doesn't bother you, then by all means, help him to get elected. But I don't see how any person who 1) supports the RKBA and 2) believes that CHL is his right, can help to elect Obama and still be true to those two core issues. They are mutually exclusive propositions.

But that's just me. I tend to think in linear fashion.
Last edited by The Annoyed Man on Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT
Post Reply

Return to “Federal”