Giuliani: Is he as bad as Clinton, or is he even worse?

[yerasimos]

Do you really expect this political crossdresser (among other things!) to continue the pattern you have observed in your statistics?

I think the judges he appoints cannot be worse than what Hillary/Obama would appoint. And they just might be a little better.

"might be a little better" is not good enough for me, and it is not good enough for this country.

And the Slow Wheat candidate isn't going to win no matter what we do or wish for. So if it turns out to be Rudy vs. a Democrat, and people idealistically stay home or vote Slow Wheat, the Democrat will win.

Then we can kiss our gun rights and our free speech rights goodbye.

If people continue to fall for the lesser of two evils schtick (sp?), our country will never reverse its course, and the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments--as well as the money in our pockets--will continue to be trampled upon, until we join ancient Greece, Rome, Byzantium, etc, on history's scrapheap.

I think very poorly of those who stay home in protest or fail to exert what little control they have (their vote) to try to steer this government back to its original purpose of protecting individual life, liberty and property.

Wandering slightly off topic here . . . I will be forthright and say I have given Giuliani the moniker of Benito, as he hearkens back to a 20th century Italian dictator. That said, maybe I have a slow piece of grey matter, or perhaps it is because I do not watch TV very frequently, or maybe because I am not Texan (I came to the Promised Land when the timing was right for me), but I have to enquire where the "Slow Wheat" nick comes from. Could someone (Frankie or anyone else) clue me in on this? Google and Youtube searches turned up nothing.

Thanks!

[srothstein]

Frankie,

You do make one mistake about my vote. It is not a vote that would otherwise go Republican. As I said, I will always vote for the person who I think most closely represents my views. In this case, it might be a Republican like Ron Paul, it might be a Democrat, it might be an independent, and it might be a third party candidate.

But it is not a choice of my vote being wasted instead of Republican. I do NOT support the Republican party or the Democratic party. Both of them are the same, in my view. They both want to increase taxes and restrict my rights. They use different justifications and come at ti from slightly different angles, but they both are the same: The party of big government and government control of the people.

I am not voting to boost a party for the future nor am I worried about the stalinists getting in control and never getting out. I am voting the way i believe and will continue to do so. My deepest regret is that it took me too long to realize that this was the correct thing to do.

If the Democrats do win, and the people do not want them based on what they do, there will be another election in two years. Then there will be another one two years after that, and so on. This is NOT the last free election in the US. If I truly believed that this would be the last free election int he US, I would be voting from the rooftops instead.

PS, I also agree with the warning that Yerasimos posted. The best thing we could do to fix our country is to do away with the structured political party system and the laws supporting it. No more giving tax money to the parties, no more primaries by party. Just let anyone who wants to file, then one primary to get it down to the two candidates, then a run-off between them. Obviously, we would also need to change the electoral college to force it to obey the popular vote (I like the "one elector votes the way each congressional district does, plus two vote the way the whole state did" concept).

[Trainman]

I think the judges he appoints cannot be worse than what Hillary/Obama would appoint. And they just might be a little better.

And the Slow Wheat candidate isn't going to win no matter what we do or wish for. So if it turns out to be Rudy vs. a Democrat, and people idealistically stay home or vote Slow Wheat, the Democrat will win.

Then we can kiss our gun rights and our free speech rights goodbye.

Exactly!!

[frankie_the_yankee]

That said, maybe I have a slow piece of grey matter, or perhaps it is because I do not watch TV very frequently, or maybe because I am not Texan (I came to the Promised Land when the timing was right for me), but I have to enquire where the "Slow Wheat" nick comes from. Could someone (Frankie or anyone else) clue me in on this? Google and Youtube searches turned up nothing.

"Slow Wheat" is a generic term I made up to refer to minor party candidates who have no chance of winning elective office.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I am not voting to boost a party for the future nor am I worried about the stalinists getting in control and never getting out.

I am.

Fairness Doctrine, McCain-Feingold, and a bunch of "Breyer" judges and you can kiss free speech goodbye.

Sure, the elections will look like the free elections we've enjoyed in the past. But without free speech they will be rigged just as surely as a WWE Steel Cage match.

This is NOT the last free election in the US. If I truly believed that this would be the last free election in the US, I would be voting from the rooftops instead.

It might be time to break out the ladders.

The Left has known for some time that they can't put their agenda in place through the ballot box. They know that they need to seize control of the judiciary and use it as a "super legislature", one that is beyond the reach of elections and beyond appeal.

This is why it is of vital importance to keep them out of power. In my view, this one thing trumps all other concerns when voting for people aspiring to federal office.

Obviously, we would also need to change the electoral college to force it to obey the popular vote (I like the "one elector votes the way each congressional district does, plus two vote the way the whole state did" concept).

I would urge you to think more carefully about this, Stephan.

Our current electoral college system comes from "the great compromise" that gave birth to our constitution. The idea was to prevent the large population (urban) states from ignoring the interests of the small population (rural) states. Having 2 senators from each state, regardless of population, gives the small states more influence than they would have otherwise.

If the Electoral College was reduced to one elector from each district with his vote bound to that of the district, urban interests would eventually overpower rural ones when selecting the president.

By retaining 2 "at large" electors from each state, your proposal only partly dilutes the power of the small states. But to me, giving over any power to the large urban states is too much. The urban interests already have too much power.

Guess which segment of the population (urban or rural) is more in tune with low taxes, small government, and gun rights.

What kind of judges do you think "urban" presidents are likely to appoint? How might they interpret the constitution and the 2A? (Maybe the same way "urban" mayors do?)

As it is, the constitution allows for states to apportion the votes of electors and some already do. If it were up to me, I would amend the constitution to make "winner take all" electoral voting mandatory.

Two more changes to the constitution I would make if I could would be:

1) Making it mandatory that one show proof of citizenship in order to vote.

2) When apportioning congressional districts, only citizens could be counted as making up the population of a district.

Under the current system, aliens, legal and otherwise, aren't supposed to vote - though this is widely flouted. But everyone counted in a census counts towards congressional apportionment. So if a region has a large influx of illegals, for instance, it's congressional representation will increase over time. And the congressmen representing those regions will vote the interests of the illegals because the existence of their districts depends on having lots of illegals around.

[stevie_d_64]

Look at it this way...Does anyone really believe Gulliani is going to carry Texas in a general election if he is the nominee???

He will get NY, Illinois, and a few other states back east...But thats about all I see...

If anything this is going to be an interesting election to see where America stands and what direction we will be going, and at what speed come next November...

I am cautiously optamistic, and keeping my powder dry, just in case...

[frankie_the_yankee]

Look at it this way...Does anyone really believe Gulliani is going to carry Texas in a general election if he is the nominee???

Sure.

If anything this is going to be an interesting election to see where America stands and what direction we will be going, and at what speed come next November...

I am cautiously optamistic, and keeping my powder dry, just in case...

The Slow Wheat candidate will fall short.

If Hillary/Obama wins and wipes out the first two amendments, you just might need that dry powder. I'd suggest stocking up.

I've heard of some real interesting uses for large diameter plastic pipe that you might want to look into too.

[yerasimos]

Look at it this way...Does anyone really believe Gulliani is going to carry Texas in a general election if he is the nominee???

That is a interesting question to consider.

IIRC, Governor Perry is backing Giuliani, because he looked Benito in the eye and saw something there he liked, and . . . Maybe it is the fact they both have Democrat-->Republican . . . transitions. I am not sure how much Perry's endorsement is worth here, as I do not have the same sense of state politics as I believe you may have.

I assume that there are many reflexive red-state Republicans in Texas, and your question seems to suggest that a significant number of these voters may reject Giuliani. I find it difficult to believe they would do an about-face and support Hillary Clinton. I see this subset of voters either abstaining from the ballot box, or choosing "Slow Wheat".

Myself, at this point I expect to be writing-in Ron Paul, and not regretting my decision, because he is the only candidate I know who deserves my vote.

However, I will second Frankie's large diameter plastic pipe idea. We may need it in case large numbers of people are duped into voting for Giuliani (R) or Clinton (D).

[KBCraig]

IIRC, Governor Perry is backing Giuliani, because he looked Benito in the eye and saw something there he liked, and . . . Maybe it is the fact they both have Democrat-->Republican . . . transitions.

No, it's because they're in bed together on the Trans-Texas Corridor.

When Ron Paul was answering a viewer question about the "NAFTA highway" in the Florida debate, Rudy stood there chuckling and shaking his head at the very thought that anyone believes such a thing exists. Never mind that he and his law firm have made $70 million representing the company that will operate the TTC and collect the fees and tolls from it.

[yerasimos]

No, it's because they're in bed together on the Trans-Texas Corridor.

Actually, this is what I was referring to earlier, but the TTC thing does not surprise me, and provides more backstory to the Houston Comical account. Thanks for the info.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Once Hillary/Obama packs the federal judiciary with Breyers, the TTC will be the least of your worries.

And write-ins or Slow Wheat votes will help make it happen. Sure, you will feel righteous when you walk out of the voting booth.

But how will you feel a year or so later when they are coming to get your guns?

"In a landmark 5-4 ruling today, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment provision for a right to "keep" arms was meant by the Founders to apply to "keeping" them in a government-controlled armory. Chief Justice Steven Breyer, writing for the majority, noted that when General Gage's troops marched on Lexngton and Concord, it was to confiscate stores of muskets, ball, and powder that the colonists had stockpiled there. "Thus "the shot heard round the world" was fired in defense of the colonial government's right to stockpile firearms in the name of "the people".", Breyer wrote. He continued, "While the wording of the 2nd amendment has caused confusion throughout the years, we know now that the true meaning of the term "the people" is essentially the same as the way the term is used in the more modern expression, "The People's Republic of....", where it refers to the people collectively."

To correct the errors of the last 200+ years in interpreting the true meaning of the 2nd amendment, the ruling allows for warrantless house-to-house searches for a period not to exceed 25 years, by which time the government should have seized all unauthorized firearms and arranged for proper storage should the militia ever need them. Back to you, Tom."

I'm not a reflexive red state Republican. I'm simply a person who sees a strong Stalinist slant to the current national Democrat Party such that I believe they must be kept from power at all costs.

30 years ago this was not the case. Today, it is.

Their efforts to criminalize speech were the last straw for me. First it was "hate speech". Then political speech became illegal too via McCain-Feingold. (Disgracefully, McCain hopped in bed with them and even more disgracefully, Bush signed it, passing the buck to the SCOTUS, whom he mistakenly thought would never uphold it.)

Now they are aiming at putting the "Fairness" Doctrine back in place, which would purge meaningful political discourse from the airwaves.

If Satan is the major party opponent of the Democrat, don't stay home, don't vote for the Slow Wheat ticket. Vote for Satan.

[seeker_two]

If Satan is the major party opponent of the Democrat, don't stay home, don't vote for the Slow Wheat ticket. Vote for Satan.

I've seen this sentiment posted by several here.....just remember....those who are willing to put their faith in Satan's side are destined for far worse a fate than just losing an election....

I think I'll vote for a candidate that DOESN'T have much in common with the Prince of Darkness, thank you very much....

[frankie_the_yankee]

If Satan is the major party opponent of the Democrat, don't stay home, don't vote for the Slow Wheat ticket. Vote for Satan.

I've seen this sentiment posted by several here.....just remember....those who are willing to put their faith in Satan's side are destined for far worse a fate than just losing an election....

I think I'll vote for a candidate that DOESN'T have much in common with the Prince of Darkness, thank you very much....

Just keep in mind that there is such a thing as Hell on Earth too.

And if Hillary/Obama gets elected president, you'll be reminded of it real fast.

[DoubleJ]

If Satan is the major party opponent of the Democrat, don't stay home, don't vote for the Slow Wheat ticket. Vote for Satan.

I'm of the opinion that if the idealistic approach doesn't work in the primaries, vote for satan in the biggie

[seeker_two]

If Satan is the major party opponent of the Democrat, don't stay home, don't vote for the Slow Wheat ticket. Vote for Satan.

I've seen this sentiment posted by several here.....just remember....those who are willing to put their faith in Satan's side are destined for far worse a fate than just losing an election....

I think I'll vote for a candidate that DOESN'T have much in common with the Prince of Darkness, thank you very much....

Just keep in mind that there is such a thing as heck on Earth too.

And if Hillary/Obama gets elected president, you'll be reminded of it real fast.

Hence, the "Prince of Darkness" remark....

I'm of the opinion that if the idealistic approach doesn't work in the primaries, vote for satan in the biggie

Isn't that special?.....