What if Rudy gets the GOP "nod"?

Switch parties.

 

If Ron Paul doesn't win the GOP nomination, there is no way that I will vote for Giuliani.

 

The only one I will vote for is Fred Thompson. Ron Paul doesn't have a chance.

 

I couldn't care less if Ron Paul has a chance. I support him based on principle, not based on whether I can crow about being on the "winning" side.

As far as Thompson is concerned I wouldn't vote for him for dogcatcher in an all cat town. He's no better than politicians such as Giuliani, McCain, etc. when it comes to limited, constitutional government.

 

Over Hillary, in a New York minute. It is always a choice of the lessor of two evils. At least since Reagan.

 

Only if one foolishly limits his choices to the candidates of the Republican and Democrat Parties(more succinctly known as the Demopublican, or Republicrat, Party).

 

Ron Paul so far is someone I could vote for. I really wish people would give him a fighting chance vers just writing him off.

If the people that write him off ever say, after the elections, that they wish they had someone better they will only have themselves to blame.

I like Ron Paul.

Jamie

 

That is pathetic.

 

Then I will be voting 3rd party for someone who upholds at least some sense of decency. Of all the moral issues, there is one I cannot stomach, will not vote for someone who waivers on it, and that is abortion. One sin is like another, but that one is nothing but pure murder. The Republicans had better nominate a moral conservative, or they are going to lose. It would have to be a person not announced yet. While some of the announced Republicans come much closer than Giuliani, they dont have a chance at the nomination.

There is nothing more repugent on earth than a liberal Republican. You expect it from the Democrats.

 

RonPaul looks appealing, but he is still a Republican and he doesn't give a position on many big issues such as abortion, federal debt, healthcare, and social security. Also, he is a Republican so he will have some allegence to that party.

No lesser of two evils for me. I'm voting Constitution party. http://www.constitutionparty.com/

 

Can you say, once again, President Clinton?

 

And the difference between that and Giuliani is...........you got high standards there buddy.

 

If one votes for the lesser of two evils, then by definition, they are voting for evil.

 

Which is why it should instead be called the evil of two lessors.

 

With pleasure!

President Clinton, yea, it does sound good, doesn't it?

Actually, I would be just as comfortable saying, President Bidden, or President Edwards, etc. Even President Gore sounds good after Bush leaves the White House in shame!

 

In a broken world, we are always voting for the lesser of evils. Ron Paul is not perfect either. There are not perfect candidates. Therefore, all votes are a vote for some form of evil. The question is how much evil will you vote for, and how much evil will you help to elect by your vote.

The second question is one addressing voting for candidates who cannot win. Salving your conscience is hardly an excuse to help elect evil. A conscious wrongly trained is still wrong. It would be nice if a third party candidate could win. It would be unAmerican to help elect the worst candidate by voting for someone who cannot win, rather than by voting for a better candidate who is not be perfect.

Rudy? Who knows. I don't really know enough about him. I doubt he can win the primary becuase of his personal past.

 

You can read about Ron Paul's positions on a variety of issues here:

www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

and here:

www.house.gov/paul/legis_tst.htm

and here:

www.house.gov/paul/legis_congrec.htm

 

There you go again. Yes, we all know in a broken world that no one is perfect. However, there are plenty of people not at the bottom of the scum barrel like the top runners for the democrats and republicans. They are both evil, so evil not even worthy of consideration.

And your argument about voting for someone who cant win, that is baloney. FIrst of all, only half the eligible adults are registered to vote. Of those, only half vote in a good election. Now you are down to 25% voting. Of those, about on third are independents. Now you are down to 17%. Of those voting democrat or republican, at least half would vote another party. So, dont tell me that with 10% voting that elects a President, someone else could not win. It would take an inspiring figure for sure. But most of all, it would take a new mind set of voters to get out of the self defeating idea that they must vote for republican scum to keep democratic scum from winning.

 

That worked great for Reagan. Not so much for you.

Ron Paul is evil as well, according to the Bible. So why consider him? If we are going to be biblical about this, let's go the whole way.

They can't, and your own numbers prove it. You cannot be elected by the people who don't vote. I can't imagine what your purpose was here, but it only proves my point. Now, if you can go out and get those other people to vote, then you have a chance to change it.

I agree, but reject the use of the word "scum." I think the merits of the case are prima facie evidence without resorting to the use of namecalling.

Were I politically inclined, I would certainly work for a third party candidate that shared my values. The Republicans don't, and the Democrats are not even in the ballgame. But at the end of the day, it would be sin for me to help elect a the "greater of two evils" by voting for someone who cannot win. If you can sell your country down the river like that, that is up to you I suppose. I can't.
I cannot justify helping elect someone who will appoint clearly prochoice judges to selfishly pursue my own ideas. This country and its grand experiment is bigger than me. And at some point, that has to be reckoned with. I am not convinced that you do. Which is fine. You don't answer to me for it.