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

[KBCraig]

If races are about "electability", then let's eliminate the primaries, and all that fussin' about "who can beat Hillary?"

If your main requirement in a candidate is "electability", then why not just vote for Hillary? After all, if it's winning first and principles second...

[srothstein]

If you want to vote for the candidate that represents your views, vote for the candidate that represents your views--whatever party or "chance of winning" that may be......

A philosophy built upon idealism.

The practical use of that ideal can be viewed historically when Ross Perot was a third party candidate in 92 and 96. Because of that, this country had 8 years of Bill Clinton.

That is what strict idealism will bring.

Ideological goals are great - until the parties have chosen their candidates. Then you have to decide if you want to win, or be a loser.

If I decide to vote for someone whose views do not match mine, I am already a loser. For this reason, I will either find a candidate who I can support or abstain from voting in that race. I will not cut my choices to who I think stands the best probability of winning. If I did, I would be forced to vote for Hillary this year as she currently has the best chance of winning, with Obama being a rapidly rising second.

If I choose solely between the Republican and Democratic parties, Giuliani truly is the only electable Republican candidate. If they nominate anyone else, they will forfeit the race to the Democrats.

My personal belief right now is that the only way the Republicans can win is for Giuliani to be the candidate with either Clinton or Obama as the Democratic party.

So, I will either vote for Paul, the Libertarian candidate, an independent who I don't know yet, or abstain, depedning who is on the November ballot. Not being a party member, I do not vote in the primaries.

[Trainman]

My fear and apprehension that the future integrity of the 2nd ammendment will be eroded and that more gun control initiatives and laws will be enacted -
has just been verified.

[seeker_two]

My fear and apprehension that the future integrity of the 2nd ammendment will be eroded and that more gun control initiatives and laws will be enacted -
has just been verified.

....only if you vote for a "winner"....

[frankie_the_yankee]

If I decide to vote for someone whose views do not match mine, I am already a loser. For this reason, I will either find a candidate who I can support or abstain from voting in that race.

****************

My personal belief right now is that the only way the Republicans can win is for Giuliani to be the candidate with either Clinton or Obama as the Democratic party.

So, I will either vote for Paul, the Libertarian candidate, an independent who I don't know yet, or abstain, depedning who is on the November ballot. Not being a party member, I do not vote in the primaries.

It probably won't make any difference here in TX because the Republican will probably carry TX easily regardless.

But if this were, or turns out to be, a contested state, a vote for anyone other than the Republican opponent of Hillary/Obama is the exact equivalent of casting a 1/2 a vote for Hillary/Obama.

No minor party candidate is going to win the presidency this cycle. So that half of your vote will effectively be thrown away.

What concerns me is that if you feel that way, there are probably a fair number of people who are in contested states that feel that way too. And that plays right into the hands of the Hillary/Obama Stalinists.

If Hillary/Obama gets elected, they won't appoint judges in the mold of Scalia. They will appoint judges in the mold of Steven "Let's use international law to figure out what the US Constitution should mean" Breyer.

In a few years, both the first and the second amendments will be as dead as King Tut.

The upcoming election could very possibly be the last truly free election held in the United States.

If people are thinking that they can vote for a minor party candidate with the idea of "building the party" for some future time they can forget it. If the Stalinists seize power this time, it will take a hundred years to throw off the yoke, if ever.

So as I have said before, if the Republicans nominate Satan for president, I'm voting for Satan. And I'm doing everything I can to make sure that others vote for Satan too.

[KBCraig]

Frankie, you err in assuming that all independent or third party votes come from Republicans. There are millions of self-styled Democrats who are terrified of Hillary, but couldn't bring themselves to vote GOP.

[yerasimos]

srothstein's views closely mirror my own.

If people keep accepting the arguments for holding their noses and voting for "the lesser evil", they should not be surprised when the evil continues, whether under Benito or the Hillarybeast. Benito has provided very carefully parsed and nuanced support for allowing the private ownership of firearms; this support seems highly suceptible to change in the face of public mass shootings, low-level terrorism, or sweet little nothings whispered by his mayoral successor, Michael Bloomberg.

Expecting that he will appoint pro-2A judges is very naive; Benito is a control freak and a prototypical right-wing authoritarian, and I expect he would appoint judges who share his core, dim view of private firearm ownership. Benito's record as a prosecutor and mayor of New York truly bodes doom for the last vestiges of liberty in this nation if he is elected president.

I see no net difference between Benito and the Hillarybeast, when both are inclined to make war upon vague whim, restrict and curtail private firearm ownership and individual civil liberties, and flush more money away on foreign aid.

Neither Benito nor the Hillarybeast deserve to live in this country, let alone pretend to lead it.

I hope that the NRA has the good sense to withhold its endorsement from a candidate who does not deserve it. I will not vote for Benito even if he does get an NRA endorsement. He has not done a single good thing for gun owners, ever, and does not deserve such an endorsement. More importantly, he does not deserve my vote, nor the vote of law-abiding gun owners here, whether in a primary or the general election.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Frankie, you err in assuming that all independent or third party votes come from Republicans. There are millions of self-styled Democrats who are terrified of Hillary, but couldn't bring themselves to vote GOP.

No, I don't assume that at all.

If people who would otherwise vote Democrat vote independent instead, what they are doing, in effect, is casting half a vote for the Republican candidate.

This doesn't bother me as anything that reduces the Democrat's chances of winning is fine by me.

I'm more concerned with things that increase the Democrat's chances of winning. And people who otherwise would vote Republican who instead vote for the "Slow Wheat" candidate are doing just that, whether they want to or not.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I will not vote for Benito even if he does get an NRA endorsement. He has not done a single good thing for gun owners, ever, and does not deserve such an endorsement. More importantly, he does not deserve my vote, nor the vote of law-abiding gun owners here, whether in a primary or the general election.

Just be prepared for all of your gun rights to go out the window for the rest of our lifetimes.

'Cause that's what's gonna happen with a federal judiciary filled with Steven Breyer clones.

[yerasimos]

I will not vote for Benito even if he does get an NRA endorsement. He has not done a single good thing for gun owners, ever, and does not deserve such an endorsement. More importantly, he does not deserve my vote, nor the vote of law-abiding gun owners here, whether in a primary or the general election.

Just be prepared for all of your gun rights to go out the window for the rest of our lifetimes.

'Cause that's what's gonna happen with a federal judiciary filled with Steven Breyer clones.

As if Benito and his ilk will help me keep my gun rights, even if he gets an endorsement (I hope not!) and gets elected over the Hillarybeast?

I do not believe it, and I will not be taken by that scam. I suggest you refuse that rotten carrot, too. Such a Caesar-in-waiting as Benito does not deserve one iota of legitimacy, no one single vote. We deserve better.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Rudy is not my first choice. He's not even my second choice.

I hope someone else gets the Republican nomination. My preferences are for either Thompson, Romney, or Huckabee to get it.

But if Rudy ends up getting it, I would vote for him over any Democrat.

I would vote for Satan over any Democrat.

Because in the end, what matters is not what we would wish to be true. What matters is what person ends up holding the office.

It may be uncomfortable to face up to that fact, but it is a fact.

As I have shown (earlier in the thread), judges appointed by Democrats in recent times have ruled against our 2A rights 100% of the time. You can't get any worse than that.

If anyone thinks that judges appointed by Rudy would rule against our 2A rights more than 100% of the time, I would be interested to see that analysis.

[yerasimos]

As I have shown (earlier in the thread), judges appointed by Democrats in recent times have ruled against our 2A rights 100% of the time. You can't get any worse than that.

If anyone thinks that judges appointed by Rudy would rule against our 2A rights more than 100% of the time, I would be interested to see that analysis.

I am not interested in trying to prove something more than 100% of the time.

Frankie, I will take as a given that you have spent some time calculating the voting percentages of various judges, who appointed them, etc. However, I know a little about Giuliani, his past life as a Democrat in New York City, his prosecutorial thirst for "winning" that is eerily similar to the disgraced Mike Nifong, and his ruthlessness as mayor of New York City. Given these traits, I believe that Giuliani, and those whom Giuliani would appoint, would frequently assault, rule against, etc, our constitutionally-protected right to bear arms, and worse. That Giuliani and his consuls _might_ be a little nicer or hesitate slightly, or allow a 15 round magazine instead of Hillary's proposed 10-round limit (hypothetically speaking here), or go for licensing and registration or a 90 day turn-in period as opposed to Hillary and her minions going for immediate confiscation, does not make Giuliani worthy of my vote. I still cannot vote for such an individual.

Is the man I described above worthy of your vote just because he places the letter R after his name? Do you really expect this political crossdresser (among other things!) to continue the pattern you have observed in your statistics?

It is unfortunate that many people (you are not alone on this, Frankie) get taken by the idea of constantly voting mainstream Republicrat, regardless of the candidate and his character. Voters need to be courageous enough to vote for what they want, not for the steaming trough of slops that they think stinks slightly less than another trough of slops. Otherwise they have no hope of getting what they want via the ballot box, and consequently they have to put up with what they do not want, or worse.

Washington and the other Founding Fathers of the United States warned against "factions" (political parties), and look what a mess the two major parties have made when not faced with credible competition! The ballot access laws (passed by Republicrat-controlled legislatures) play a role with this, but apathetic voters bear a greater responsibility when they do not vote for what they really want, and try to vote for a major candidate "winner".

Frankie, I agree with your assessment of ranking Thompson and Huckabee over Benito Rudy Giuliani in terms of being favorable toward individual firearm ownership. The political records seem pretty clear to me. However, while I consider gun rights very important, it is not the only litmus test that I apply, and these three (along with Romney and pretty much every other Republicrat candidate) fail the rest of my litmus tests. Admittedly I am very selective/picky, but I believe the country would be much better off if we were more selective of who represented us and were less likely to reelect incumbents, rather than simply saying "Oh, he's a [insert political label here], he gets my vote."

[frankie_the_yankee]

Frankie, I will take as a given that you have spent some time calculating the voting percentages of various judges, who appointed them, etc.

See my post on page 1 of this thread.

Is the man I described above worthy of your vote just because he places the letter R after his name?

No. But he is worthy of my vote if he is running against a Democrat.

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.

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.

[Liberty]

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

McCain is more dangerous to our 1st amendment rights than any Democrat. He has actually been successful at destroying some of our rights to free political speech.

[frankie_the_yankee]

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

McCain is more dangerous to our 1st amendment rights than any Democrat. He has actually been successful at destroying some of our rights to free political speech.

Correct. Notice that McCain did not make my short list. Though he is pretty good on 2A issues.

But if McCain ended up being the Republican nomineem I would still vote for him over any Democrat. This is because he is much more likely to appoint Originalist judges than any Democrat.

And if he appoints Originalist judges, his own position on Mccain-Feingold won't matter. McCain-Feingold will be declared unconstitutional and McCain will just have to lump it.