Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 7/3/2002 1:38:21 PM EDT
would you vote for him? If not, who would you vote for? Why?
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 1:43:08 PM EDT
I will likely cast an empty ballot - a bit more effective than merely staying home. At least an empty ballot will show the vote counters that there is some dissatisfaction. I would consider voting Libertarian, but the net effect is likely to be the same. Either way, I would get out and cast my vote - apathy is dangerous. FFZ
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 1:48:03 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 1:52:37 PM EDT
i doubt i'll vote for him no matter what he does with gun laws. he is a tool. he has done jackshit to prevent more planes from being flown into more buildings. are the cockpit doors any stronger? NO. yet he gave billions of are money to the ceo's of the airline industry. it's close to a year since the attacks and all that has happened is he made another layer of worthless gov't. if you ever wondered why he picked tom ridge for homeland security is we, the fine sheep of pa are a swing state
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 1:52:44 PM EDT
Libertarian. A libertarian president wouldn't be able to get their stupid "open borders, and abortion and drugs for everyone" policies through Congress, and he wouldn't sign the AW ban either.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 1:57:17 PM EDT
You pretty much have to go with Bush, I mean even if he signed a permanent AW Ban, Do you think Hilary is going to be any friendlier to the gunowners of this country????
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 2:03:19 PM EDT
I did'nt see Republican as a choice in the poll. sure GB may very well be the only Rep. candidate, but if Alan Keyes ran, i'd vote for him. I know its not going to happen, but then neither is liberty. Gorman will probably be the Libertarian candidate running in the next presidential election, but then i stopped reading the Lib press so what do i know. lib
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 2:05:48 PM EDT
Well, I'm going to get flamed for this, but even if GW signs an AW ban, I'll vote for him, simply because to do anything else will be to get Al Gore or whatever other dipshit the Democraps put up for election. I'd consider that [b]FAR[/b] worse... I'll hold my nose while doing it, but I'll do it.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 2:05:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ilikelegs: I will have to view the whole picture. If Bush signs then yes I win concider voting for someone else. But if that someone else has no chance of winning, and by doing so a demoncrap would beat Bush, Then I will still vote for Bush. Its the lesser of two evils. Bush may vote on the ban. But an asshole demoncrap will want or try to ban guns and ammo completly. So you see my logic right ?
View Quote
Actually, no I don't see the logic. I understand that having a worse candidate win the election is bad, but voting based on the "lesser of two evils" theory simply reinforces the belief held by many politicians that they can get away with breaking the promises and "principles" that got them elected in the first place. I prefer to send them a message by voting them the hell out of the office when they become backstabbers. Colorado's own Gov. Owens is a prime example of this type of slime. I WILL be voting against him in the upcoming election. I refuse to extend the political careers of these idiots just because they're "not as bad" as the other guy.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 2:08:05 PM EDT
While I can see the idea of voting for Bush again even if he signs more gun laws, on the premise that if a Democrat is elected, they will do worse, I am not sure if I would accept it for 2 reasons: 1. It's about time to show the Republican party that threre are some issues that the conservative voters will not compromise on. Show them that they will not get elected if they cave in to the liberals on 90% of the issues. If you want to get the gunowners' vote, you'll have to back up your stated position with actions. 2. If Bush and the republican party are passing more gun laws, are they really that much better then the democrats? If they are determined to cave in on most of the critical issues, then what's the point? They're going the same way as the democrats, just getting there slower. At least the democrats will piss off more people by moving faster, and prehaps encourage them to take more drastic actions sooner to ensure our freedom.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 2:09:40 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 2:12:01 PM EDT
I might have put another republican there, but there's only so many slots for the poll. Besides, when has the incumbent party ever nominated anyone but the incumbent in elections? (other then term limits and the occasional really big scandal)
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 2:24:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ilikelegs: But if buy doing this someone like Al Whore gets in the White house, haven't you just defeated yourself. Now you have someone much worse. What then ? By the time the next elections are here your SOL.
View Quote
I don't consider voting my conscience a defeat, no matter the outcome. And if a real schmuck gets elected, I'll vote against him/her in the next election. This country survived Clinton's crap for 8 years. I'm fairly certain we can survive more idiot politicians in the future. That means I won't vote to re-elect an idiot, whatever party they represent. I consider any politician's first term to be probationary. If they decide to screw the people who elected them...buh bye!! Perhaps if more people voted based on issues rather than political party loyalty, the politicians would reconsider the job security of a political "career", and they may be less inclined to stab their supporters in the back.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 2:25:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ilikelegs: I will have to view the whole picture. If Bush signs then yes I win concider voting for someone else. But if that someone else has no chance of winning, and by doing so a demoncrap would beat Bush, Then I will still vote for Bush. Its the lesser of two evils. Bush may vote on the ban. But an asshole demoncrap will want or try to ban guns and ammo completly. So you see my logic right ?
View Quote
But if buy doing this someone like Al Whore gets in the White house, haven't you just defeated yourself. Now you have someone much worse. What then ? By the time the next elections are here your SOL.
View Quote
I'm with ilikelegs on this one. Being to idealistic at the poles can get a Jackass in the White House real quick. As much as I hate it, if you boil it all down, it's a two party system. Lesser of two evils.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 2:25:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mace: I might have put another republican there, but there's only so many slots for the poll. Besides, when has the incumbent party ever nominated anyone but the incumbent in elections? (other then term limits and the occasional really big scandal)
View Quote
McCain will run again for '04 which is why he's setting himself up as someone who is "willing to work with the Deomocrats and get something done" (translated: I've betrayed my party and am really a Democrat, but I don't want you to know that). Bush could actually have a hard time against McCain.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 2:26:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gunner1X:
Originally Posted By ilikelegs: I will have to view the whole picture. If Bush signs then yes I win concider voting for someone else. But if that someone else has no chance of winning, and by doing so a demoncrap would beat Bush, Then I will still vote for Bush. Its the lesser of two evils. Bush may vote on the ban. But an asshole demoncrap will want or try to ban guns and ammo completly. So you see my logic right ?
View Quote
But if buy doing this someone like Al Whore gets in the White house, haven't you just defeated yourself. Now you have someone much worse. What then ? By the time the next elections are here your SOL.
View Quote
I'm with ilikelegs on this one. Being too idealistic at the poles can get a Jackass in the White House real quick. As much as I hate it, if you boil it all down, it's a two party system. Lesser of two evils.
View Quote
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 2:26:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gunner1X:
Originally Posted By Gunner1X:
Originally Posted By ilikelegs: I will have to view the whole picture. If Bush signs then yes I win concider voting for someone else. But if that someone else has no chance of winning, and by doing so a demoncrap would beat Bush, Then I will still vote for Bush. Its the lesser of two evils. Bush may vote on the ban. But an asshole demoncrap will want or try to ban guns and ammo completly. So you see my logic right ?
View Quote
But if buy doing this someone like Al Whore gets in the White house, haven't you just defeated yourself. Now you have someone much worse. What then ? By the time the next elections are here your SOL.
View Quote
I'm with ilikelegs on this one. Being too idealistic at the poles can get a Jackass in the White House real quick. As much as I hate it, if you boil it all down, it's a two party system. Lesser of two evils.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 2:30:37 PM EDT
I'd vote liberatarian because I wouldn't vote for a gun-hating democrat!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 2:42:06 PM EDT
of course bush will cave in and sign it. he had a reputation for cooperating with democrats in texas. and he let the far right wing of his own party push him into certain appointments inconsistent with his own mid-right republican leanings. i can't imagine he'll grow a spine spontaneously when the AW ban is up for renewal.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 2:45:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FreeFireZone: I will likely cast an empty ballot - a bit more effective than merely staying home. At least an empty ballot will show the vote counters that there is some dissatisfaction.
View Quote
They'll figure you were too stupid to operate the voting machine and just assume you meant to vote democrat.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 2:47:35 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 2:49:04 PM EDT
I picked Bush in the poll because it really doesn't matter for me as I live in California and will probably still be when 2004 elections come up. I would have a hard time accepting Bush if he signed such a law, so I would definitely consider a Libertarian candidate. But if it's some puke like Harry Browne, you can just forget it.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 2:56:22 PM EDT
Libertarian.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 2:56:24 PM EDT
The only way GWB will get my vote in 04 is if he vetoes a renewed AW/hicap ban--which isn't going to happen, as he already said he's for those things. He lost my vote when he signed CFR--anyone who can call a bill unconstitutional WHILE SIGNING IT is unfit to hold public office, and frankly, rates impeachment--it's a direct violation of his oath of office. I find the general reaction here to be amusing--"Yeah, if he does it, I'll still vote for him--wouldn't want to get someone worse." All I can say is, how exactly could it get worse? What makes you think he wouldn't sign "worse" legislation when it came along the same way someone like Clinton or Gore would? Someone on this board once said (and I agree) that the general feeling around here is that losing your rights is okay--as long as its a republican doing the taking.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 3:05:00 PM EDT
Last election, several folks had mentioned voting for Al Gore so they could "get it over with" and find out once and for all what was going to happen with regards to the 2nd and the US. If Bush signs the AW ban, and if it gets to him he will, have no fear, then I'll follow the above strategy. Screw it. If we're going to get sold out, we might as well vote for the folks who are more honest about it.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 3:13:08 PM EDT
Zak got it right. I am sick to death of compromise. Bush has lost his luster in my eyes. Better than any other choice in last election but that really is not saying very much.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 3:38:40 PM EDT
Libertarian. If many angry Republicans took their vote elsewhere, it would send a clear message to congress. If you vote against our rights, we will vote you out! Then maybe we will see some true conservatives bring a bill to repeal some of these laws. Currently, gun owners are in a constant state of retreat. I think it is about time to go on the offensive. Instead of stupid government gun "buyback" programs, we could spend that money on "self-defense" vouchers for the homeland malitia.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 4:16:19 PM EDT
He already stated on the White House web site that he's against standard capacity magazines, so that should give everyone an idea of what will happen in '04.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 4:39:45 PM EDT
I voted for Bush last time but I have been disapointed. He is no real coservative. He is trying to get that whisy-washy middle of the road vote. He has not taken a stong stand on any conservative issue. Remember that his dad was responsible for sending the troop after Randy Weaver and also supported the AWB. I'm getting tired of voting for weak minded people like Bush just because they are the lesser of two evils and I'm afraid of the greater of two evils. Fuck them. Let the liberals win. It will screw things up so much and piss so many people off that then we can overthrow the bastards and get back to real conservative ideas.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 5:11:18 PM EDT
i'd bet money that before such an issue comes up about the AWB, that a public shooting will occur with an AK or some other kink of SUR. Watch. No matter who you vote for it seems that things get worse no matter what. I know it sounds pessimistic of me, but i dont see any hope for liberty. Perhaps a quick death would be more preferable then this slow one. At least they would'nt have the advantage of gradual change and people might see them for what they really are...but i doubt it.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 5:34:15 PM EDT
Before we worry too much about what Bush will or won't do, we should be concentrating major efforts on winning back the Senate and keeping the House. A spineless president can't sign bills if they never get sent up. Thank God that we had a Republican Congress throughout most of Clinton's reign, or we'd probably all be in gulags now. The damage he managed to do with executive orders was bad enough.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 5:43:22 PM EDT
No politician is going to say "I don't want to renew the evil assualt weapons ban." The dumbocrat buzzword of assault weapon has republicans and dumbocrats alike cringing at the sound. I think a new ban is coming.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 5:53:32 PM EDT
If he signs it, he is as bad as the democrats, so I would definately vote for someone elser, maybe even the democrats, lets let them try to turn the flame up a bit higher on the pot and see if anything jumps out.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 5:55:41 PM EDT
I think we should have the choice of none of the above, and if that outcome is the winner then dump the canidates and start over. Over the last few presidential elections we had horrible canidates. If Bush resigns I'll never vote again, I think enough is enough we should dump them all and start over but you and I know that will never happen.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 6:39:57 PM EDT
I would still vote Bush. I'd vote a straight party line. Voting Libertarian is like trying to have a kid after you've had a vasectomy - you know what you want, but it aint gonna happen.... I believe that there are Rep's, Dem's, and wanna be's. I won't waste a vote on a no chance wanna be - remember how Slick Willy got in???
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 6:42:36 PM EDT
Well, there is "Other". Along with "Stay Home", I put up the 3 realistic choices for a gun owner's vote. Yeah, there's a few other parties, but if you thought the Libertarians had no chance of getting elected, just look at some of the others. Who's going to vote for the Communist party? Of course, there's always Nader/Green party, but I never did try to figure out what they really stand for. I just know that "a fair economy" + stealing votes from the Democrats means someone I don't want anything to do with. But hell, you could vote for him anyways. Might shake everyone up a bit if he gets >5%. Other then that, there isn't really anyone else to vote for.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 6:48:20 PM EDT
Lets see, it will be election time, his opponents on both sides and the press will be all over him as to whether or not he will renew the bill. Judging from his record to date, he will cave and "executive order" the current bill permenant. His opponents will use this issue as a major attack on his administration and he will cave, hoping he will gain more "moderate" voters than those he will lose. In the meantime, if there is another school shooting, luby's type siuation or FA Kalifornia bank heist or any gun related BS the media can latch on to, it will seal the deal for good.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 11:26:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22: Libertarian. A libertarian president wouldn't be able to get their stupid "open borders, and abortion and drugs for everyone" policies through Congress, and he wouldn't sign the AW ban either.
View Quote
Just so you know libertarian does not equal Libertarian. There are many libertarians(at least a large minority, if not a majority), who do not agree with everything the Libertarian Party stands for. I'm a libertarian, but I disagree with the open-border and pro-abortion policy of the LP, as do many others. I do favor the legalization of drugs however. In any case, do remember that there are really two types of libertarians- paleo and neo. Paleo's(like me) are religious, or at least recognize the value in morals, pro-life, pro-liberty, anti-illegal immigration, non-interventionist, basically the same as the Founding Fathers. Neo's are basically pro-abortion, pro-cloning, interventionist, open-borders, basically what the LP is now. Libertarians(small l) are not a monolithic group, any more than Repubs or Dems. As for me, Bush has already lost my vote over the CFR. But that isn't all I'm upset with. He is basically a moderate Repub who will cave to the Dems and screw over his base. I'll vote for anybody but him. Probably Libertarian, but like I said above, I don't agree with them totally.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 11:52:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ilikelegs:
Originally Posted By Yankee1911:
Originally Posted By ilikelegs: I will have to view the whole picture. If Bush signs then yes I win concider voting for someone else. But if that someone else has no chance of winning, and by doing so a demoncrap would beat Bush, Then I will still vote for Bush. Its the lesser of two evils. Bush may vote on the ban. But an asshole demoncrap will want or try to ban guns and ammo completly. So you see my logic right ?
View Quote
Actually, no I don't see the logic. I understand that having a worse candidate win the election is bad, but voting based on the "lesser of two evils" theory simply reinforces the belief held by many politicians that they can get away with breaking the promises and "principles" that got them elected in the first place. I prefer to send them a message by voting them the hell out of the office when they become backstabbers. Colorado's own Gov. Owens is a prime example of this type of slime. I WILL be voting against him in the upcoming election. I refuse to extend the political careers of these idiots just because they're "not as bad" as the other guy.
View Quote
But if buy doing this someone like Al Whore gets in the White house, haven't you just defeated yourself. Now you have someone much worse. What then ? By the time the next elections are here your SOL.
View Quote
I prefer to think of it as the Gov. is SOL. SSD
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 11:56:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/3/2002 11:59:16 PM EDT by Stealth]
I'll vote for whoever I feel will represent me and my interests. That is the way it's suppose to be. Anyone who would sign a new AW ban will NOT get my vote. Any party that supports that ban will not get my vote for another 4 to 8 years. I will not vote for a lesser of two evils. I will vote my conscience and let you wussy 'lesser of two evils' pussy bastards get what you voted for. Voting for the 'lesser of two evils' instead of who you believe in is a compromise of principles and is akin to trading pudding cups for sex in jail. If it's wrong... don't try and justify it with liberal tactics. 'Oh... it's okay to vote for some party that takes away our rights... at least we didn't vote for the party that would take away more important rights...'. It's only a Republic as long as the idiots don't let it become a Democracy....
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 12:12:32 AM EDT
I'll have to really think about it...don't think of myself as Republican, although I am registered as one (stupid state decided open primaries are unconstitutional...well at least theres one less registered Democrat...[:)])... Bush has done a lot of stuff to irk me, however, not enough to the point where I want him gone. Getting damn close though. The AW thing might be the clincher...
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 12:19:29 AM EDT
I am voting democrat, because then I know he/she isn't lying about supporting gun control issues and I won't feel betrayed when he/she signs more gun bans into law.
Link Posted: 7/6/2002 8:50:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: I am voting democrat, because then I know he/she isn't lying about supporting gun control issues and I won't feel betrayed when he/she signs more gun bans into law.
View Quote
Imbroglio has a point I have voted for the same said (Pro-Gun)officials as most of you here have since 1976. I knew what kind of freedoms we had back then. This is the year 2002. Have we lost any more gun rights since then? Have any said politicians I voted for given you back any lost rights? Have I done any good by my vote to help stop these insane attacks on our Bill of Rights? Have we gained any ground? (We did get the speed limit back up to 65+) Just something to think about.
Link Posted: 7/6/2002 8:55:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AZ_Sky: I would still vote Bush. I'd vote a straight party line. Voting Libertarian is like trying to have a kid after you've had a vasectomy - you know what you want, but it aint gonna happen.... I believe that there are Rep's, Dem's, and wanna be's. I won't waste a vote on a no chance wanna be - remember how Slick Willy got in???
View Quote
Succinctly put; and correct.
Link Posted: 7/6/2002 9:30:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BusMaster007:
Originally Posted By AZ_Sky: I would still vote Bush. I'd vote a straight party line. Voting Libertarian is like trying to have a kid after you've had a vasectomy - you know what you want, but it aint gonna happen.... I believe that there are Rep's, Dem's, and wanna be's. I won't waste a vote on a no chance wanna be - remember how Slick Willy got in???
View Quote
Succinctly put; and correct.
View Quote
Bullshit. You've been conditioned to believe that this is true, by the same people who have a vested interest in maintaining a two-party system. Think about it.
Link Posted: 7/6/2002 9:32:30 AM EDT
i would still probly vote for Bush if i think he is best for our country. but, i would prefer the AWB to sunset.
Link Posted: 7/6/2002 9:34:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/6/2002 9:38:29 AM EDT by AR15fan]
If Bush signs a new AW ban I will not vote for him, period. His second term hangs on the ban sunsetting unmolested. As for voting for the lesser of two evils...If both your choices are evil, vote for the greater evil! We have to hit bottum at some point. Might as well be sooner than later.
Link Posted: 7/6/2002 9:41:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By libertyof76: Just so you know libertarian does not equal Libertarian. There are many libertarians(at least a large minority, if not a majority), who do not agree with everything the Libertarian Party stands for. I'm a libertarian, but I disagree with the open-border and pro-abortion policy of the LP, as do many others. I do favor the legalization of drugs however. In any case, do remember that there are really two types of libertarians- paleo and neo. Paleo's(like me) are religious, or at least recognize the value in morals, pro-life, pro-liberty, anti-illegal immigration, non-interventionist, basically the same as the Founding Fathers. Neo's are basically pro-abortion, pro-cloning, interventionist, open-borders, basically what the LP is now. Libertarians(small l) are not a monolithic group, any more than Repubs or Dems.
View Quote
I take your point, but it's going to be a Libertarian candidate who makes the ballot, not just a libertarian one. He's going to have to at least give lip-service to the Libertarian platform: From [url]www.lp.org[/url]: No mention at all of abortion.
The Libertarian Party has long recognized the importance of allowing free and open immigration
View Quote
In other words, unrestricted importation of terrorists.
Drugs should be legal.
View Quote
Although I'm pretty close to this point, I don't think we're ready for "free and open" drug use in America.
Unilaterally end all domestic subsidy programs, trade barriers and tariffs
View Quote
As long as other countries continue with dumping, how can we not have tariffs? But then there's this:
Libertarians agree with the majority of Americans who believe they have the right to decide how best to protect themselves, their families and their property.
View Quote
Two thumbs up.
Link Posted: 7/6/2002 9:52:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/6/2002 10:03:05 AM EDT by nightstalker]
Gun Laws are accepted NEARLY as easily as tobacco taxes and with $7 for a pack in NY, I'm not very hopeful that anti's will roll over and politicians will re-discover some magic elixir for social harmony based on relaxed gun laws. The public will have to be re-educated to accept the idea of freedom co-existing with responsibility. Right now they like the idea of being able to divide the two and work them against each other in the framework of more and more laws. This is especially true in urban areas and liberal enclaves such as Kalifornia and Massachusetts. Lincoln got elected with 40% of the vote (2nd lowest) making him a minority president who ended up having to make war for lack of palatable alternatives (to him). I don't know how curious I'd be to see another president elected by a minority. Bush v. Gore result has been divisive enough. OTOH most posters on this site probably would agree they are tired of being treated as children by their government and might take the chance to send a message via a third party vote if they can find the right candidate and platform.
Link Posted: 7/6/2002 10:10:19 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/6/2002 10:12:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/6/2002 10:13:24 AM EDT by raf]
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top