i dont know how to do a poll but
who do you want to be the nominee and would you vote for any of them if they were the nominee or would you sit it out.

Between

John McCain
Mitt Romney
Mike Huckabee.

I choose Huckabee, he's not spot on in all the topics I had hoped, but most of them, close enough. I'm from Florida.

NOTA

None of the above. When any of these three win the nomination, I'll be voting third party or writing in Ron Paul.

McCain is an economic dunce. He had no sensible answer to Dr. Paul's economic question in the Florida debate. His participation in the Keating Five still grates. His crafting of BCRA is the most damning of all. The guy doesn't believe in citizens having a say, and prefers that all discussion be left to professional politicians. While giving lip service to fiscal responsibility, he pandered in Michigan and in Florida, promising to spend even more money.

Romney can't decide where he stands without checking a poll. He believes that he can run the federal government like he would a corporation, and is in for a surprise when he discovers how DC really works. Ditto the pandering in MI and FL.

Huckabee is for big government. He says he's a tax cutter, but has a record as a tax raiser. A number of further defects in this candidate can be found in the Huckabee thread, so there's no need to elaborate here.

Not one of these guys will substantively change the irresponsible GOP policies of the past few years. If elected, they'd complete the destruction of GOP credibility. I'd hate to see Queen Hillary in office, but these guys would be almost as bad for the nation and worse for the conservative cause.

I wouldn't be surprised to see McCain get the nomination - and win the election. But with his age, I'd look to his VP to actually become the president.

John McCain hands down hands up, there I said that!

Ann Coulter said that if John McCain gets nominated on the Republican ticket that she will be supporting Clinton. As a strict conservative, I have said the same thing: If McCain gets nominated, Clintion will get my support. McCain will do further damage to the Republican Party and to this Country.

Ron Paul would be the ideal President but it appears that Americans are only accustomed to the Two Party System. Many still view him wearing the Libertarian label.

Gods Blessings,

Al

I'm in Alabama, and we have our turn on Tuesday. My LEAST favorite is McCain, followed by Huckabee. I really don't think I could vote for McCain if he gets the nomination, but I wouldn't be voting for a democrat instead. I'd probably just not vote in the general election in that case since I couldn't really support him or the Democratic nominee. I probably could vote for Huckabee in the general election if he got the nomination, but I'll have to wait and see who gets the nomination and then really study up on their record.

I might write in an outside choice, but that's a statement that wouldn't make any difference anyway. Or would it? How DO we use our vote if we can't support either candidate in November?

I don't know how Ann Coulter could vote for Hillary if McCain is nominated. I couldn't vote for her under any circumstances. I don't want to live in a socialist society.


Yes, I feel the same way about this. I don't think anybody would ever vote Republican again after a McCain presidency. He is in no way conservative, and he really would do a lot of damage. He's done enough in the Senate (or tried to) with the bad legislation he's sponsored. I heard him after his Florida win talking about how his priority is the welfare of this nation, and I thought, "Since when? It sure hasn't been your priority while you were in the Senate. If you've changed away from the damaging goals you've pushed while you were in there, then you are the ultimate flip-flopper."



This is also a good point.

Shy 1,

You made some good points. I think it's a sad day for the Conservative Base when a Democrat leader (Clinton) is more Conservative than our top runner. (McCain)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc

Coulter on her views concerning McCain.

THE TITTLE OF THIS THREAD IS THOSE WHO ARE VOTING REPUBLICAN> with the option of three candidates.

ha ha you must be watching fox... She is so funny

technically you are voting for another demacrat in this case.

i wouldnt vote for mcCain either i dont think. He would have to really change what hes saying. Listen to the people on the NONational ID.

he did say in the Reagan library debate and other debates that on the immigration bill he hadnt changed his position. but taht the people had spoken and so he would build a fence and then pass a bill.

I give John McCain the vote. Yea, he's a little old but weeeeooooo....who else? I pray for them all. Just hope whoever ges it humble him/herself to our Father in heaven

ya i think our nominee should be able to pass a physical.
Hes had cancer twice you can't battle cancer and war at the same time. or at least i dont want to see someone try

...which is why I responded NOTA. Fortunately, this Tuesday I still have an acceptable choice. Consonant with the "tittle", it will be a Republican vote as a delegate.

You also asked (in wording if not in punctuation):

oh im sory mrdh im not that familiar with iddy bitty details...which i know arent that iddy

thankyou for clarifying

sorry

Apparently not, since you got snippy with me in boldface for my answer without checking out the details of your own question.

It would seem that despite the "or sit it out" you were seeking to constrain choices, eliciting a forced answer. It's a common manipulative sales technique. The salesman who asks me whether I want to buy his junk in red or blue is probably not going to get the sale, unless I happen to like the product in one of those colors.

PS: Apology accepted.

you know what i missunderstood was your first explanation to your first post. i stated a fact.THE TITTLE OF THIS THREAD IS THOSE WHO ARE VOTING REPUBLICAN> with the option of three candidates.


your post is snippy.
i wasnt appologizing to you but that you explained in your second post was I said. sit it out. um VOTING THRID PARTY IS NOT SITTING IT OUT. and im not selling candidates im taking a poll.

im not appolgizing to you i thought i had missed you said to sit it out when in fact yoru post does not.
so AGAIN this is for people who would vote for one of the three or sit it out if one of the three of which they would choose is not nominate.

LOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

and they called evil good and good evil

i guess id be totally offended if this didnt make me laugh so hard



this isnt accepting an apology its filled with bitterness LOL you poor thing

I know. It seems you have no sense of the droll, preferring intead the sarcastic.



There are those who would disagree with you. They consider any vote outside the bipolar single party monopoly a wasted vote. If so, that is, in effect, sitting it out.

Regardless, you artificially constrain choice. I am voting Republican on Tuesday, and I'm not voting for one of those three guys. Mere nonparticipation is not an option I seriously consider.

You'd prefer a dishonest answer? You won't get one from me.

this ignore user thing is wonderful it blocks a users pms and all their posts ever written.

As far as Huckabee, Romey and Mcain go, even though I do not like the man because his refusal stand completely for God, Mike Huckabee is the best of the three. So if I had to choose to vote Republican it would be Huckabee.


John Mcain is an evil man, he commited atultery when he got back from Vietnam never repented of it, so he has no real morals and then remarried. Yes he suffered as a prisoner of war but he sticks that in everyones face and thinks hes better then everyone. Romney is a joke his Morman Masonic religoun is not Christian, the mans knows he can not be President.

If Ron Paul runs as an independent he will probably take at least a couple millions votes from the Repulicans. So the only way a Republican will win is if a fouth party candadite steps in and supports abortion stealing votes from a democrat.



But the media controls the vote because the masses vote based on the Polls the media gives out. Howard Dean was the nomonee in 2004 and the media jumped John Kerry up around 20 points before the Iowa caucases and gave him the nomination.



As I stated before I believe no madder who people vote for Bill Frist is the next President.

I would not vote for any of the 3 above. Ron Paul or not at all.

The problem may be a late start. In Iowa Ron took 1st in one county and 2nd in many, a better showing in that sense than anyone but the winner. Likewise in FL there were several precincts won outright. The key was active precinct workers. His campaign is very organized at the top and in the trenches. Given a 2nd place in Nevada (more delegates at stake than South Carolina) and then in Lousianna, he has good momentum. Had he done everything he is doing now 4 months earlier, he might be competing for 1st or 2nd everywhere. Even now the sense of the campaign is that it is building for the future. It is unlikely he plans to run again in 4 years (consider his age!.) It is plausable that he is building momentum and a loyal base for a 3rd party run. Constitution Party members have been hosting fundraisers for him in Illinois. If that is typical of the view nationally, there could be a smooth transition to a run leading their ticket.

AL, do not throw in the towel on Ron or a viable alternative to Clinton just yet.

Sprinting Squirrel,

Welcome to the forum.

The media is showing great bias against Ron Paul and their reporting has not been fair or accurate. The media has tried to make a laughing stock out of him, but Ron Paul appears to be rebounding with a great amount of inner strength and character. Ron Paul is also being led by his convictions and his belief in our constitution and yet the media continues to bad mouth or else they ignore him. Why?

Voting Americans need to learn the hard core facts about McCain. McCain and Demorcrat Feingold authored the McCain-Feingold bill a bill that places a gag order on free speech. A bill clearly unconstitutional. In fact through McCain's political years he has proven time and time again that he is more liberal than the Clintons.

Ron Paul keeps on getting ignored by the main stream media and youtube has begun to censor Ron Paul video's. Please watch this tape that got censored: the politicians in this video are J.F Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and Ron Paul. At the end of this short video will be Ron Paul. Please take note on how the reporter couldn't muzzle him, so the reporter tried to make a fool of him. Look at Ron Paul's reaction and how he stood his ground in spite of the obstacles. Ron Paul would be the ideal President, so why does the media continues to wear blinders and wear ear plugs when it concerns Ron Paul?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBtL3NIcAvU...nsors-ron-paul/

Gods Blessings,

Al

[quote name='Adeline' date='Feb 4 2008, 02:04 AM' post='146738']
Sprinting Squirrel,

Welcome to the forum.

The media is showing great bias against Ron Paul and their reporting has not been fair or accurate. The media has tried to make a laughing stock out of him...

Adeline,

Thank you for your warm welcome. Please consider this reply in a creative format:

Dateline 4 Nebuary 3008
Oceana District 7 University
Anthropology Department


Recent advances in decoding of ancient electronic media storage devices have provided insights into the practices of the prevailing nation-states of a millennium ago. Unlocking linguistic patterns and syntax was child’s play compared to reconstructing the intricacies of their political systems. The intermingling of fact and fiction, the consequential with whimsy cast doubt on each proposed interpretation. After lengthy deliberation, and lacking any more plausible explanation, the following conclusions were drawn:

• A pretense was made of selecting leaders both faithful to a foundational set of legal principles designed to safeguard the rights of individuals and communities—said rights devolving from the will of their common creator deity—and sensitive to the current needs of the populace as changing events required fresh application of the eternal principles.
• The real power to determine each successive set of leaders, however, was delegated to the masters of communication networks connected with the aforementioned media storage technology. This was puzzling, as these powers behind the throne, so to speak, shared little in common with the general populace. They held the originators of the documentation of the principles in contempt and considered it their mission in life to undermine both the principles and the memory of the originators. At points their inexplicable hostility extended even to the deity itself. They considered privilege and reverence their due from the masses they manipulated and propagandized.
• For their part, the general populace appeared largely to consent. By delegating the bulk of decision making to the media masters, more time was freed up for pursuit of the myriad forms of entertainment available. The media elites so ordered the process that a rapid winnowing of potential leaders occurred, void of any deep consideration of weighty issues.
• The confusion of reality and entertainment was furthered by the bizarre treatment of those who would be regarded as honored elders in other cultures. Use of “sound bites” to ridicule and mischaracterize such repositories of the cultural wisdom delighted the denizens of entertainment land. Despite a furious effort of a minority of principle-loving citizens, the majority ruled (or, more aptly, abdicated rule.)

Ironically it appears that the media masters were devoured by their own success. Ultimately those they brought to power turned on them, making them the well controlled ministers of propaganda. This oligarchy ruled with casual brutality and disregard for the formerly beloved principles, especially one called “freedom of speech”.

The entire civilization appeared to disintegrate due to a series of predictable and avoidable events. Lack of respect for, or ability to recognize and apply, truth in government spread to sciences, business, education and religion. The society, as a whole, became utterly unworkable. Hideous works of “art” scrawled in nooks and crannies of the last vestiges of this once great society document its last gasps.

As our current tranquil domain traces its origins to this epoch of chaos, we are duely warned not to repeat their folly. As one of their leaders said: "BURN THE TAPES!"