Cadidates position on the RKBA

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by Adam5, Oct 26, 2007.

  1. Adam5

    Adam5 Atlanta Overwatch

    13,635
    168
    63
  2. Macktee

    Macktee New Member

    6,172
    0
    0
    If it had been previously posted, I also missed it. Interesting article. I'm starting to swing more and more toward Mike Huckabee the more I read about the guy. What's unfortunate, is he probably won't win the nomination.

    I really hate to think it will come down to Giuliani vs. Clinton. In some ways, I admire and respect them both and believe either is capable of doing the job, but I have grave reservations concerning their views on guns and gun control.

    If those are my choices, I may stay home on election day for the first time since I turned 18. :(


    Stay home on election day and drink... heavily ! :drink:


    followed by :puke:

    followed by :sleep: and :snore: some more

    followed by waking up to a head that feels :hardhead:

    followed by asking everyone to be werry, werry quiet... :-$
     

  3. SigP229

    SigP229 Active Member

    2,546
    6
    38
    Thanks for posting that Adam. I agree with macktee....on all counts :D
     
  4. N.T.F.S.

    N.T.F.S. Active Member

    1,457
    3
    38



    Unfortunately that would be a sure vote for Hillary. God only knows what damage she will do to this country if she is elected. I know Rudy's background about guns and he SUPPOSEDLY changed (probably for the NRA backing), but if it was him or her I would have to go with the lesser of 2 evils
     
  5. Bulldawg182

    Bulldawg182 Active Member

    6,127
    2
    38
    I'm honestly leaning towards Mike Huckabee at this time based on his stated agenda & passed voting record supporting the 2nd amendment. I have found common ground on most all the issues and his positions on same. While I wish his religious background was less of an issue, I'll take my chances that he will continue to govern as he has in the past and that the man and the office will take precedence over his religious leanings.

    He made, by far, the best impression on me in the previous debate and the fact that he may or may not win the nomination will have no bearing on my decision to support him in the effort.

    While Ron Paul is pro 2nd Amendment, I'm truly concerned about his views of international politics and his ability to lead this country through the global turmoils we face. While it would be great if the U.S. could just "mind it's own business and focus all our efforts within our own borders", it's just simply not realistic and borders on childlike in it's attempt.
     
  6. Adam5

    Adam5 Atlanta Overwatch

    13,635
    168
    63
    I agree 100%.
     
  7. Thorsen

    Thorsen New Member

    4,226
    0
    0
    Ron Paul is isolationist in his views and that does bother me. No candidate comes close to a slam dunk with me, but if I didn't have so much difficulty with Huckabee's strong evangelical views I might be leaning his direction. As I see it, I find Paul's isolationism less dangerous and still plan on voting for him in the primary.

    As to the general election .... who knows. Historically, anyone who finishes up less than third in Iowa and New Hampshire tends to drop out of the race and whoever wins those two tends to gain momentum. Right now, if the polls are correct, Romney would win both with Guiliani coming in second in New Hampshire and Iowa to close to call for second place among Huckabee, Guiliani and Thompson.

    So, while things can change with so many big states moving up their primary season, if this election follows historical precedence, I expect McCain to drop out shortly after New Hampshire, with Huckabee possibly following suit if he doesn't place high in Iowa. Unless Thompson gains some traction in the early states I expect his support to continue to fall off as it has done recently.

    Gazing into my crystal ball, I see a Guiliani v. Romney choice for most of America's Republican Party come Super Tuesday. I don't think Thompson is going to make enough of an impact in the early states to draw him the money he is going to need, and McCain is virtually running on empty right now.

    My best guess? Guiliani as the nominee, and if he is smart and wants to gain Arkansas as well as solidify the evangelicals behind the party, he will ask Huckabee to be his running mate. While I don't think Guiliani has a problem with the hispanic vote, Huckabee could even help him out some on that front as well. And I think Huckabee would accept that offer as well since we all know that a solid performance by a Guiliani administration would put him as a shoo-in for the republican primaries after eight years of Guiliani and give him a boost in the general election as well. It would be a gamble for him as he would have to bet on a successful Guiliani administration, but I don't see any other realistic method of him gaining the presidency.

    So I see Hillary / ? versus Guiliani / Huckabee in the general election.

    Agree? Disagree?
     
  8. AJ

    AJ New Member

    80
    0
    0
    I agree that Huckabee would be a good choice for VP if either Rudy or Mitt happen to get the nomination. They would need a southern Christian conservative to help their cause.

    But I wouldn't write off Huckabee for being able to pull off the nomination himself. He's doing very well in Iowa for little money which means the average Joe out there likes him. This time in 91 Bill Clinton probably wasn't doing as good as Huckabee...
     
  9. phaed

    phaed Active Member

    9,360
    2
    38
    ron paul is an isolationist, and that's what we need. the current published national strategy of globalization and democratization is imperialistic, and to put it plainly, is not working against our current threats.

    the current strategy gives legitimacy to groups who claim no nationality (like al queda). we need to get back to the days of total war against nations (i.e. germany, japan), not wars against ideals. hold nations accountable for the actions of the people within it. if they can't straighten up, then destroy their nation...with no regard for civilian casualties, nor any obligation to rebuild their nation afterwards. after this is done a couple of times, no nation in the world would allow rogue threats to the U.S. to develop within their borders.

    dr. paul being an isolationist does not mean he's against total war when needed.

    i'll also take an unpopular position and give props to obama for saying he might have declared war on Pakistan. that's where our enemy went home to, and that's where we should have gone to exploit success after Afghanistan.
     
  10. zookeper

    zookeper Active Member

    2,745
    3
    38
    that makes a lot of sense phaed if only the dumb masses here in the usa weren't so wussified anymore. i also agree the current strategy isn't working and i fear the day (but it's coming) we ignore the threat and it follows us home.