TexasCHLforum.com

Updated, since half of the candidates in the last thread have dropped out.

I will vote for "the lesser of two evils".

That will be the Republican nominee. At this moment, McCain seems to have the edge. However, I do have to wonder if he would have been a viable candidate for any public office without the Hanoi Hilton sympathy factor. I also have to wonder if "The Manchurian Candidate" could apply here.

I will likely have to take a drink afterwards to wash the bad taste from my mouth.

Agreed. I was a tancrino and thompson fan. I think that recent racial slur will come back to bite Mcain

LarryH wrote:I will vote for "the lesser of two evils".

I say vote for Cthulhu. Why vote for a lesser evil?

I picked Clinton just to pull your chain and see what kind of response I get.

Believe me, I'm not stupid!

The question should really be, "Who will you vote for on March 4th?"

Looks like Ron Paul has it now because the rest of them as far as I'am concerned look like Rinos to me.
The whole GOP blew it when they had the power to make some real changes out there but nooo they let DEMS
walk all over them.

Just my .02, cant say much more my blood pressure wont take it.

My first choice is Paul.

My second choice is Obama. If I'm going to vote for a democrat I may as well vote for one who is honest about it.

boomerang wrote:My first choice is Paul.

My second choice is Obama. If I'm going to vote for a democrat I may as well vote for one who is honest about it.

Sure, honesty is always the best policy. Of course a yankee muslim apostate with a couple years exp, who also happens to be a socialist gun grabber and the most liberal of all 100 senators...sure...I can see why you would vote that way.

LarryH wrote:I will vote for "the lesser of two evils".

Why is it that this is the choice we must make every time?
Why can't ALL Americans understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

eenie, meenie, miney, moe........

Or maybe you should include the option "none of the above".

Seriously....Huckabee's not out of it yet. Maybe he should be included in the poll. I might vote for him if the election were tomorrow if for no other reason than to show my extreme displeasure with the other choices. I can't bring myself to support McCain, and Romney is no better.

srothstein wrote:

LarryH wrote:I will vote for "the lesser of two evils".

I say vote for Cthulhu. Why vote for a lesser evil?

AEA wrote:

LarryH wrote:I will vote for "the lesser of two evils".

Why is it that this is the choice we must make every time?
Why can't ALL Americans understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

In theory, I love Ron Paul.

In reality, he is frightening and unrealistic Mr. Magoo lookalike, and nothing more. He votes against a bill that helps kidnapped kids, since it is not "constitutional."
Ron Paul is a wonderful (in theory)candidate (but communism is nice and perfect in theory), but doesn't quite fathom the balance between what Franklin saw, and what modern America is. He will never EVER be POTUS, and everyone who votes for him will be handing the reigns to the socialists or commies.

lawrnk wrote: In theory, I love Ron Paul.

In reality, he is frightening and unrealistic Mr. Magoo lookalike, and nothing more. He votes against a bill that helps kidnapped kids, since it is not "constitutional."

More accurately, because he doesn't think it's constitutional. (And let me add, the bill you refer to may or may not be AFAIK. I know nothing of it.) Like many "absolutists", he is convinced that his interpretation of the constitution is the only possible correct one. If others interpret the Commerce Clause differently, for instance, he is right and they are wrong (to him).

In his own way, he is a legislator who feels he has his own built in SCOTUS majority. While he fancies himself as some kind of constitutionalist, his view of the constitution is not the only one.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

lawrnk wrote: In theory, I love Ron Paul.

In reality, he is frightening and unrealistic Mr. Magoo lookalike, and nothing more. He votes against a bill that helps kidnapped kids, since it is not "constitutional."

More accurately, because he doesn't think it's constitutional. (And let me add, the bill you refer to may or may not be AFAIK. I know nothing of it.) Like many "absolutists", he is convinced that his interpretation of the constitution is the only possible correct one. If others interpret the Commerce Clause differently, for instance, he is right and they are wrong (to him).

In his own way, he is a legislator who feels he has his own built in SCOTUS majority. While he fancies himself as some kind of constitutionalist, his view of the constitution is not the only one.

Ron Paul voted against the Amber Alert bill because of a rider that was added to the bill at the last minute, what is known to some as the Rave Act. http://slander.revolutioni.st/protects_pedophiles.html

Ron Paul has my vote.