MT conseratives: can you vote for any of the (R) candidates and still sleep at night.

the dems aren't really offering anything much better.

It's pretty grim looking indeed.

I'm always of the philosophy if you want to reach the top, aim 50 feet past the summit. This is essentially Dr Paul's approach. He's not going to actually pass everything he would like to...we al know reality happens after endless campaign promises.

Obama can talk, he's a visible minority, and has some good ideas. This may/will be perceived well by the international community as a step in the right direction. There's really no questioning the international support for Dr Paul though. It's unprecedented.

I think Hillary will be pushed up by Diebold to edge out Obama because she'll be easier to beat than Obama, if the GOP still actually has a chance at winning anything in the end.

stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

you're dead wrong.

Edwards and Obama are at least TALKING about things like boosting the middle class, healthy care and the (saving, not raping) the environment.
something we haven't seen in the past seven years much less from this pack of losers.

Edwards has as much chance as Paul. And he may not be into raping the environment but he'll definitely rape business which will negatively impact the middle class. He is nothging but an ambulance chasing shyster lawyer. I have no idea what people see in that tool except his pretty hair.

Obama at least offers something. I'd consider him. The only way I'd vote Hillary is if Huckibilly is the choice on the Republican side.

I'll likely continue to do what I normally do and vote Libertarian unless Huckibilly is really a threat and every vote against matters. Although even then I wouldn't vote for Edwards.

stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

you know, I like the "grass roots revolution" thing as much as the next guy

but until we can get the "liberal" media to cover this guy and get someone to include him in a debate it ain't gonna happen.

True. Paul doesn't have a shot. But until he drops out, his strong grassroots base will continue to do the work.

MrSmith wrote:

i just dont understand how clinton keeps winning...

she has a stake in immigration...they are believing her...

I know the purpose of this thread is to shame me for being a conservative, but there is some truth to the overall premise:

I've got serious, serious qualms with all of these guys.

I agree with McCain on national defense, but disagree with him on almost everything else.

Ditto Rudy.

Huckabee kind of scares me.

According to that "rate-the-candidates" website someone linked on this forum earlier, my views are most in line with Romney. But I can't really be sure his views are his views, if you know what I mean.

I meant to vote for Fred Thompson in my primary, but accidentally cast my ballot for Sam Waterston (kidding).

Ron Paul is a kook (sorry, Paul-maniacs). If he were a Democrat, his name would be Dennis Kucinich (no offense, Dennis lovers).

So, yeah, I don't know who to vote for, which is a problem most conservatives are going to have. Which means it's going to be a problem for most Republicans come November.

In my view, the only way a Republican candidate wins is if Hillary wins the Democratic nod. Nothing would unite the right like a Hillary-for-president bid. They'd show up in droves to vote for their favorite candidate of all, "Anyone but Hillary."

my2hands wrote:

why do you detest society collectively providing health care services for itself?


oh, maybe you like insurance companies having more control of your treatment then doctors...

or perhaps you enjoy insurance companies raping this country for every dollar they can get their hands on... PROVIDING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

I support the idea of social darwinism. you see what you need to survive, and you work for it. if you don't, then you don't survive. if there is a service that is limited -which quality healthcare is- then you work for it, or you don't get it. is that hard to understand?

my2hands wrote:

what exactly about national defense do you agree with?

I agree with McCain's stance that we should have a strong, well-funded and proactive military. I agree with his stance that Iraq, in principle, was the right thing to do, but that the "securing the peace" portion was horribly botched, leaving us in the precarious position we are in today.

I agree with his stance that we can't leave Iraq a complete and utter mess.

I cannot, in good conscience, vote for any candidate that promises to withdraw troops immediately, regardless of the circumstance on the ground.

Either, A) They really mean it, and that's a stupid thing to promise without knowing what the circumstances are going to be when he/she takes office or, They're just pandering, which in my opinion would actually be the lesser of two evils in this case.

If McCain weren't so wishy washy on nearly every other issue, and if he weren't 71 and maybe a little senile, I might consider voting for him.