Actually, it turns on the weakness and fear of those who will accept Hillary lite to avoid Hillary.
If their are enough of you--and you, yourself imply there well might be ("there are plenty of folks like me")--you will elect missus clinton, a person who seeks to destroy everything you profess to believe.
No, I won't be electing her. I will be voting for someone that I believe will honor my rights. I don't buy that contention that I have to vote for the lesser of two evils any longer because you still end up with evil and I do not accept the guilt that you try to lay on me. You'll have to use that tactic on someone else.
Some morality.
Some moral relativism on your part.
Curious. Did you fall for this flimflam in '92 and '96 as well and elect that other clinton? You know, the one who didn't go after the terrorists because he wanted the Nobel Peace Prize.
I believed than as I do now that Perot was an ally of the Clintons to divide the GOP vote. That WAS flim flam, but Bush was responsible for his own loss. He lied about taxes. His campaign was pathetic. He didn't even seem to want to win again.
This time we are talking about a (still only) potential candidate whose world view varies little from Hillary's. As bad as Bush, the elder, was, Rudy is a lot worse. He's very liberal, but a rare seemingly capable city administrator. His values are anathema to almost everything that I hold dear. So if there is a flim flam this time, it is because the GOP will have pushed Rudy the liberal (who would be a Democrat just about anywhere but in the Northeast) as the GOP candidate against a radical Marxist Democrat. The GOP will be complicit in her winning for failure to put up a conservative opponent.
If I vote for a gun grabber, can I complain when he wants to grab my guns? If I vote for a baby killer, can I complain when he allows baby killing to continue? If I vote for a big government liberal, can I complain when he expands government? In short, how can I vote for someone who will violate my values and principles? It would take a lot more of your relativism than I can handle.
Look, I don't want to insult you, but your illogic and rigidity make it impossible to have a discussion that makes any sense.
I just don't think that you are used to being challenged and that makes it hard for you to handle. Your arguments are based on emotion -- fear -- and mine are based on principle. I don't scare easily and even less so as I get older.
You did provide a service here, however. You are exhibit A as to how this flimflam goes down. Q.E.D.
No, you are the key player in using scare tactics to assure that a liberal will be in office no matter what party wins.
Do you really believe there is no difference in the way Rudy and hillary would prosecute the war, protect our country?
Prosecute the war, sure. If the enemy hasn't been vanquished. Militarily, they should be. The only thing that will keep it going will be more PC warfare.
Protect the country, not so sure. I believe that they both would impose more draconian measures on the citizens while leaving the borders open.
For all your moral posturing, your answer--and especially your final comment, "Why do I care?"-- reveals a complete absence of true morality.
You are trying to disconnect that part of my answer from the rest of it. I said if I am to die, do I care if I am beaten or shot? I could have said 'cancer or heart attack'. Either way, I'm dead. Why do I care? I will die on my feet fighting. I won't vote for my own demise.
Before you place your de facto vote for that paragon of virtue and protector of the children, hillary clinton, you might want to check this out:
WHY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT MUST MOBILIZE AGAINST HILLARY: CLINTON CONFLATES EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS AND ISLAMO-FASCIST TERRORISTS
AFTERWORD: A Note to the Religious Right
I'll add it to my reading list. In the meantime, I will continue to educate and mobilize people -- ALL people -- against liberalism and especially when it tries to get comfortable within the GOP. Hillary is evil, but she doesn't scare me. As I said earlier, I doubt that she will even get the nomination, much less win -- if we reject the liberals within the party and dispel the fear that threatens to overcome our good sense and values.
P.S. I don't watch CNN, either. But I do read FR.
You're still reading their news, even if you read it here.
I welcome challenge. I welcome rational debate. (The operative word is 'rational.')
I don't challenge your right to your own belief system, to your own values. To the contrary.
What I am challenging are your rationalizations, your distortions of reality and logic, to allay your conscience.
Of course, you can be against Rudy Giuliani because of his positions on some of the social issues; but it's absurd to argue, especially after the 8 sorry years of the clintons, that there would be no difference between Rudy Giuliani and hillary clinton in the managing of the determinative issue of our time, in protecting this country.
But you can't acknowledge the significant and crucial difference between the two candidates because if you were truly honest with yourself and did, you would see that you are putting the entire country at risk so that you "can sleep well at night." This is a decision that is, IMO, anything but moral.
P.S. I didn't 'disconnect' your comment. ("I've already told you. I vote for a third party. You are asking if I want to be beat to death or shot. Why do I care?")
The implication of your comment, as I read it, is that there is no difference between the two candidates, i.e., you would be killed either way.
Your "Why do I care?" reveals a concern with your own well-being that is paramount.
How could you not care? Where is your morality? Where is your concern for the country? For the children, born and unborn, conceived, not yet conceived... indeed, not yet even conceived of?
Your entire argument is irrational and exposes a fundamental immorality.
You vote 'no' for Rudy by voting 'yes' for hillary. Your refusal to reconcile--or even acknowledge--your de facto vote for someone whose entire being is truly anathema to your belief system belies your claim to a higher ground.