“”If you take out the equation of supporting evil to supposeable fight evil, you can frame the question like that.”
My statement is a question of fact. First of all I am speaking about a hypothetical match-up in the general election and am not talking about the primary. You do not have to vote for an “evil vs. evil” confrontation. however, if the nominee is not to your liking then you are faced with a choice.
What of the following facts do you disagree.
1. If Hillary is the Democratic nominee she will be facing the Republican nominee.
2. What choices do you have? They are as follows:
a. Vote for Hillary - I assume this is always a 0% chance. If it is your choice then I have nothing to say to you.
b. Vote for the Republican (or more importantly for some vote against Hillary) - My contention is that any other choice helps Hillary out.
c. Sit out the election - this in itself is a choice. conservatives who opt for this choice has the effect of diminishing the Republican vote. This by definition is a decision that helps Hillary out.
d. Vote 3rd party - Unless a groundswell of support and very unusual circumstances, this will not happen. Perot was initially a realistic possibility until he showed he was a nutcase. For 2008, a conservative alternative for 3rd party has a 0% chance and is effectively the same as electing Hillary.
I stand by my statement.
My statement is a question of fact. First of all I am speaking about a hypothetical match-up in the general election and am not talking about the primary. You do not have to vote for an “evil vs. evil” confrontation. however, if the nominee is not to your liking then you are faced with a choice.
.
=================================================
What of the following facts do you disagree.
1. If Hillary is the Democratic nominee she will be facing the Republican nominee.
2. What choices do you have? They are as follows:
a. Vote for Hillary - I assume this is always a 0% chance.
If it is your choice then I have nothing to say to you.
b. Vote for the Republican (or more importantly for some vote against Hillary) - My contention is that any other choice helps Hillary out.
c. Sit out the election - this in itself is a choice.
Conservatives who opt for this choice has the effect of diminishing the Republican vote. This by definition is a decision that helps Hillary out.
d. Vote 3rd party - Unless a groundswell of support and very unusual circumstances, this will not happen. Perot was initially a realistic possibility until he showed he was a nutcase. For 2008, a conservative alternative for 3rd party has a 0% chance and is effectively the same as electing Hillary.
Part "1" I disagee with, Hillary might face another democrat if Rudy is elected. You knew this and again did not put that posibility in for your own selfish reasons. This takes us back to my previous post.. Which I stand by... evil vs. evil.. Again I go back to Biblical reasons here not to vote for evil even if it could possible perchance lead to some good in the future.
If it came down to Rudy vs. Hillary right now, I would vote the write-in choise (which you don't list)... Duncan Hunter would probable be my write-in choise, but I would consider other good candidates at the time of course. I have seen little of other third party's that I like at the moment, and the Constitutional party has not produced a person that I have heard of. If Duncan Hunter endorsed Rudy, I would probable vote Roy Moore in the write-in position.
Jim Robinson has just posted a thread that pretty much sums up my feeling about this possible evil vs. evil matchup..