I take it back--Mitt's not OK - Page 2
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Discussion Forums > The Club House > I take it back--Mitt's not OK

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-25-2007, 04:04 PM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 296
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts

Default

Cnorman18- I am glad you disagree. That is what makes discussions interesting. BUT.....
What if everyone that has succumbed to the theory of "Vote republican and keep your guns" voted for the same libertarian, Constitutionalist or Independent candidate? We could actually have someone in the Govnmt that we wanted rather than having to settle for a Republican.

__________________
1984cj is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2007, 04:37 PM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
cnorman18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fort Worth,Texas
Posts: 457
Liked 24 Times on 19 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default right, but...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1984cj View Post
Cnorman18- I am glad you disagree. That is what makes discussions interesting. BUT.....
What if everyone that has succumbed to the theory of "Vote republican and keep your guns" voted for the same libertarian, Constitutionalist or Independent candidate? We could actually have someone in the Govnmt that we wanted rather than having to settle for a Republican.
I quite agree: but such a candidate MUST build up support before the general election. By that time, it's too late.

I've voted Libertarian before, and even once in the general election (I won't do it again--they've gotten way off the beam by making drug legalization their biggest talking point). And I'm not supporting Ron Paul, not because he has no chance, but because he intends to cut and run in Iraq. Bad idea. Very bad.

The time may be coming for a viable 3rd party to replace one of the 2 majors. It's happened before; at one time, one of the 2 major parties was the Whigs. If the Republicans don't stop knuckling under to the Dems in futile efforts to placate the mainstream media, we may see it sooner than anyone expects. But so far, I don't see anyone with the stature of a Reagan that could make it happen. And besides, I haven't given up on the Repubs yet. As long as the extreme Left keeps calling them "repiglicans" and hates their guts, they must be doing something right.
__________________

"Valor needs first strength, then a weapon."
-- J. R. R. Tolkien (1892-1973)

"Free men have arms; slaves do not."
-- William Blackstone (1723-1780)

cnorman18 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2007, 04:44 PM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
pioneer461's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 938
Liked 27 Times on 22 Posts
Likes Given: 7

Default

Just a reminder, Bill Clinton was put into office both times, with only 43% of the vote. And those just coincidently were the only times Ross Perot ran for office. Coincidence? I'm not usually a conspiracy theory buff, but the Clinton machine is ruthless enough to have set the whole thing up. Third parties almost always favor the Democrats. Vote on principle, vote Democrat. Sorry, but that's the way it works out.
__________________
Sui Juris
Cogito, ergo armatum sum
NRA Life Member / SAF Member
Retired Police Detective '71-'01 / LEOSA Certified
Naval Aviation Veteran '65-'69

United States Constitution (c) 1791
All Rights Reserved
pioneer461 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2007, 05:16 PM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
cnorman18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fort Worth,Texas
Posts: 457
Liked 24 Times on 19 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

PS--i think it's more likely that a 3rd party is going to show up on the extreme Left; it could happen, considering how the DailyKos and other loony-left blogs have been savaging DEMOCRATS who don't totally buy into their Marxist agenda. The Greens have a lot of power in Europe already, and this Unity08 group that Sam Waterston is pushing SOUNDS like a "moderate" group till you look closer; their actual positions are all far-left. My bet is, a 3rd party at this time would be a lot closer to Che Guevera than to James Madison.

This would be a very good thing. The EXTREME left will never hold a majority; most Americans are center-right. But splitting themselves off would (1) strengthen the Republicans, and (2) move the Democrats farther toward the center. Let 'em pull out and go beat their heads against the wall.

But I'd HATE to see a 3rd party appear on the Right, for exactly parallel reasons: it would strengthen the Democrats, and leave the rest of the Republicans closer to the Left, both very bad things.

At bottom, I have faith in The People, now more than ever. With Fox News #1 in the ratings, and with the New Media (like what we're doing here) breaking the back of the Old, the essentially conservative nature of Americans is coming to the fore. It's no accident that back in the 60s, Walter Cronkite was the most conservative voice on TV and CCW "shall issue" laws were few and far between.

I insist that things are getting better--but that's not to say we've won, or that we necessarily WILL win. In 1944, we were winning in europe--but the Battle of the Bulge still lay ahead.

It'll NEVER be over; but I firmly believe that the authentic American Way will prevail, as it has, with some inevitable setbacks, for 216 years.

__________________

"Valor needs first strength, then a weapon."
-- J. R. R. Tolkien (1892-1973)

"Free men have arms; slaves do not."
-- William Blackstone (1723-1780)

cnorman18 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2007, 05:27 PM   #15
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
cnorman18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fort Worth,Texas
Posts: 457
Liked 24 Times on 19 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BLS33 View Post
The whole voting system in general is flawed, with the electoral college some peoples votes carry more weight than others and swing states are far more valued.
Why is that a "flaw"? The Founders set up the Electoral College (not to mention the Senate) so the larger states couldn't dominate the smaller. Seems to me the system works exactly as it's supposed to. I don't really want New York, L.A. and San Francisco dictating policy to the rest of the nation. Do you?
__________________

"Valor needs first strength, then a weapon."
-- J. R. R. Tolkien (1892-1973)

"Free men have arms; slaves do not."
-- William Blackstone (1723-1780)

cnorman18 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2007, 12:13 AM   #16
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BLS33's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 607
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnorman18 View Post
Why is that a "flaw"? The Founders set up the Electoral College (not to mention the Senate) so the larger states couldn't dominate the smaller. Seems to me the system works exactly as it's supposed to. I don't really want New York, L.A. and San Francisco dictating policy to the rest of the nation. Do you?
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the Electoral College make some peoples votes worthless due to a winner takes all result?
__________________

Perhaps, if I am very lucky, the feeble efforts of my lifetime will someday be noticed, and maybe, in some small way, they will be acknowledged as the greatest works of genius ever created by Man.
- Jack Handey

BLS33 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2007, 01:26 AM   #17
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
cnorman18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fort Worth,Texas
Posts: 457
Liked 24 Times on 19 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BLS33 View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the Electoral College make some peoples votes worthless due to a winner takes all result?
No more "worthless" than any other time you vote for a guy that loses. You're still part of the decision-making process.

More to the point, "winner-take-all" is not in the Constitution, as has been pointed out here. The distribution of votes in the EC is determined by the states--and The People decide that, too, through their state legislatures.

No vote is "wasted". Sometimes you lose, that's all.
__________________

"Valor needs first strength, then a weapon."
-- J. R. R. Tolkien (1892-1973)

"Free men have arms; slaves do not."
-- William Blackstone (1723-1780)

cnorman18 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2007, 03:45 AM   #18
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 140
Liked 6 Times on 3 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BLS33 View Post
I stand by my support of Ron Paul. People tell me " he has no chance of winning so why support him". Well I don't subscribe to the ideology of voting for who I think can win over who I want to win.
If everyone that said, "I would vote for him, but it would be a wasted vote." would just grow a set and vote the way they know they should he would be in office.
__________________
Duck is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2007, 05:55 PM   #19
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
cnorman18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fort Worth,Texas
Posts: 457
Liked 24 Times on 19 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default Not so fast

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duck View Post
If everyone that said, "I would vote for him, but it would be a wasted vote." would just grow a set and vote the way they know they should he would be in office.
I wouldn't support Paul if he DID have a chance. His Iraq policy is "surrender now!" On that score, I might as well vote for a Democrat.
__________________

"Valor needs first strength, then a weapon."
-- J. R. R. Tolkien (1892-1973)

"Free men have arms; slaves do not."
-- William Blackstone (1723-1780)

cnorman18 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2007, 08:52 PM   #20
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Tony Soprano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 120
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post
Yeah, that's one way to look at it. Personally, I look at voting for the lesser of two evils as throwing away my vote because I'm not actually voting for the person I want.

From now on, I'll vote for the person who most closely meets my idea of the perfect candidate, even if s/he is on a third-party with no chance of winning.
The democrats will always win if 3rd party votes are casted,I believe Bush #41 would of won a 2nd term if it wasn't for Perot,I believe Dole would of beat Clinton too! Either you are on one side of the fence or the other,sitting on the fence or 3rd party voting gets no one no where!Take a stand(side)!
__________________
"It's best to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it!" quote by Don Davis of Don's Guns
Tony Soprano is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
I'm Back bobbyb13 The Club House 8 03-21-2009 06:50 PM
So.....I'm Back fapprez The Club House 4 09-30-2008 02:53 AM