National Let's go Brandon (Herrera)!

[VinnieBoomBah]

Ah, so you just come to their defense and attack their detractors for no reason at all? See what I mean about dishonesty?

You may be shocked and possibly even horrified to learn of this, but it wasn't that long ago when the ability to engage in polite and civil discourse without resorting to juvenile and course language was considered a core conservative principle
Also, the real world isn't binary. There isn't just one group that only has one collective point of view and any deviation from any single point in that groups viewpoint automatically means that you're in the "other group"
But just for fun, which of my 2a positions do you find most offensive?

 

[lucusloc]

Ah, so you just come to their defense and attack their detractors for no reason at all? See what I mean about dishonesty?

To be fair he claims to be a libertarian. Except for, you know, all the left wing talking points he posts. He also claims to be against "purity tests" in the posts above, yet is more than willing to use purity tests to belittle politicians he does not like. E.g. he is on record as saying Trump is an "anti-2A" president because of some (quite honestly) bad policy positions, yet fails to acknowledge that Trump has pushed forward the state of 2A laws and policy more than any president in modern history. Trump is not perfect, but all things considered he is pretty good, and he is far from "anti-2A" like most of his direct opposition is.

And this is before we consider that the shambling husk that is the Libertarian party is now a refuge for Never-Trumpers and hardened liberals attempting to whitewash their political credentials, and well this is what you get. It is worse than when Libertarians were so busy trying to out libertarian each other they knocked each other out of every race they ever entered. Now the party is so desperate for relevancy they will take Democrats simply because they want to legalize weed ("It's still a libertarian principle! Ignore the fact they still maintain their tax-and-spend fiscal positions!").

Put bluntly, if you cannot vote for Trump because of his bump stock ban, but can vote for a Democrat because "they are not Trump," (or even just withhold your vote and thus increasing the likelihood that a Democrat will win by proxy), well that does not seem to me to be a very "2A friendly" vote.

Look, I do not care who you vote for in primaries, I vote for long shots in primaries if I like them more than the mainstream candidate. But I also know that when the chips go down and the choice is between someone who is waffly on the 2A and someone who is staunchly anti-2A, I vote for the waffle and try to get stuff passed, rather than accept someone who is actively working against me on every facet of the issue.

And I will maintain that Brandon is one of the best candidates we will have in congress; he is a staunch 2A advocate, has a proven track record of advocacy already, and has the backing and support to get things accomplished. When you compare that against "I don't like some of his jokes," well, do you want a 2A firebrand to win, or would you rather have Tony Gonzales and his "I vote with Democrats 90% of the time" record instead?

 

[raftman]

You may be shocked and possibly even horrified to learn of this, but it wasn't that long ago when the ability to engage in polite and civil discourse without resorting to juvenile and course language was considered a core conservative principle
Also, the real world isn't binary. There isn't just one group that only has one collective point of view and any deviation from any single point in that groups viewpoint automatically means that you're in the "other group"
But just for fun, which of my 2a positions do you find most offensive?

Where did I say I found anything offensive?

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

To be fair he claims to be a libertarian. Except for, you know, all the left wing talking points he posts. He also claims to be against "purity tests" in the posts above, yet is more than willing to use purity tests to belittle politicians he does not like. E.g. he is on record as saying Trump is an "anti-2A" president because of some (quite honestly) bad policy positions, yet fails to acknowledge that Trump has pushed forward the state of 2A laws and policy more than any president in modern history. Trump is not perfect, but all things considered he is pretty good, and he is far from "anti-2A" like most of his direct opposition is.

And this is before we consider that the shambling husk that is the Libertarian party is now a refuge for Never-Trumpers and hardened liberals attempting to whitewash their political credentials, and well this is what you get. It is worse than when Libertarians were so busy trying to out libertarian each other they knocked each other out of every race they ever entered. Now the party is so desperate for relevancy they will take Democrats simply because they want to legalize weed ("It's still a libertarian principle! Ignore the fact they still maintain their tax-and-spend fiscal positions!").

Put bluntly, if you cannot vote for Trump because of his bump stock ban, but can vote for a Democrat because "they are not Trump," (or even just withhold your vote and thus increasing the likelihood that a Democrat will win by proxy), well that does not seem to me to be a very "2A friendly" vote.

Look, I do not care who you vote for in primaries, I vote for long shots in primaries if I like them more than the mainstream candidate. But I also know that when the chips go down and the choice is between someone who is waffly on the 2A and someone who is staunchly anti-2A, I vote for the waffle and try to get stuff passed, rather than accept someone who is actively working against me on every facet of the issue.

And I will maintain that Brandon is one of the best candidates we will have in congress; he is a staunch 2A advocate, has a proven track record of advocacy already, and has the backing and support to get things accomplished. When you compare that against "I don't like some of his jokes," well, do you want a 2A firebrand to win, or would you rather have Tony Gonzales and his "I vote with Democrats 90% of the time" record instead?

In all honestly, I stopped reading after the first couple of lines because first of all I've never claimed to be a libertarian. I'm a conservative and it's Purity Spiral not purity test, those are two entirely different things and if those are what you're basing your diatribe on, I don't even really care cause it's factually flawed from the beginning

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Did you see the word "may"? It's the second word in my sentence and indicates that something might possibly happen in the future not that it happened in the past so no never said that you were offended. I said that you may or might be offended

Also, I finally figured out what the comments about me defending her were about!! it turns out that what I was doing was correcting inaccurate information

Fun fact for anyone who may or may not be offended or might know this information may be totally neutral or maybe just going out to get a taco, at one point factual information was also a core value of conservatism!

Anyway, I have some stuff to deal with with a client and I'm not sure how quickly I can get back to that but because this is clearly such a principle discussion having nothing personally to do with me, perhaps Andy, (who has expressed almost almost exactly the same opinion, as I have) would be happy to take up this conversation in my absence
I mean, you are all good with attacking Andy the same way you've been attacking me, right?

 

[Andy54Hawken]

perhaps Andy, (who has expressed almost almost exactly the same opinion, as I have) would be happy to take up this conversation in my absence
I mean, you are all good with attacking Andy the same way you've been attacking me, right?

Please leave me out of your engagements , arguments , debates etc.....

What I think , or have an opinion on...may indeed be similar ...or not to someone else's thoughts , opinions or the like...
It is not my place to speak for them...ever....doing so is damn close to assuming...and that is something I refuse to do.
Andy


Edit to add ....
Just as a reminder for all here in this thread...and as members as NWFA....
When disagreeing with someone....please attack the position taken...not the person stating the position .
Again...just a general reminder...not pointed at anyone specifically.

 

[lucusloc]

This has been on my watch list for a few days and I finally got around to it;

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqirff2kCYM


BuT bRaNdOn Is NoT oUr BeSt 2A oPtIoN!

Seriously, some people just seem to like shooting themselves in the foot. To bad they get all the rest of our feet too.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

BuT bRaNdOn Is NoT oUr BeSt 2A oPtIoN!

I am not sure who our* "best" option is.

I am sure that I don't care for his over the top presentation.
I also know that the same can turn people away from supporting the 2nd Amendment , gun rights , firearms / firearm owners etc....

Please note that I not saying that a milquetoast approach is needed or would be helpful...'Cause it ain't.

I do think that a more balanced and level presentation....would be far better in order to reach more people.

The above is only my thoughts...and no one needs to agree and think like I do.....
Which is why the our in my lead sentence has an asterisk....

Our ...Just who is our...and does our speak for everyone....?
I would say that he does not...since I ain't the only one who dislikes something about him.

I understand that it is impossible to find a representative who everyone will like or agree with.
And there are many times that one must go along or vote , etc....to at least get someone in who is close to what represents you and your interests.

Just not fond of broad blanket statements like the one I quoted.
They rarely cover as much as one might think.

In any event...at the end of the day....If you , the general you , not any you in particular...
Like , agree with and enjoy Brandon Herrera ...then good for you...I hope he does well for you and your interests.
I don't have to ...and won't....don't see what the big deal is that.
Andy

Edit to add...
Oh...and for the record...
I don't really care for select fire / full auto firearms....had my fill of them while in the Army.
However...I also think that one should be free to own them if one wishes too...
I do not agree with bans , restrictions , requirements , etc...that are currently in place regarding them.
I think that those are ...dare I say it....infringements.

See....
Someone can have a many faceted opinion...Brandon Herrera and I agree that full auto firearms should be legal.
However ...I still don't care for his presentation of his views on this subject.

 

[CamoDeafie]

If one looks at the 2A positions (or lack thereof) of everyone else running for that specific TX district, and using solely the 2A issue (the point of this forum?) , it's hard , if not impossible to see who else is "more pro2A" than self proclaimed "2A absolutist " Brandon Herrera, disregarding any other issues or how it's presented or how they carry/act.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

If one looks at the 2A positions (or lack thereof) of everyone else running for that specific TX district, and using solely the 2A issue (the point of this forum?) , it's hard , if not impossible to see who else is "more pro2A" than self proclaimed "2A absolutist " Brandon Herrera, disregarding any other issues or how it's presented or how they carry/act.

Okay....
So if the messenger kills the message , so to speak with his presentation , for many folks...
Does that do any damn good...?
No would be my answer here.

That said....
I have often voted for the pro gun guy / gal...simply because they were the only option that was pro gun.
So I hear what you are sayin'.
Andy

 

[CamoDeafie]

I've said this before, 2A isnt the primary issue of most voters, to say nothing of any other Right enshrined in the Bill of Rights ; unfortunately.

If the other option has a silver tongue and impeccable presentation but backstabs the 2A community at every turn.....well, then . That person wouldn't get my vote ever.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I've said this before, 2A isnt the primary issue of most voters, to say nothing of any other Right enshrined in the Bill of Rights ; unfortunately.

If the other option has a silver tongue and impeccable presentation but backstabs the 2A community at every turn.....well, then . That person wouldn't get my vote ever.

Oh yeah....
Some lyin' , double dealing ...say any damn thing to get into office...and say any damn thing to stay in office. "representative"...
Nope...wouldn't vote for them either ...even if I were to be given an original Hawken Rifle from the 1840's for doing so....Honest...

Again I know there ain't no such thing as a perfect , checks every box for everyone , candidate / representative....
I just get tired of having to vote for the lesser of two evils....'Cause that is still a vote for evil....so to speak.

At the end of the day what I want from a elected representative is....
Someone who will ask themselves :
What have I done for the good of the American people today...?
As opposed to :
What have I done to enrich my personal gain / interests / stakes today..?

As far a pro gun representative ....
I know I'd be considered extreme since I think :

One should be free to own whatever firearms they wish to own....
Or don't own any....Just don't make that choice for others.

Andy

 

[lucusloc]

Again I know there ain't no such thing as a perfect , checks every box for everyone , candidate / representative....

This is the simple reality of the situation. There is no perfect candidate. Any candidate will turn someone off in some way. The question is if it is strategically smart to let those preferences dictate your own personal campaigning when the substance of a candidates policies so closely align with your own.

I just get tired of having to vote for the lesser of two evils....'Cause that is still a vote for evil....so to speak.

You will never have the option to not vote for the "lesser of two evils" because at the end of the day we will always be voting for other fellow humans, and every single one of us is flawed and imperfect to some degree or other. You may be lucky enough to have the option to vote for someone whose "evil" is so minor in your opinion that you can easily overlook and ignore it, but there will still be some flaw or imperfection you think could be improved if you thought hard enough about it.

But that fact does not invalidate the fact that some candidates are objectively better than others on topics you may find important, and sometimes those differences are so great it becomes easy to assign the label of "best" to a specific candidate from the given field of options. I do not think there is any argument that Brandon is the Best from a 2A perspective (not to mention his other pro-freedom position on various other subject).

It does not really matter if you think there are areas that could be improved in a hypothetical "better candidate." Until you can point to some other, real life flesh-and-blood person who is willing to throw their name into the hat, there is no better option. That person does not exist. Everything else is, pardon the bluntness, just whining about personal preferences. The fact of the matter is Brandon is popular, has tremendous name recognition, has a proven record of effective advocacy, and has done more to advance 2A positions than anyone else worth mentioning.

The only people who are not going to advocate for (or even vote for) Brandon are Democrats/Leftists and people who for some reason think his proclivities for certain types of humor in his entertainment productions are so bad they trump his proven track record on the issues. Now you can of course complain that those people are going to be predominantly low information voters who may not have all the information to properly weigh those two points against each other, but that is going to be true of any candidate for whom the opposition can find (or make up) some kind of dirt on. I would rather have talking points that are easy to dismiss by providing proper context than dirt like, say, having an affair with a staffer that lead to her suicide. Yet there are people who say that such a person "is a better candidate" because they are the clean, establishment type that never made a dark joke on the internet and therefore are "more votable" to the low information, independent voter.

I do not apologize for calling Brandon the best we have on offer. You can argue he is not perfect and I would readily agree, but as with all things human there is no such thing as actual perfection. Arguing about perfection is a fools errand. Brandon is the best we have on offer, and he deserves our full, unequivocal support and advocacy, at least if we think things like 2A and other freedom-centric policy advocacy is our top priority, rather than, say, if his latest podcast gave us the warm fuzzies.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

This is the simple reality of the situation. There is no perfect candidate. Any candidate will turn someone off in some way. The question is if it is strategically smart to let those preferences dictate your own personal campaigning when the substance of a candidates policies so closely align with your own.


You will never have the option to not vote for the "lesser of two evils" because at the end of the day we will always be voting for other fellow humans, and every single one of us is flawed and imperfect to some degree or other. You may be lucky enough to have the option to vote for someone whose "evil" is so minor in your opinion that you can easily overlook and ignore it, but there will still be some flaw or imperfection you think could be improved if you thought hard enough about it.

But that fact does not invalidate the fact that some candidates are objectively better than others on topics you may find important, and sometimes those differences are so great it becomes easy to assign the label of "best" to a specific candidate from the given field of options. I do not think there is any argument that Brandon is the Best from a 2A perspective (not to mention his other pro-freedom position on various other subject).

It does not really matter if you think there are areas that could be improved in a hypothetical "better candidate." Until you can point to some other, real life flesh-and-blood person who is willing to throw their name into the hat, there is no better option. That person does not exist. Everything else is, pardon the bluntness, just whining about personal preferences. The fact of the matter is Brandon is popular, has tremendous name recognition, has a proven record of effective advocacy, and has done more to advance 2A positions than anyone else worth mentioning.

The only people who are not going to advocate for (or even vote for) Brandon are Democrats/Leftists and people who for some reason think his proclivities for certain types of humor in his entertainment productions are so bad they trump his proven track record on the issues. Now you can of course complain that those people are going to be predominantly low information voters who may not have all the information to properly weigh those two points against each other, but that is going to be true of any candidate for whom the opposition can find (or make up) some kind of dirt on. I would rather have talking points that are easy to dismiss by providing proper context than dirt like, say, having an affair with a staffer that lead to her suicide. Yet there are people who say that such a person "is a better candidate" because they are the clean, establishment type that never made a dark joke on the internet and therefore are "more votable" to the low information, independent voter.

I do not apologize for calling Brandon the best we have on offer. You can argue he is not perfect and I would readily agree, but as with all things human there is no such thing as actual perfection. Arguing about perfection is a fools errand. Brandon is the best we have on offer, and he deserves our full, unequivocal support and advocacy, at least if we think things like 2A and other freedom-centric policy advocacy is our top priority, rather than, say, if his latest podcast gave us the warm fuzzies.

So what...?
You ain't said something I didn't already know...or even said variations of myself.

At the end of the day ....you like him....I don't.

it don't matter in any event...since we can't vote for him.

And...as I have repeatedly said....

A choice of the lesser of two evils...is still a choice for evil...
A sh!t sandwich by any other name....don't make it taste any better.
No amount of verbiage will change my mind on this.

Andy

 

[mhayd93]

So what...?
You ain't said something I didn't already know...or even said variations of.

At the end of the day ....you like him....I don't.

it don't matter in any event...since we can't vote for him.

And...as I have repeatedly said....

A choice of the lesser of two evils...is still a choice for evil...
A sh!t sandwich by any other name....don't make it taste any better.
No amount of words and verbiage will change my mind on this.

Andy

Just write-in "God" and be done with it!

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Just write-in "God" and be done with it!

Hmmm....No...

At the end to the day....

I want my representatives to ask themselves :
What have I done for the good of the American people today...?

And not :
What have I done to further my own agenda....?

Andy

 

[lucusloc]

So what...?

At the end of the day ....you like him....I don't.

it don't matter in any event...since we can't vote for him.

And...as I have repeatedly said....
A choice of the lesser of two evils...is still a choice for evil...
A sh!t sandwich by any other name....don't make it taste any better.

Andy

You are, of course, free to hold whatever opinion you want, for whatever reason you want. I am free to critique that opinion as, shall we way, strategically less than optimal.

I would far prefer to have an imperfect victory than a perfect defeat. And if we are using the food analogy, when I look at Brandon's policy positions I do not see a sh*t sandwich, I see a damn tasty steak that nearly perfectly aligns with my own policy positions. His penchant for dark humor has bunk-all to do with that. If all you see is a sh*t sandwich, that is all well and good for you, but I do question your priorities in that case. Do you want the absolute staunchest and most effective 2A advocate we can get, or would you rather see Tony Gonzales back in office because he is "cleaner looking and more electable"? Because here in this reality those are the only options. If you view Tony and Brandon as somehow equivalently bad, but for different reasons, then I am just going to agree with another point you have made (paraphrasing) "not everyone can be reached, even when interests closely align."

I also disagree that just because Brandon is not in our district that advocating for his candidacy is useless to us. Strong, national name recognition is vitally important in pushing awareness and acceptance of 2A issues and candidates. Brandon is already proving vital in helping other strong 2A candidates in other districts get noticeable bumps in polling, thus enhancing their "electability." He can do this because of his national platform and recognition which can reach otherwise uniformed voters in those districts. The more people talk about him as the (nearly) ideal candidate the more he improves not only his own chances at victory, but also others like him. This is not just about an isolated district in Texas, this is about demonstrating that strong, 2A absolutist candidates are not only viable, but popular. Who else is going to introduce "free the machine guns!" legislation, at any level of government? We absolutely should be championing such a candidate as our (nearly) ideal representative.

As I have said in other posts, 2A policy does not win when we can elect the cleanest, most generically appealing candidate who also happens to be a 2A supporter. We win when we can elect the nastiest, most unappealing candidate out there because they are a 2A supporter. Only then will non-2A candidates consider taking up the cause because it will help them get elected. And Brandon is not even that, he is fairly clean and well respected. His only blemish is the fact that he likes to make dark jokes on the internet. His only real skeleton is one he is not ashamed to put on the front porch, because he finds it funny.

Again, hanging the man because his entertainment persona makes jokes you find distasteful is strategically less than optimal, in my opinion.

 

[bradsteen]

A sh!t sandwich by any other name....

Turd taco?
Poo pretzel?
Fecal felafel?

 

[Andy54Hawken]

@lucusloc

Again...verbiage telling me what I already know.

I am done talkin' 'bout this with you...'cause it is like a broken pencil...pointless.
Andy

 

[lucusloc]

Hmmm....No...Don't like him either....and pretty damn sure he don't care for me.

At the end to the day....

I want my representatives to ask themselves :
What have I done for the good of the American people today...?

And not :
What have I done to further my own agenda....?

Andy

Oh hey, that sounds like Brandon. See the example machine gun video I posted above, where Brandon said he would absolutely tank the value of his transferable machine gun collection to allow the rest of us to participate in that aspect of our rights. He is on record, not just in words but also in deeds, as putting other people first. Check out his dozens of charity fundraisers for everything from autism to veterans as some examples. He even put hundreds of thousands of his own money into his campaign, forgoing planned business expansions to represent what he feels is important. Assuming he stays true to his word and abides by his "no political insider trading" stance his stint in congress might even be a financial loss to him, compared to what he could have done if he has stayed in the private sector.