Rand Paul Just Got My Vote

[Oregonhunter5]

Yeah yeah, I've heard all that before.

Here's the thing; Oregon always falls to the democratic presidential candidate in the electoral college because....

Portland

So if I am going to vote, I am going to make it "count" by voting for the person I actually want in office.

I don't think Mitt Romney was any better than Obama, in some ways he was worse.

Usually neither the democratic nor republican candidates are any good.

View attachment 231454

I hate snakes.
But your point is true about a state that will never have a repub in leadership.
Well except for this last govenor run. If just more voted for the good guy, old Cylvia would of been a past memory sooner.

 

[The Heretic]

I hate snakes.
But your point is true about a state that will never have a repub in leadership.
Well except for this last govenor run. If just more voted for the good guy, old Cylvia would of been a past memory sooner.

I am mostly talking about presidential candidates, not governors or state offices which often have at least a few decent selections to choose from. It is a lot easier to run for a state office than for a national office so you are more likely to get someone who isn't a career politician and who hasn't been so corrupted by the process or power.

But when it comes to the White House, I vote for who I want in there, not the lesser of two evils, especially when sometimes the GOP candidate is worse than the democratic candidate.

I am not a single issue voter - I look at their policies/etc. on more than just the Second Amendment.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Yeah, because obama's economic policies, and foreign policy, and energy policy have been so good for the country and the world,...

You're kidding right?
I seriously hope so.
It would be different if we hadn't had 4 years of failure to know what was coming, but we did.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Yeah yeah, I've heard all that before.

Here's the thing; Oregon always falls to the democratic presidential candidate in the electoral college because....

Portland

So if I am going to vote, I am going to make it "count" by voting for the person I actually want in office.

I don't think Mitt Romney was any better than Obama, in some ways he was worse.

Usually neither the democratic nor republican candidates are any good.

View attachment 231454

So, should we have three party elections? Or four party elections?
You know, where the winner gets elected by 33.4% of the voters? Or 25.1% of voters?

A plurality is not a majority.

I find the lesser of two evils to be preferable to a leader not elected by the majority.
That's just asking for trouble.

 

[slimmer13]

Lol you think we have a two party system

 

[Classic]

That light you see at the end of the tunnel, it's just a fright train commin' your way.

 

[Just Jim]

Read my posts again.
I never said I'd vote for the dem my friend.
I want a repub that can beat the dem.
Example. Ron Paul never could of beat Barrack.
But Mitt had the better chance.
So I wanted Mitt.

I understood you post very well friend, I was just pointing out I don't vote to win I vote my values. It seems there is a mindset that voters should vote to win, even if Mitt lost my vote sent a message that I don't support the values of the left. Same with the primaries, I vote my values, I may not win but I send the message how I think the same as those who voted the same way.

Was not being critical,just explaining the simple way I think. Take no offense

 

[Just Jim]

I am mostly talking about presidential candidates, not governors or state offices which often have at least a few decent selections to choose from. It is a lot easier to run for a state office than for a national office so you are more likely to get someone who isn't a career politician and who hasn't been so corrupted by the process or power.

But when it comes to the White House, I vote for who I want in there, not the lesser of two evils, especially when sometimes the GOP candidate is worse than the democratic candidate.

I am not a single issue voter - I look at their policies/etc. on more than just the Second Amendment.

Just a thought and I know how you like thinking... Sometimes the election is more about getting rid of who is in office than all the issues combined. Yep you are trading snakes but you got rid of one that set up an organization and put in one that is going to have to spend time building a new organization.

Too many people think there is no difference in politicians, it's not true. There are the ones in office and the ones that are thrown out. Voting does make a difference.

 

[slimmer13]

Read my posts again.
I never said I'd vote for the dem my friend.
I want a repub that can beat the dem.
Example. Ron Paul never could of beat Barrack.
But Mitt had the better chance.
So I wanted Mitt.

Mitt would have got gun control passed in the aftermath of Sandy hook with the help of bipartisan (rino) support.

 

[Just Jim]

Mitt would have got gun control passed in the aftermath of Sandy hook with the help of bipartisan (rino) support.

You are probably right on this, it would be a federal assault on our rights rather than the state by state assault that the democrats are doing. It's a fight no matter who is elected but Mitt would have created enough jobs that people would have the money to fight with. Today's 93 million unemployed have no finances to fight for their future.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Mitt would have got gun control passed in the aftermath of Sandy hook with the help of bipartisan (rino) support.

Wow, you should take that crystal ball with you to the county fair and open a booth!

You'd be rich in no time!
/sarc

 

[slimmer13]

Wow, you should take that crystal ball with you to the county fair and open a booth!

You'd be rich in no time!
/sarc

It doesn't take a crystal ball just some common sense. The guy would have come into office with an enormous amount of political capital and momentum from taking down an incumbent president during a time of incredible national sorrow and outcry to do something. And ol Mittens is no defender of the 2A

The only reason a lot of the rinos opposed O and the rest of the dems is they were facing the mid terms in a little while.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Again, about that crystal ball,...

Gun control on a national level has been a losing proposition since 1996.
Mittster knew it, as did the newly minted (as of 2010) republican control of the HoR.

If you need to justify voting for obama (and holder et al) in a gun forum, you're going to have to be more convincing than your current crystal ball predictions.

 

[slimmer13]

I voted for Gary Johnson. You guys blame guys like me who don't vote for the lesser of two evils for our problems but I blame guys like you who do.

 

[Just Jim]

Again, about that crystal ball,...

Gun control on a national level has been a losing proposition since 1996.
Mittster knew it, as did the newly minted (as of 2010) republican control of the HoR.

If you need to justify voting for obama (and holder et al) in a gun forum, you're going to have to be more convincing than your current crystal ball predictions.

http://gunowners.org/op09292011tm.htm

Sometimes it is better to be informed.

 

[Jamie6.5]

I voted for Gary Johnson. You guys blame guys like me who don't vote for the lesser of two evils for our problems but I blame guys like you who do.

Throwing one's vote away on someone they know can't win is akin to not voting at all. But if it assuages your guilt, or lets you live with your conscience, it's your call.
Politics is about supporting an ideology, and It starts with the primaries. If you want to take your ball and go home because your ideal candidate didn't win the primary, you don't understand, or care about how it works.

Or if you want the president elected by a third or a fourth (or less) of voters, please find a new place to vote.

Life is full of choices with no clear cut "good" decision.
Good luck with your next one.

 

[Just Jim]

Politicians are elected to do what we want it's not up to us to conform our values as to who they are. They work for us and should stand behind the laws of the land. They need to show us they stand for those laws and win our votes. However each of us has our priorities as to what is most important. My priority is my god given right to protect myself and my family with the best tools available.

Other people vote purely on social issues, they know in their lifestyle they are more apt to deal with the social issue than ever need a gun.

 

[Jamie6.5]

http://gunowners.org/op09292011tm.htm

Sometimes it is better to be informed.

And sometimes it's better if you know how laws get written and passed, and what representing a constituency entails.
Massachusetts has been run by a dem legislature for decades.
Mitt wasn't about to change that.
The bulk of Massachusens got what they wanted, and what the majority voted for when they elected their lawmakers. Any veto Mitt put forth would have been overridden in a single bang of the gavel.
You don't send senators like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry to the US Senate for 2-3 decades because you're a gun toting conservative.

Their state legislature reflects that same ideology

 

[Just Jim]

And sometimes it's better if you know how laws get written and passed, and what representing a constituency entails.
Massachusetts has been run by a dem legislature for decades.
Mitt wasn't about to change that.
The bulk of Massachusens got what they wanted, and what the majority voted for when they elected their lawmakers. Any veto Mitt put forth would have been overridden in a single bang of the gavel.
You don't send senators like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry to the US Senate for 2-3 decades because you're a gun toting conservative.

A veto would have been a stand against voting our rights away. He was a go along get along governor. He could have shown a clear line that he believed in the constitution but showed he was just another politician. At best he would compromise our rights away, that's a flaw in character. While he would have been far better than Obama he was still a rino.

 

[Jamie6.5]

A veto would have been a stand against voting our rights away. He was a go along get along governor. He could have shown a clear line that he believed in the constitution but showed he was just another politician. At best he would compromise our rights away, that's a flaw in character. While he would have been far better than Obama he was still a rino.

That doesn't mean you can say with any degree of certainty that he'd have used the bully pulpit to push gun laws through, or supported the kinds of actions holder's DOJ has taken.
And if he would have been "far better than obama," then one is compelled to ask why would anyone opposed to obama's policies not vote for him, knowing that a vote for a third, much weaker candidate would strengthen obama's position, and accomplish nothing?

Politics is as much about opposition to bad policy, as it is about advocacy for good policy.

Would/should we advocate for the "best" policy? Yes, of course.
Does that mean, short of the "best" policy, that we have no alternative when it comes to opposing bad policies?
No, of course not.

I have no answer for those that insist the legislature "do something" about mass murderers.
But I know bad bills like Oregon's 945 and 941 will do nothing good, so I oppose them and legislators that support them.
Because they are bad policy.
And I don't need Mitt Romney, Ron Paul or anyone else, RINO or otherwise, to support me in that decision.