Rand Paul Just Got My Vote

[Just Jim]

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.

It's clearly a matter of their record, their voting history that tells you what they will do. Not crystal ball not rocket science that says when a leader is put in a position to stand for our Constitutional rights and doesn't he will vote this way again. Sad to me that people will defend such a vote when it is clearly against their own rights.

Obama vote was a vote to destroy the nation, we see that has turned out to be true. A vote for Mitt meant the nation might survive but our gun rights would be a huge fight to keep. I voted for Mitt in an effort to stand my values of our gun rights even though I didn't trust him at all. I won't compromise on rights but try to pick a battle that can be won.

 

[Martini_Up]

It's easier to blame the few rather than the many. More so when logic and reason has no part of the equation - ad populum,

"See! See! We have more so you should have done as we do even if you don't like it! THE GREATER GOOD!!! You can't win!!! You're wasting your vote!!! Na-na-na, it's all your fault!!!

 

[Just Jim]

It's easier to blame the few rather than the many. More so when logic and reason has no part of the equation - ad populum,

"See! See! We have more so you should have done as we do even if you don't like it! THE GREATER GOOD!!! You can't win!!! You're wasting your vote!!! Na-na-na, it's all your fault!!!

When it comes to politics and politicians they all want to turn you into a servant, you vote to pick who you want to fight against.

Edited to add, mitt would have fought by the rules and Obama fights like he is ruler.

 

[The Heretic]

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.

First, as I said, the "two parties" are two heads of the same snake.

Second, you think the "majority" is capable of making wise choices for the rest of us?

Really?

 

[Jamie6.5]

First, as I said, the "two parties" are two heads of the same snake.

Second, you think the "majority" is capable of making wise choices for the rest of us?

Really?

So your *answer* is to sit back and throw verbal rocks at the system we have, and those that participate in it.

Got it.

Oh yeah, that's helpful.

 

[Oregonhunter5]

Mike Huckabee
turd example #1

 

[biggie24420]

 

[The Heretic]

So your *answer* is to sit back and throw verbal rocks at the system we have, and those that participate in it.

Got it.

Oh yeah, that's helpful.

Not throwing rocks at the system, throwing rocks at people who think that it still works the way it was originally intended to, that "the majority" makes good decisions, that we should only vote for the candidates from the two major parties because they assert that no one from a "third party" could win or is deserving of our votes.

The way the system is supposed to work is that you vote for who you want to be in office.

But if you vote for the lesser of two evils, and/or for the person you think is going to win, because someone has fooled you into thinking that way, then you are just going with the crowd and the best you can hope for is indeed, the lesser of two evils.

 

[The Heretic]

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.

I didn't say don't vote.

I said vote for who you want to be in office.

 

[The Heretic]

 

[The Heretic]

 

[Jamie6.5]

Not throwing rocks at the system, throwing rocks at people who think that it still works the way it was originally intended to, that "the majority" makes good decisions, that we should only vote for the candidates from the two major parties because they assert that no one from a "third party" could win or is deserving of our votes.

The way the system is supposed to work is that you vote for who you want to be in office.

But if you vote for the lesser of two evils, and/or for the person you think is going to win, because someone has fooled you into thinking that way, then you are just going with the crowd and the best you can hope for is indeed, the lesser of two evils.

Jump to conclusions much? Or do you always make up false scenarios in your head?

I never said there wasn't room for a third or even a fourth party. I would encourage that.
But there is NO way I would ever endorse a final/general election that allows, or is designed to declare a winner based on 33.4% of the vote, or less.
The final runoff election still needs to be between two candidates, so that a clear majority determines the winner. Regardless of their respective party affiliations. I NEVER said they needed to be either democrat or republican.

And as far as you not understanding the "lesser of two evils" argument, you obviously don't understand my earlier posts on opposition to bad policy.
But if you want to live your life thinking that idealism (yours particularly) is the only way to produce good governance, go ahead.
And be prepared for disappointment.
But at least be civil about it. Your misguided mockery is asinine, and misplaced as well.

 

[Certaindeaf]

I don't know if the Rand is running as an independent or what but if he is, STFU. Ain't gonna happen and he's just doing a Perot if he is. And that Florida fair fine boy is a non.. he did a Nixon on steroids on TV.. sweaty F ain't gonna do nothing either. It's on film.

 

[Joe Link]

Listen to yourselves. This is exactly why the rule against non-firearm political discussion is in place.

Closed.