Sam Carpenter, F rating from OFF (was a B+)

[Argonaut]

I am sure the Magna Carta is in there some where as well.

Written and signed by my 24th great grandfather.

 

[JRuby]

Written and signed by my 24th great grandfather.

Nice but the constitution is our laws the federalist papers help us understand why some things are the way they are but have no legal value.

 

[3MTA3]

Weren't the Federalist Papers referenced in the Heller decision? While not law they provide insight into the laws themselves and do affect decisions made by the courts.

 

[Argonaut]

Nice but the constitution is our laws the federalist papers help us understand why some things are the way they are but have no legal value.

I have grandfathers and uncles that signed both the Declaration of Independence and the constitution as well as one that came on the Mayflower. I come from a deep strong background of conservitisom and self reliance even though we have been in every American, European and British war and war against the Muslims since the 700's.

 

[Captain O]

Both sides are deep state but to keep up the apearence that they are different they post different agendas. They are both pushing the managed decline of America and if it wasnt' for Trump America would have been finished the last election. If Oregonians push out the progressives it will slow the decline enough that we can get back on our feet. Can't see it happening with the media in the progressives pocket.

I did take heart here a bit when one of our board liberals was actually looking at a better choice over the gun issue. Said liberal seems to realize how important security is so just maybe other liberals will get that same epithany.

That's epiphany, my good man.

 

[bbbass]

I'm certain if he was sitting in that office, and the measure passed, he wouldn't sign it. That I'm sure of.

I can't remember... does an initiative by referendum require a Governor's signature to become law?

List of radio or TV personalities who are not egoists:

First:
Egotist: I'm the smartest, prettiest and most talented.
Egoist: It's all about me regardless of how I compare to everyone else.

I beg to differ on your list:
Neil Cavuto, Manny Alverez, Doocy(s), Catherine Herridge, Jennifer Griffin, Stuart Varney, Marc Siegel, just to name a few. Egoism is ok with me at times, egotism is not. Rush is a lubable fuzzball that plays an egotist on radio, but look how he treats people, fabulous! Trump is the same way, a huge ego, but treats people extremely well. Lars is rude and a bully on his show. Marc Levin is brilliant but rude. Andrew Wilkow can be rude at times. Savage is a major egoist and a total azz.

Sounds like valuable prospective. I only know him from his radio program.......that used to show many issues I did not agree with him about. It seems his current rhetoric is closer to my opinions.

I like some of his show but much of it has no value for me (Portland issues) and I cannot stay tuned in. He really ticked me off when I was on the State of Oregon Home Inspection Advisory Committee and trying to balance 9 personalities and individual agendas to create a program and new ORS for home inspectors in Oregon. The Oregon Construction Contractors Board ordered us to stop squabbling and produce something. The result was less than stellar and less than I wanted, but after one of Lars buds complained, he insisted on name calling and intimidation tactics. Couldn't get a word in.

Savage drives me nuts......can hardly stand to listen to him.

He used to be on in the afternoon here. I stopped listening after a very short time. What a jerk he is. When I go to Walla Walla VA for medical care, my program runs out and then Savage comes on... CHANGE THE CHANNEL!!! Now we have the Johnny Ballgame show here in the afternoons... what a colossal waste of airtime and my time. Not gonna do it. Not a sports fan anyway... I'm too busy doing my own thing than to waste time and energy on that kind of fandom... now if I want to fall asleep, golf or baseball is good!

 

[GlockFan1990]

Posted from Sam Carpenter's Facebook page;

Members: Here is a post I put up on our campaign website ("Sam Carpenter for Oregon") just now, explaining what happennd yesterday on the Lars Larson forum:

BUNGLING, THE REAL PROBLEM & POLITCAL CHICANERY

Yes, yesterday I bungled Lars Larson's question regarding IP 43.

Those of you who know me understand I don't shy away from admitting mistakes, but my mistake yesterday was one of garbled message, not of belief or commitment.

OF COURSE the Constitution is inviolate and is the ultimate arbiter of our rule of law. If a law is created that does not conform to the Constitution, it's not a law. Thomas Jefferson said it; I believe that in my guts and will never change my mind about it.

It is the Constitution that matters. In the 40 seconds I was given to answer the question, I chose to jump higher than the actual question, and then I got stuck there. The question that was posed could not be answered properly in a few seconds.

And yes, again, I accept responsibility for not handling it well.

My "higher level?" The point I decided was most important in that instant? It's that this is a country of laws and that a leader cannot just pick and choose what laws to follow. In the few seconds I had to answer, I decided that was the first important point I must make.

Then I ran out of time and couldn't get to my second point re 43.

Buehler and Wooldridge? Their jovial sound-bite statements were simple, that they would violate a law when it fitted their interests. Not a principled stance. In fact, that positioning is condescending to the rest of us: arrogant and stupid.

Yet again: my answer to Lars' question yesterday was incomplete, not at all what I believe in my belly. I own that.

IP 43? If it passes by a vote of the people, of course I will aggressively challenge it – but I will challenge in the courts, not by executive proclamation, nor will I just ignore it. Executive dictates – ignoring our laws – is what Obama and Brown and all the rest of the progressive far-left does. We ARE a nation of laws. We don't have kings in America. I would take the unconstitutional law all the way to the Supreme Court, fighting tooth and nail – and in the meantime, no one would have guns confiscated and no one would go to jail. I am confident we would ultimately win. But if we didn't win and it became "law," I would continue to fight it until it was rescinded – by legislative action or by the vote of the people.

That's how the rule of law in America works.

But there is no reason to have to go down that road if we will, for once and for all, face the real problem: Most of us don't vote. Will even 35% of Republicans vote in this primary election? It is not up to a governor to juggle things, to rule by whim, to choose which laws to enforce. It's up to the governor to enforce the laws on the books and if voters won't partake in the process by electing proper representation, where does that leave us? Bad laws propagated by "the other side" and the continued search for a better king.

This lack of voter participation is ultimately the problem! It's has been my aim that between now and November, I would "rally the base," to get our side to vote like never before. To not just kill 43 and 44 but to take back the entire Salem government, The 2018 Oregon Red Trifecta, and get every element of this state fixed quickly and permanently!

We ALL must vote in order to get this government under control and to win back our freedom!

In my 40 seconds yesterday, I flashed back on Obama, Pelosi, Brown, and the rest of the far-left and I said what needed to be said about executive proclamation. Then I ran out of time without addressing Lars' question. Bad on me. But understand that I am not a politician, and not a "polished" political speaker. I'm a CEO and I first look at life, business and government from a 40,000 foot perspective, and so I see what is happening in America and in Oregon and where the problems lie: we have allowed scoundrels too much power. WE did that! Most of us gave up or were just lazy. We allowed those people to take control.

The dirty business of primary election politics? Per yesterday's Bend Bulletin, over the last two weeks Knute Buehler has spent $1,000,000 publicly trashing me. To put this in perspective: our entire six-month campaign budget is $300,000.

Buehler completely forfeited the political persona he's carefully created over the last nine months, demonstrated who he really is as a man. His former mantra? He has repeatedly described himself as, "courageous, with an open mind, a tolerant heart, and a thoughtful voice." That flimsy veneer is flat-out gone. Now he's risked everything to be identified as just another smooth-talking, scorched-earth-if-necessary political hack.

Why did he risk everything here at the end? Because I lead in the polls. His panicked accusations are either outright lies or horrible distortions. Yet Buehler has taken huge donations from far-left leaning industrialists, left and right. He is pro-choice, a gun-grabber who has actually VOTED for gun control, and he detests our President. And there are allegedly some land-sales shenanigans. And as he stated yesterday, he will not commit to supporting any Republican nominee – just as he openly refused to support Trump for President.

In his arrogance, Buehler ignores the facts of his persona and positioning and believes he can energize our Republican base and win the general election. Sad.

Wooldridge? The largest portion of his donations have come from a single progressive far-left donor in California, one who has contributed to numerous far-left candidates (in yesterday's news, and here).

WHY is Wooldridge in the race when he has never polled over 12%? It's because his purpose is to split our conservative, grass-roots vote and deliver the nomination to Buehler, a "Republican" candidate who, as I said, has no chance in the general election (because our Republican base will be staying home…). That's not just my opinion, either. Even KXL is saying it.

Ultimately though, either through scary political back-room hackery, greed, or sheer stupidity, all this is about is keeping Kate Brown in power.

But I'm here and I believe in you and me, We-The-People, and I salivate at the chance to reduce the size and impact of this Oregon government and deliver opportunity and freedom back to YOU.

I'll always be transparent and I will not hesitate to admit a mistake.

That's all I've got, three days before the numbers are counted. It's up to you now.
-sam

 

[Argonaut]

When in battle (like we are in with gun rights now) you start parsing the enemy by saying some aren't so bad, all it does is weaken your resolve to pull the trigger when nessisary. It puts questions in your mind beyond the original decision made to what side you will be on. Sure, some may not be as bad as others but by the time they are in your sights it is too late to be second guessing your original decision. You may have regrets later and wish that you had not had to destroy some fence sitting individual on the wrong side but they made the choice to associate with the enemy just like you did to be with the good guys and it is nessisary.

 

[Migo]

I met Sam Carpenter at Tri-County Gun Club when he was there to give a talk on his views on the Second Amendment and IP43, and answer our questions. I supported his campaign financially around that time because it seemed he was our guy. I've seen his recent video where he gave a somewhat sensational response on his stance on IP43 & IP44. All of this seemed pretty positive. But, I've been waiting to vote in the primary until I could hear the debate and see where all three candidates really stand.

And then the Lars Larson Debate happened. I was completely stunned.

If Sam doesn't understand that an unconstitutional law is not a law that should be enforced, he's lost my support.

I too met Sam Carpenter at Tri-County Gun Club and then saw Greg Wooldridge there about a week later. I voted for Wooldridge because I got the impression from how Carpenter spoke about how his wife having a revolver in her car, that guns were all about having a few bullets ready for the bad guys. Wooldridge came across more level headed. While I'm all for self defense, I believe the Second Amendment is about protecting the US Constitution, the ultimate law of the land, and any law that violates the Constitution is unenforceable. I got the impression Wooldridge understood that.

 

[JRuby]

Even though I am a registered Democrat and many things are important to me including my right to the 2A I will not vote for Brown in any circumstance and never have. I feel like there are good people in both parties that have good ideas but Brown and her minions are my enemy. I feel maybe wrongly I hope that I have a year before they come for my firearms if Brown gets elected.

 

[etrain16]

Go to 6:20

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1704831839596173

My wife found this same video and shared it with me. After watching the whole thing, I feel a little better about what I heard him clarify. We'll drop our ballots off on election day, so we can still mull it over just a bit longer. Until then, this video clarifies 2 serious challenges against Carpenter that seems to clear things up a bit - he comes across as more on our side than he did yesterday - and that would make sense as he's been, up to that interview, a strong 2A supporter. I'm willing to consider he didn't think his response through clearly enough during the debate. Now we've got Knute and Woolridge (along with OFF) really digging in hard against Carpenter. My only thought there is they're still concerned he could win this.

Still willing to hear the arguments up until election day, when I'll make my final decision.

 

[bbbass]

I'm still not impressed with Sam's responses.

"The will of the people"... if you've read the Federalist Papers, you understand that when our forefathers were designing the blueprint for our country, they were worried about two primary things, a standing army, and pure democracy. So many citizens erroneously believe that our system of government is a democracy. This ignorance needs to be corrected whenever encountered! For pure democracy is nothing more than mob rule... the system that the elimination of the Electoral College would ensure. "The People" often get it wrong... just look around. Would you want every fad or trend to be put into place as a law? Not me! A "Representative Republic" as given to us stands the best chance for pursuit of happiness by the most people, solves the problem of democracy, and the issues that befall a Senate like early Rome.

Point being, that a Governor should govern like a representative, not merely rubber stamping the will of the people. The initiative process can be a double edged sword. On the one hand it gives us laws the Legislature would not let us have. On the other hand, it gives us laws the Legislature might be smart enough to avoid.

Again, the Governor is under no obligation to enforce illegal laws put on the books. There is discretion allowed. Especially and until such time as an injunction can be procured.

 

[3MTA3]

I'm still not impressed with Sam's responses.

"The will of the people"... if you've read the Federalist Papers, you understand that when our forefathers were designing the blueprint for our country, they were worried about two primary things, a standing army, and pure democracy. So many citizens erroneously believe that our system of government is a democracy. This ignorance needs to be corrected whenever encountered! For pure democracy is nothing more than mob rule... the system that the elimination of the Electoral College would ensure. "The People" often get it wrong... just look around. Would you want every fad or trend to be put into place as a law? Not me! A "Representative Republic" as given to us stands the best chance for pursuit of happiness by the most people, solves the problem of democracy, and the issues that befall a Senate like early Rome.

Point being, that a Governor should govern like a representative, not merely rubber stamping the will of the people. The initiative process can be a double edged sword. On the one hand it gives us laws the Legislature would not let us have. One the other hand, it gives us laws the Legislature might be smart enough to avoid.

Again, the Governor is under no obligation to enforce illegal laws put on the books. There is discretion allowed. Especially and until such time as an injunction can be procured.

Yup - get an injunction while it gets referred to the Oregon Supreme Court, and if needed above that for a decision.

 

[Voidshot9]

My "higher level?" The point I decided was most important in that instant? It's that this is a country of laws and that a leader cannot just pick and choose what laws to follow.

He's saying that a leader (him in the Governor's seat) has to follow a law on the books instead of picking and choosing. Okay, by following the law, you're enforcing it, no?

I would take the unconstitutional law all the way to the Supreme Court, fighting tooth and nail – and in the meantime, no one would have guns confiscated and no one would go to jail.

And now, he's saying he won't enforce it. Well, which is it? What we don't need right now is nuanced discussion and higher points; we need strong positions that are clearly stated.

I'm having trouble understanding what actions he's saying he'll choose to take if IP-43 makes it onto the books. Is he enforcing it, or not enforcing it? I see two different messages here in his statement. I understand he would fight it, but while it is on the books, the relevant topic is whether or not people are at risk of enforcement. And if they're not at risk of enforcement, then it literally means he's NOT following the law, which is counter to his first point.

 

[Ura-Ki]

I'm still not impressed with Sam's responses.

"The will of the people"... if you've read the Federalist Papers, you understand that when our forefathers were designing the blueprint for our country, they were worried about two primary things, a standing army, and pure democracy. So many citizens erroneously believe that our system of government is a democracy. This ignorance needs to be corrected whenever encountered! For pure democracy is nothing more than mob rule... the system that the elimination of the Electoral College would ensure. "The People" often get it wrong... just look around. Would you want every fad or trend to be put into place as a law? Not me! A "Representative Republic" as given to us stands the best chance for pursuit of happiness by the most people, solves the problem of democracy, and the issues that befall a Senate like early Rome.

Point being, that a Governor should govern like a representative, not merely rubber stamping the will of the people. The initiative process can be a double edged sword. On the one hand it gives us laws the Legislature would not let us have. One the other hand, it gives us laws the Legislature might be smart enough to avoid.

Again, the Governor is under no obligation to enforce illegal laws put on the books. There is discretion allowed. Especially and until such time as an injunction can be procured.

Bingo!
Injunction! This works, it allows him to ostensibly uphold the law while at the same time stopping what he believes to be wrong!

I think be got caught unprepared for every thing he got hit with, and I think as a Non Politician, he isn' fully aware of his positions powers and limits, and he may lack the ability to articulate his intent in a politicians speak, so there it that. While I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here ( and I'm willing to extend that courtesy here for now) i say we give him a chance to show what he is made of, and hold off final judgements unroll such time as we have the Full picture of WHO SAM is!

 

[1Asterisk]

#2 do you want a gov that will not enforce the will of the people as passed by a vote if it was a pro gun bill?

Un-Constitutional laws are passed all the time at every level of government. Laws requiring gun permits for example. Prohibitions on where a firearm can be carried another.

"The will of the people" today is not the will of the majority population. It is only the will of the majority of those who will actually cast a vote; those who only care enough about the issues at hand to get off their asses and vote. These days, that is only a small percentage of the population.

What I 'want' in my government representatives is someone who has educated himself on our State and U.S. Constitutions, and is bright enough to know [or even suspect] when such an un-Constitutional law is brought to the people, and is honorable enough to say and act according to his oath to support and defend the Constitution.

 

[Oathkeeper1775]

The civil discourse in this thread is awesome! Presenting different perspectives without tangents, rants, or ad hominem, is the character of a good discussion.

After reading all the comments here and the comments from Sam Carpenter, I've decided to leave my ballot the way it is, and vote for Sam.

I'm seeing "Spoiler" out of the Wooldridge campaign, and I'm seeing big pharma funding and doo doo out of the Buehler campaign.

 

[Ironbar]

I am still confident in my vote for Sam, and I believe the "F" rating from OFF is unwarranted.

 

[nwslopoke]

I vigilantly scoured the web for information on our gubernatorial candidates and I was 110% certain, based on the information that I was given and my own intuition, that Sam was the man for Oregon. Now not so much.

I really liked Wooldrige's response to the question. Why wasn't Greg more vocal about his 2A position on his website?

That said, I'm not reading far into it. I think the recent F rating is a little knee-jerk and in reality, he's currently like a C+. I'll take that over Brown any day.

Unfortunately Sam answered the IP43 question poorly. I also don't believe everything he says about his background. Welcome to how it is. Woodridge doesn't give the warm fuzzies, either. Will all respect officers over a curtain rank are just politicians. So I respect his service but that alone doesn't guarantee his loyalties.

 

[etrain16]

So far, my vote will still go to Sam Carpenter - his clarifications have eased my concern somewhat, and in comparison to Buehler and Woolridge, I still think he's the better choice. As to OFF's rating, they have made it clear they back Woolridge, so I don't know if that rating is really true, or just to push their membership to back their chosen candidate. Honestly it seems a bit disingenuous to me, given his clarification. His repeated statements of being absolutely against IP43 and pledging to fight against it, even if it passes, sounds more pro-2A than the F rating would reflect.