Staff Member
Gold Supporter
Silver Supporter
- Messages
- 8,905
- Reactions
- 31,438
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I really like Kurt Schlichter's articles.
How and why did bill kristol go off the tracks?
Is he a not so stealthy leftist pretending to be Conservative?
He already did.
I agree. All the blather about how he hasn't and would never stab us in the back is BS. He already has (getting ATF to administratively ban bump stocks) and appears to be signaling that he's willing to do it again by making conciliatory remarks regarding red flag laws and background checks. Everyone appears to be forgetting his comment regarding confiscation first and due process later. I wouldn't, and don't, trust that he's actually going to support and defend our right to keep and bear arms beyond what is necessary for his political survival.
He stated this with HIS OWN comments 8 or 9 times (For sure 8 or 9 times alone!) about RED FLAG LAWS and other comments about guns in general at the one meeting alone that was RECORDED, filmed with sound, and it is on the TRANSCRIPT put out on the news and in an official WH document when he sat at the table with Dianne F. and other Ds and Rs.
You can't trust what he says and he has flip flopped so much during town hall meetings, before and after the primaries and elections about all kinds of issues not only in GUN issues.
He has NO sound understanding or BELIEF in the absolute meaning of the RKBA issue. NOT all NY people think like him and some of them in other parts of the state AND in the cities/small towns/rural areas KNOW what the RKBA issue really is.
Cate
Bill Kristol is the poster boy for the Never Trumper's crowd. Basically RINO's.How and why did bill kristol go off the tracks?
Is he a not so stealthy leftist pretending to be Conservative?
I'm still voting for Trump.
To not vote for him is to vote for the socialist Dems.
It is this type of unconditional guaranteed support from a segment of gun owners that gives Republicans politicians the OK to go ahead and burn us. After all, why should they care about gun owners, if a significant subset of them don't care enough about their rights to force the politicians to keep their promises?
I've always been told to not gripe without offering a solution... so what is your solution in a binary race?
Is a better system 10 candidates where the winning candidate might get, say 11% of the popular vote and therefore a "majority" and yet not represent 89% of the people's interests?
Not far off. Bill Clinton won in 1992 in a 3-way race by winning only 43% of the popular vote. In that year, we actually had a really excellent President Bush. He was the most qualified man for the job in my lifetime: Navy war pilot hero, CIA director, 2-term Vice President under Reagan (excellent POTUS overall), was part of defeating the Nazis/Japanese and the Russians in the Cold war, and was the Commander in Chief to swiftly defeat Saddam and Iraq. Bush had the 3rd highest approval rating of any POTUS or darn near close to 61%.
Presidential Approval Ratings -- Gallup Historical Statistics and Trends
Do you approve or disapprove of the way ... is handling his job as president?news.gallup.com
Yet because of a 3rd party spoiler we ended up with the virus known as the Clintons with Bill's 43% popular vote. In spite of his scandal free term and stellar credentials and experience, he lost because of dummies who voted for a spoiler. And we got the Clinton curse. {Yes I know how the EC works, let's not get sidetracked}
So, really, the binary system is the best. In theory and practice, ideally the candidates are powerfully vetted in various stages and the best will rise to the top much like a sports championship. You can't have a coherent game with 5 teams playing each other on the same field. It's just too many variables and too much going on and the "best" won't necessarily win.
What is the better system?
BTW, there really are only 2 coherent sides to most important issues.
Pick and issue. There's really just a "for" or "against" and then generally some middle ground where, in theory, the candidates should naturally gravitate because of the checks and balances built into the system to vet our extreme positions. There isn't 10 pragmatic positions to gun rights or gun control, or abortion, or assisted suicide, or drunk driving, or war, or murder, or whatever. There's 2. You're either for it or against.
10 choices would simply be paralyzing. We'd probably see meaningless differences or no differences in candidates and probably less voter enthusiasm or participation. Think about it, are you excited to see 20 candidates on a stage duking it out? Few people can keep track of all the platforms and positions and it's just too much. People tend to need red or blue options, which are generally split ideologically on big or small government, nanny state or self-reliance, evil vs. good, etc.