Vote For President 2016

[El Jefe]

The big picture is that "voting your conscience" or not voting instead of voting for the most conservative candidate that be elected results in more liberal candidates being elected. Remember when the first President Bush lost to President Clinton? What caused that? It was people voting their conscience and going for Perot, who could not win as he was not attracting nearly enough independent voters (middle of the road voters). Had Perot bowed out instead of trying to mount a third party effort when there was no chance for him to win President Clinton would not have been elected. If President Clinton is not elected, the country does not move to the left setting up a time when someone like President Obama can be elected.

The big picture is that the only way to move our country to a more conservative position is to take small steps. Liberals keep their big picture in mind. They want to get rid of guns, but they don't initially try to ban all guns. First they ban only those guns that the regular person wouldn't buy anyway. They take small steps until the government has to grant permission for us to practice our right that is to not be infringed. Now they are trying to ban gun shows. Small steps gets them where they want to go because they keep the big picture in mind. Conservatives need to keep the big picture in mind. If a Romney is what we can get elected this time, then we need to take a Romney. Next time we push a little more to the conservative, Constitutional mindset. Next election we do the same thing. Sometimes we will move more liberal but if we keep up the pressure and keep the big picture in mind we will be able to have real conservatives elected.

We have to remember that in our form of government, where we all take a part in the government, we have to compromise. We will not always get what we want. Our founders knew that but kept the big picture in mind to first get a Declaration of Independence, then a Constitution, then a Bill of Rights. Not everyone wanted each document, but each knew that in order to get what they wanted, what was best for the country as a whole (the big picture) they could not have everything they wanted. This is the big picture.

As for politicians modifying positions. Most of us feel that President Reagan was a very good president. Yet he modified his position on abortion changed over his political life (http://www.gunsnet.net/showthread.ph...te-floor/page2, refer to post 40 for more information). I don't have a problem with modifications if they have a well thought out, well reasoned decision process for why they changed their position.

So lets see if I got this right. Never voting for an actual conservative gets us more conservatism?

You do what you want, but I'm never voting for some squishy RINO again.

And you want to talk big picture? Your RINO's are for open borders and they will help get amnesty passed. Mexicans don't vote for conservatives in Mexico and they aren't going to do it here either. They're all headed north for a job and some free shit on our nickle. In another generation the demographics will be so skewed that the left getting their socialist utopia will be a cake walk. And as long as the elites get a seat at the table they won't give a damn.

Jefferson warned us about this.

[nfa1934]

The big picture is that "voting your conscience" or not voting instead of voting for the most conservative candidate that be elected results in more liberal candidates being elected. Remember when the first President Bush lost to President Clinton? What caused that? It was people voting their conscience and going for Perot, who could not win as he was not attracting nearly enough independent voters (middle of the road voters). Had Perot bowed out instead of trying to mount a third party effort when there was no chance for him to win President Clinton would not have been elected. If President Clinton is not elected, the country does not move to the left setting up a time when someone like President Obama can be elected.

The big picture is that the only way to move our country to a more conservative position is to take small steps. Liberals keep their big picture in mind. They want to get rid of guns, but they don't initially try to ban all guns. First they ban only those guns that the regular person wouldn't buy anyway. They take small steps until the government has to grant permission for us to practice our right that is to not be infringed. Now they are trying to ban gun shows. Small steps gets them where they want to go because they keep the big picture in mind. Conservatives need to keep the big picture in mind. If a Romney is what we can get elected this time, then we need to take a Romney. Next time we push a little more to the conservative, Constitutional mindset. Next election we do the same thing. Sometimes we will move more liberal but if we keep up the pressure and keep the big picture in mind we will be able to have real conservatives elected.

We have to remember that in our form of government, where we all take a part in the government, we have to compromise. We will not always get what we want. Our founders knew that but kept the big picture in mind to first get a Declaration of Independence, then a Constitution, then a Bill of Rights. Not everyone wanted each document, but each knew that in order to get what they wanted, what was best for the country as a whole (the big picture) they could not have everything they wanted. This is the big picture.

Voting for an establishment Republican does not constitute incrementalism in a conservative direction. It's just big government progressivism that will be followed by even more big government progressivism if you continue to reward it with your support. Pressure in a conservative direction within the GOP just isn't working, there is a wing of the party that wants nothing more than to enrich their cronies with cheap illegally imported labor and bigger government - they don't give a damn about you because they are going to shove their guy down your throat, and you are going to vote for him whether you like it or not, just because he has the letter "R" by his name. We elect these clowns with a mandate to do certain things, and they turn around and do nothing they were elected to do. Why? Because they own your vote anyway. You're on the plantation just the same as the welfare Democrats. You're going to vote for them, then they're going to stab you in the back, and you're going to vote for them again anyway. All because of a letter "R". I've played that game too. I held my nose when I voted more times than I can count. And I got nothing for it. Never again. I'm not playing the battered wife role for the establishment GOP ever again. If they can't run somebody worth my vote, then they don't get my vote.

As for politicians modifying positions. Most of us feel that President Reagan was a very good president. Yet he modified his position on abortion changed over his political life (http://www.gunsnet.net/showthread.ph...te-floor/page2, refer to post 40 for more information). I don't have a problem with modifications if they have a well thought out, well reasoned decision process for why they changed their position.

Reagan didn't modify his position in order to pander during an election cycle. Huge difference.

[ltorlo64]

So lets see if I got this right. Never voting for an actual conservative gets us more conservatism?

You do what you want, but I'm never voting for some squishy RINO again.

And you want to talk big picture? Your RINO's are for open borders and they will help get amnesty passed. Mexicans don't vote for conservatives in Mexico and they aren't going to do it here either. They're all headed north for a job and some free shit on our nickle. In another generation the demographics will be so skewed that the left getting their socialist utopia will be a cake walk. And as long as the elites get a seat at the table they won't give a damn.

Jefferson warned us about this.

I don't have any RINOs, but I know that given the number of Democrats and liberal leaning independents electing a true conservative is a pipe dream. I understand that we didn't get to the point of electing President Obama overnight and I understand that we now won't stop electing people like Obama, or RINOs, overnight either. You can choose to not vote for the best candidate who can win and allow Clinton, O'Malley, or Sanders to be elected or you can vote for the best candidate who can win and we will take the first step towards restoring the country. I know this is hard to understand (not being mean here, it is hard to understand) but look at how we got here. It has been approximately 100 years of more liberal politicians who ignore the Constitution just a little more than the last guy to get us here. It will take a similar strategy to take the country back and to still have a country when we are done. I would like it to happen faster, but the social turmoil, even if it could happen, that would result from the federal governments subsidies being stopped would be so destructive as to be akin to cutting off our hands to spite our face. We can have a repeat of Perot and have another Clinton in the White House or we can band together to choose the best candidate that can actually win and get behind that person and get a Republican in the White House. And then we fight to do that again and again until we have restored the Constitution and shrunk government to a manageable size. Unfortunately, as I have explained, this is a long term goal, the big picture which we cannot lose sight of. If we do lose sight of the goal, the RINOs in 10 years will make the RINOs now look like conservative champions.

[ltorlo64]

Voting for an establishment Republican does not constitute incrementalism in a conservative direction. It's just big government progressivism that will be followed by even more big government progressivism if you continue to reward it with your support. Pressure in a conservative direction within the GOP just isn't working, there is a wing of the party that wants nothing more than to enrich their cronies with cheap illegally imported labor and bigger government - they don't give a damn about you because they are going to shove their guy down your throat, and you are going to vote for him whether you like it or not, just because he has the letter "R" by his name. We elect these clowns with a mandate to do certain things, and they turn around and do nothing they were elected to do. Why? Because they own your vote anyway. You're on the plantation just the same as the welfare Democrats. You're going to vote for them, then they're going to stab you in the back, and you're going to vote for them again anyway. All because of a letter "R". I've played that game too. I held my nose when I voted more times than I can count. And I got nothing for it. Never again. I'm not playing the battered wife role for the establishment GOP ever again. If they can't run somebody worth my vote, then they don't get my vote.

Until there is a third party that attracts a significant number of independent voters, most of whom lean at least a little to the left, the Republican party is what you have. It is the only thing that slows the Democrats down. It may not slow them as much as we would like, but it is the only thing. Name a conservative, a true conservative, that has any chance of winning the 2016 election. Remember, they have to be able to attract enough of those independent voters from Clinton to keep her from being elected.

[CigarGuy]

Remember, they have to be able to attract enough of those independent voters from Clinton to keep her from being elected.....

....THE FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT EVER! That is a powerful message to progressives, liberals, AND independents, apparently.

[Gunreference1]

....THE FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT EVER! That is a powerful message to progressives, liberals, AND independents, apparently.

What, did Caitlyn throw 'her' hat into the ring?

Steve

[El Jefe]

I don't have any RINOs, but I know that given the number of Democrats and liberal leaning independents electing a true conservative is a pipe dream. I understand that we didn't get to the point of electing President Obama overnight and I understand that we now won't stop electing people like Obama, or RINOs, overnight either. You can choose to not vote for the best candidate who can win and allow Clinton, O'Malley, or Sanders to be elected or you can vote for the best candidate who can win and we will take the first step towards restoring the country. I know this is hard to understand (not being mean here, it is hard to understand) but look at how we got here. It has been approximately 100 years of more liberal politicians who ignore the Constitution just a little more than the last guy to get us here. It will take a similar strategy to take the country back and to still have a country when we are done. I would like it to happen faster, but the social turmoil, even if it could happen, that would result from the federal governments subsidies being stopped would be so destructive as to be akin to cutting off our hands to spite our face. We can have a repeat of Perot and have another Clinton in the White House or we can band together to choose the best candidate that can actually win and get behind that person and get a Republican in the White House. And then we fight to do that again and again until we have restored the Constitution and shrunk government to a manageable size. Unfortunately, as I have explained, this is a long term goal, the big picture which we cannot lose sight of. If we do lose sight of the goal, the RINOs in 10 years will make the RINOs now look like conservative champions.

It doesn't matter if your electable guy wins or not, he isn't going to roll anything back. He won't demand balanced budgets, he won't close the southern border, he won't defund planned parenthood, he won't stand up to the media......

That's not winning anything, its just prolonging the suffering while the fat cats bleed us dry.

If the founders looked at politics like you do, we'd all still be British subjects.

[El Jefe]

What, did Caitlyn throw 'her' hat into the ring?

Steve

Jeb.

[CigarGuy]

What, did Caitlyn throw 'her' hat into the ring?

Steve

You sayin' pant suits don't make the woman?

[El Jefe]

You sayin' pant suits don't make the woman?

How do we know that thing is really a woman? Bill sure didn't seem interested in hitting it.

Also, what's your thoughts on most of Puerto Rico and Cuba moving in with you?

[nfa1934]

The last two "electable guys" didn't do so well. And don't try to blame it on conservatives staying home. I held my nose and voted for them, and so did everyone else I know. I don't know a single damn person who stayed home. The fact is, those "electable guys" were shitty, lackluster candidates and they fucking lost. They don't want to acknowledge that they were shitty, lackluster losers, so they try to blame conservatives.

[El Jefe]

The last two "electable guys" didn't do so well. And don't try to blame it on conservatives staying home. I held my nose and voted for them, and so did everyone else I know. I don't know a single damn person who stayed home. The fact is, those "electable guys" were shitty, lackluster candidates and they fucking lost. They don't want to acknowledge that they were shitty, lackluster losers, so they try to blame conservatives.

Truth.

[nfa1934]

Name a conservative, a true conservative, that has any chance of winning the 2016 election. Remember, they have to be able to attract enough of those independent voters from Clinton to keep her from being elected.

According to RealClearPolitics polling, Rand Paul is still the closest to Clinton (within 4.4 points). A gap that narrow is easily surmountable in the general election, when Hillary has to face him one-on-one - especially considering how personally dislikable Hillary is, how Rand draws away some demographics that are not competitive with other GOP candidates, and the fact that he offers a true alternative to Hillary (not just Dem-lite) with a pro-liberty platform.

[blacksheep]

we have some good choices this time I hope we dump the douches in the primary so we have a chance this time.

[mrkalashnikov]

According to RealClearPolitics polling, Rand Paul is still the closest to Clinton (within 4.4 points). A gap that narrow is easily surmountable in the general election, when Hillary has to face him one-on-one - especially considering how personally dislikable Hillary is, how Rand draws away some demographics that are not competitive with other GOP candidates, and the fact that he offers a true alternative to Hillary (not just Dem-lite) with a pro-liberty platform.

I would be cool with R Paul in the oval office. I was under the impression he wasn't getting a lot of traction, but I thought that about Obama early in the game as well.

[ltorlo64]

....THE FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT EVER! That is a powerful message to progressives, liberals, AND independents, apparently.

Same way that President Obama was elected. Don't know what he will do but he will be the first.

[nfa1934]

I would be cool with R Paul in the oval office. I was under the impression he wasn't getting a lot of traction, but I thought that about Obama early in the game as well.

He was coming on strong about a month ago in primary polls, but these things shift as the media shifts attention from one to the other - especially this early. He has stalled in the primary election polls, but he is hands-down the strongest in general election polls against Hillary. The Trump media fanfare has drawn away from Paul. He definitely has the strongest stance on individual liberty. I'm waiting to see how he performs in the primaries- the wishy-washy, stance-modifying types won't fare too well against a strong advocate for freedom.

[ltorlo64]

It doesn't matter if your electable guy wins or not, he isn't going to roll anything back. He won't demand balanced budgets, he won't close the southern border, he won't defund planned parenthood, he won't stand up to the media......

That's not winning anything, its just prolonging the suffering while the fat cats bleed us dry.

If the founders looked at politics like you do, we'd all still be British subjects.

Historically, your argument does not hold water. About half the states did not want a Constitution without a BOR, the other half did not see the purpose for a BOR. If they thought as you did, either I get exactly what I want or I am going home, not voting, voting for something else, etc, we would not have become a country. We would be a bunch of states, actually still colonies, ruled by Brittan.

[ltorlo64]

The last two "electable guys" didn't do so well. And don't try to blame it on conservatives staying home. I held my nose and voted for them, and so did everyone else I know. I don't know a single damn person who stayed home. The fact is, those "electable guys" were shitty, lackluster candidates and they fucking lost. They don't want to acknowledge that they were shitty, lackluster losers, so they try to blame conservatives.

The last two electable guys did not have support from a majority of the base because they were not conservative enough. The conservatives did three things to derail their candidacy. 1. Voted their conscience. 2. Did not vote. 3. Tore down the candidate so, even though the conservative voted for them they did not talk any independents into voting for the candidate. It takes more than just the conservatives to elect any candidate, just as it takes more than Democrats to elect a candidate. What the Democrats and liberals do very well is get behind a candidate and convince independents to get behind them as well. They put President Reagan's 11 commandment, thou shalt not talk ill of another Republican very well. So, yeah, I blame conservatives because it is up to us to convince independents (and Democrats if we are really good) to vote for the conservative candidate. We would rather tear down the candidates that don't meet our level of conservatism.

[ltorlo64]

He was coming on strong about a month ago in primary polls, but these things shift as the media shifts attention from one to the other - especially this early. He has stalled in the primary election polls, but he is hands-down the strongest in general election polls against Hillary. The Trump media fanfare has drawn away from Paul. He definitely has the strongest stance on individual liberty. I'm waiting to see how he performs in the primaries- the wishy-washy, stance-modifying types won't fare too well against a strong advocate for freedom.

Senator Paul is not my favorite but I could argue for him and I would definitely vote for him. As I have said, it is more important to win then to get my perfect candidate.