Thank you for your input, my friend.
Now back to those of us who actually vote...
This thread is about voting? I thought it was about an individual.
meh
That's OK, have fun.
Thank you for your input, my friend.
Now back to those of us who actually vote...
Maybe letting Hillary have a turn as supreme political ruler of America for a few years will finally convince you that the problem is not with the person or party elected but with the illegitimate scope and power of the positions we elect them to...
Donald Trump is leading the polls because MANY of his supporters believe all the ills and negative issues we deal with in our country is the fault of "them" and he is the solution for those who see themselves as his "we". He speaks the very same notion of "change" that Obama spouted, but in the dialect his supporters understand. If you look closely, he's not provided any strategies or policies to make these changes. He just says he's against, PC, Mexican illegals, black crime, Muslims and people believe he will fix welfare, immigration, religious terrorists/criminals and crime in general. His machine has really focussed on his pro-2A mindset, but is it real? Will he allow incremental changes he doesn't see as really impeding the rights of gun owner?
"It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. After a tragedy like the massacre at Columbine High School, anyone could feel that it is too easy for Americans to get their hands on weapons. But nobody has a good solution. This is another issue where you see the extremes of the two existing major parties. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions. I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within seventy-two hours if a potential gun owner has a record."
...Are you comforted knowing that you have but a single vote to cast against whomever you determine the worst person vying to wield all that power against us? I wouldn't be.
Do you need something explained further?
She really wants her turn ruling over every aspect of our lives as supreme political ruler of America. Do you really think she'd be attracted to the position if that wasn't the job description?
Are you comforted knowing that you have but a single vote to cast against whomever you determine the worst person vying to wield all that power against us? I wouldn't be.
There'll be a lot of us carrying your water. We are not all above voting. Actually most of us understand our responsibility.
Sigh. What, if any, action do YOU take to fix the problems you point out? Besides posting on INGO and choosing not to vote.
Make sure you get what you like else you'll have to like what you get. Defeatism always seems to lead to .... well .....defeat.
Carrying my water? I would love to hear exactly what you believe that entails...
We'll rally the troops and vote, like we always have, to get the right folks in and fire the wrong ones...
...so you can continue do nothing other than ***** about all of them, us and everything else related.
When has this EVER worked...
It works most of the time. We have the house, we have the senate after having lost them both. The difficulty comes when folks are too stubborn to not compromise and vote for the greater good.
I'm talking about within the context of this discussion, the presidency. My contention in a previous part of the discussion was to focus on the senate and that was discounted and left you and others "carrying my water." So, how has this strategy worked for getting someone in the White House? I say that Paul is the "greater good" for us, but you still have not said who you believe can fill this role.
We'll rally the troops and vote, like we always have, to get the right folks in and fire the wrong ones...
...so you can continue do nothing other than ***** about all of them, us and everything else related.
That is just precious! How did Obama like being fired after you got him in for that first term?
We can only carry so much water. The slacker's numbers matter occasionally. Some folks learn, others...
The greater good is voting against the anti-gun Dem regardless of the name of the candidate. Getting by oneself and whatever purity standards are required for a candidate to "earn their vote."
My man was Walker, but I'm not gonna stomp around blustering that no one else deserves my vote. I'm not going to allow the anti-gun Dems to win out of spite that I didn't get MY WAY.
It's about the numbers, not about me. As stated above, a defensive vote counts the same as a passionate one.
...I do not consent to being ruled by "anyone but Hillary" as I don't consent to being ruled at all.
... So, if you REALLY want to get the democrats out of office, why not try something other than a failing strategy of voting for whomever comes out of the funnel and push to make someone electable in the swing states?
Yet you are consenting by abstention.
I'm happy to listen to your winning strategy, but it has to be just that. Winning as opposed to whining.
I'd be happy to vote for Paul, but he appears to not even be a contender? Who's your next in line? Are they closer to the top of the polls?
Maybe this'll kill off the last of his supporters here
Trump Says Gun Nuts and People With Lots of Ammo Should Be Investigated
Or maybe how he talked about “closing the Internet in some way,” explicitly dismissing concerns about freedom of speech.
'We Have to Talk to Them, Maybe in Certain Areas, Closing that Internet Up in Some Way.' | National Review Online
Or, of course, the 100% Muslim ban.
Donald Trump: Ban all Muslim travel to U.S. - CNNPolitics.com
C'mon fellas... look at what he is, and put your support behind a different candidate.