How many want billery?
- Thread starter willp58
- Start date
- Status
Silver Bullet
Member
If you're going to do that, vote third party.
A vote for a third party is a lost vote for the Republican. A vote for the Democrat is a lost vote for the Republican PLUS a gained vote for the Democrat.
Do the math.
That's what Republicans count on every election cycle. They know we have 'nowhere else to go' and although we're unhappy, the Democrats are much worse. "The most important election of our lifetime........" etc., et yada. always brings us out to vote Republican yet again.......then to be ignored until the next election. We're to the Republican party like the blacks are to the Democrat party-a 'constituency' to be pandered to and used when it's convenient. No, I won't vote Democrat, but I'm done helping elect Republicans until they get the message.
RealGun
Member
R.H. Lee said:
That sounds good except that we are not "being neglected". You should watch CSPAN during debates on gun bills and see who your friends are, or not.
As far as voting logic, you could just be more direct and vote for Hillary. The math is the same.
Silver Bullet
Member
You didn’t do the math, did you ? Tsk, tsk.
Take the following scenario.
One hundred voters, 40 immediately vote for Dem, and 45 immediately vote Repub. The last 15 are thinking it over.
Case R:
The last 15 decide to vote Repub. Results:
Repub: 60
Dem: 40
Lib: 0
Case L:
The last 15 decide to vote Lib. Results:
Repub: 45
Dem: 40
Lib: 15
Case D:
The last 15 decide to vote Dem. Results:
Dem: 55
Repub: 45
Lib: 0
It’s not the same.
RealGun
Member
Silver Bullet said:
Rep 3
Dem 1
Rep wins
Rep 1
Dem 3
Dem wins
Rep 2
Dem 2
Other 0
A draw
Rep 1
Dem 1
Other 2
Other wins, assuming no more than one "other". A draw otherwise.
Rep 1
Dem 2
Other 1
Dem wins. This is the problem scenario, because Rep and Dem are very close in number of votes. Dem wins...uh oh!
Rep 2
Dem 1
Other 1
Rep wins
Same old hissyfit logic- a vote for a third party is a vote for a Democrat. If the Republicans want my vote again, they'll have to begin earning it. And it will take a lot more than just beating back some antigun legislation. I want them reducing the size of government and increasing individual liberties, not the other way around as this administration and Republican controlled congress have done. They've got it exactly backwards. They need to understand that in order to retain power, they have to represent those who put them in power.
swampsniper
Member
Just imagine waking up some morning to find Diane Feinstein as Attorney General!
I won't live long enough to ever trust the dems again.
I won't live long enough to ever trust the dems again.
Strings
Member
Instead of belittling each-other, we should be trying to figure out how to either a)change the Republicans from within or b)how to get a viable third party in there. ANY other for of discussion is silly...
Silver Bullet
Member
The answer to (a) and (b) is the same. Get the Libertarians to infiltrate and influence the Republican Party. That way they can leverage off the Republicans' money, election machine, and public recognition.
It worked for the socialists infiltrating the Democrats.
It worked for the socialists infiltrating the Democrats.
FeebMaster
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Messages
- 275
Silver Bullet said:
Yes and conveniently for the Republicans it keeps people voting for them.
GoRon
Member
Whats your plan?
I would love to have a viable alternative to the RINO's that keep getting served up.
FeebMaster
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Messages
- 275
GoRon said:
Who said I have a plan?
Hmm. Let me come up with one real quick.
1. Get rich.
2. Retire early.
3. Find someplace quiet to relax.
4. Ignore the government at every opportunity.
5. Don't vote.
CAnnoneer
Member
GoRon said:
Tell them to buzz off until they put up somebody you might want to vote for. But, they've got you by the good old "vote for us or else you get ...".
Silver Bullet
Member
Silver Bullet said:
I keep suggesting this, and nobody gives me a valid reason it doesn’t happen.
Ron Paul is an example of a Lib running as a Republican, but as far as I know he is doing it as an individual, not as part of a scheme from the Libs.
The question is, why can’t the Libs as a party or as a collective group with the same philosophy jump in and influence the Republicans to the extent that the socialists have done with the Democrats ? Reflecting on it a bit, I suspect the reason the Libs can’t do it is they don’t have the money behind them. That is, no George Soros benefactor to infuse enough money to establish a goal, devise a plan to achieve that goal, and then to oversee the implementation of that plan, hiring stooges and buying liberal media as needed to implement the plan.
Just a guess.
RealGun
Member
Silver Bullet said:
Because it is more fun to criticize freely rather than to join anything, be accountable, and be somewhat restricted in departing from some party line. Ron Paul would need a lot more company before his message would make any difference. I doubt if he is taken seriously by colleagues at this point.
Malone LaVeigh
Member
Or perhaps because it would put them in league with such neo-con statists as Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice.kfranz said:
GoRon
Member
Or perhaps they are caught in their own group think that doesn't allow them to co-operate or compromise with those that have differing opinions in some areas but simular goals in others.
cropcirclewalker
member
Let's not forget how we got the Brady Law.
Bob Dole, pure and simple.
Nope, you can keep your republicans and your Democrats. I will vote for a striped a$$ed ape before I ever vote for another of them for President (except maybe Ron Paul, which is a fantasy).
http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws9402.htm
Read it and weep.
Last edited:
Silver Bullet
Member
From my point of view, it is irrelevant what politicians were in office when gun restricting laws were made.
What I care about is which of today's politicians are more likely to add more laws, which are less likely, and which are the most likely to remove gun laws.
I'm certainly not going to vote for Hillary just because some of the gun laws were added during Reagan's watch.
What I care about is which of today's politicians are more likely to add more laws, which are less likely, and which are the most likely to remove gun laws.
I'm certainly not going to vote for Hillary just because some of the gun laws were added during Reagan's watch.
KriegHund
Member
Please, Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please!
Dont vote for hillary!
She's the one who co-sponsored that bill to ban violent video games!
A new front in the political wars over sex and violence in video games opened Tuesday when Senators Hillary Clinton and Joseph Lieberman called for a new crackdown on the industry by the federal government. Sex and violence in video games has spiraled out of control, the two Democratic senators claimed, pointing to a recent flap over whether Rockstar Games embedded a sex-themed scene in its popular Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas video game.
Dont vote for hillary!
She's the one who co-sponsored that bill to ban violent video games!
A new front in the political wars over sex and violence in video games opened Tuesday when Senators Hillary Clinton and Joseph Lieberman called for a new crackdown on the industry by the federal government. Sex and violence in video games has spiraled out of control, the two Democratic senators claimed, pointing to a recent flap over whether Rockstar Games embedded a sex-themed scene in its popular Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas video game.
- Status