GlockTalk Forum banner

41 - 60 of 71 Posts

·
With Liberty and Justice for all.
Joined
·
20,496 Posts
The logical time to vote against a Republican that you dislike is in the GOP primary. Once it gets to the general election then we have got to support the party no matter what. It makes no sense to not vote for the GOP candidate at that point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,704 Posts
The logical time to vote against a Republican that you dislike is in the GOP primary. Once it gets to the general election then we have got to support the party no matter what. It makes no sense to not vote for the GOP candidate at that point.

Personally, I don’t, never have voted “for” any Republicans. Includes Trump. I’m secretly too radical about what should be getting done to “support” any of them. So I vote as effectively as possible against the Democratic Party.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
I view the 3rd party voters on either side as saying “I want to celebrate all the positives of the next four to eight years with everyone else but then step aside and blame others for the negatives.” It’s a cop-out, saying the choice is too hard or both candidates are too imperfect so that voter doesn’t want to be burdened with the decision. So 160 million-plus other voters can shoulder responsibility for it without them.

Then they can ride along for the good times then hop off the ride and point at whoever stepped up and made the choice during the rough patches.

I was a Cruz guy but he didn’t win, so I was left with Trump or Hillary. I made my choice. When Trump has his rough patches I own it. When he does good things like nominating someone likely to help cement 2a for another generation, locking in a 6-3 court, I celebrate and brag.

And I also inwardly flip a middle finger to the 3d party voters who want to celebrate with me though they were the first to point out they didn’t vote for the guy last time he stuck his foot in his mouth.

I consider it my Civic duty to make a decision and be heard in this scenario. If the choices are bad that’s a primary issue. But I’m not gonna fold my arms and pout and waste my General Election vote waiting for the perfect GOP candidate while the left targets everything we hold dear with every ounce of strength they can muster.
 

·
NRA Life Member
Joined
·
63,416 Posts
Since becoming president, Trump has:
  1. Openly embraced Nancy Pelosi’s gun-control agenda
  2. Banned bump stocks via executive order
  3. Pushed for enhanced background checks
  4. Proposed expanding red flag laws on a national level
And yet everything you just listed is a lie.

As someone who has shown himself to be a threat to the entire Constitution, Trump has gone after other parts of the Bill of Rights — such as the right to privacy and the right to due process — to advance his pro-gun control, anti-Second Amendment agenda, such as:

  1. Suggesting law enforcement ignore due process rights to make it easier for the government to seize guns
  2. Proposing social media companies develop tracking tools to “detect mass shooters before they strike”
  3. Having his DOJ take Google and Apple to court in an attempt to force them to turn over personal information on users of a phone app that calibrates rifle scopes
  4. Proposing the creation of a phone app to conduct remote background checks via the NICS system that would give government greater access to personal information without due process and eventually lead to the creation of a de facto national gun registry
In a recent report by Michael Maharrey for the Tenth Amendment Center, we find more evidence of Trump’s pro-gun control, anti-Second Amendment approach to gun rights.

For the third straight year, the Trump administration has ramped up enforcement of unconstitutional federal gun control, according to the latest data released by the ATF.

Last year, the ATF investigated 35,790 firearms cases. That was on par with the 35,839 firearms cases the agency investigated in 2018. This after the ATF significantly increased the number of cases it pursued during Trump’s first year in office.

In 2016, the final year of the Obama administration, the ATF investigated 31,853 firearms cases. During Trump’s first year, the agency investigated 35,302. That was 3,349 more firearms cases than under Obama, a 10.81 percent increase.

Cases Recommended for Prosecution

The big jump we saw in 2019 was in the number of cases recommended for prosecution.

Last year, the ATF recommended 11,319 cased for prosecution. That compares with 10,691 cases recommended for prosecution in 2018, a 5.9 percent increase year-on-year. This continues an upward trend in prosecutions we’ve seen going back to the Obama years.

    • 2019 – 11,319
    • 2018 – 10,691
    • 2017 – 9,591
    • 2016 – 8,805
    • 2015 – 7,516
    • 2014 – 7,577
Since Trump has been in the White House, the number of cases recommended for prosecution has increased by 28.6 percent.

Indicted cases

The number of cases leading to indictment also went up significantly last year. The ATF got indictments in 8,360 cases last year compared to 7,630 in 2018. In all, the feds indicted 12,441 defendants last year.

    • 2019 – 8,360
    • 2018 – 7,630
    • 2017 – 7,137
    • 2016 – 6,357
    • 2015 – 5,503
    • 2014 – 5,310
Convicted cases

The number of cases leading to a conviction was up 20.4 percent year on year. In 2019, the ATF tallied 6,887 convicted cases compared with 5,485 the year before. In total, the federal government convicted 9,773 defendants in cases brought by the ATF.

    • 2019 – 6,887
    • 2018 – 5,485
    • 2017 – 6,068
    • 2016 – 5,517
    • 2015 – 4,031
    • 2014 – 4,482
The ATF also investigates arson, cases involving explosives, and alcohol and tobacco cases, but these make up a small percentage of the total. Under Trump, 92 percent of the cases investigated by the ATF have involved firearms. It was slightly less under Obama – 90 percent.

ATF enforcement of federal gun laws under Trump in year one increased at roughly the same trajectory as it did during the last three years of Obama’s second term and it has continued at roughly the same pace since. In other words, the NRA-backed, GOP protector of the Second Amendment has been no better than the Democratic Party gun-grabber.
And? Most of us don't propose that the government stop prosecuting criminals and the NRA's position has always been "increase prosecution under existing gun laws."

We regularly say, "we don't need new gun laws, we need to prosecute those who break the ones we have," so we aren't complaining.

I realize someone like you wouldn't know that, whose only purpose in being here is to pretend to be a gun owner so you can try to convinced somebody to not vote Republican.

The fraudulent attempts from those of you on the left to fool people into not voting or voting third party are getting tiresome.
 

·
NRA Life Member
Joined
·
63,416 Posts
Personally, I don’t, never have voted “for” any Republicans. Includes Trump. I’m secretly too radical about what should be getting done to “support” any of them. So I vote as effectively as possible against the Democratic Party.
That's fine as long as people have the sense to realize a vote for a Libertarian or Constitution Party or whatever is a vote FOR the Democrats. Voting for candidates who can beat them is the only way to vote against them.
 

·
If the coronavirus doesn't take you out, can I?
Joined
·
1,017 Posts
In many ways, Trump is a third party candidate who won, and was attacked by both major parties at least at first.
Nailed it.

He did it in a smart way, he ran in one of the two major parties. If you can't win a primary it is hard to win the general election. With proper timing Ross Perot could have done that.
Ross laid the groundwork for a Trump and was the best candidate when he ran.

Guys like you put Bill Clinton in the White House.

Thanks.
No, history did. Bush was never going to win.
 

·
Georgia gal
Joined
·
1,140 Posts
Since becoming president, Trump has:

  1. Openly embraced Nancy Pelosi’s gun-control agenda
  2. Banned bump stocks via executive order
  3. Pushed for enhanced background checks
  4. Proposed expanding red flag laws on a national level
As someone who has shown himself to be a threat to the entire Constitution, Trump has gone after other parts of the Bill of Rights — such as the right to privacy and the right to due process — to advance his pro-gun control, anti-Second Amendment agenda, such as:

  1. Suggesting law enforcement ignore due process rights to make it easier for the government to seize guns
  2. Proposing social media companies develop tracking tools to “detect mass shooters before they strike”
  3. Having his DOJ take Google and Apple to court in an attempt to force them to turn over personal information on users of a phone app that calibrates rifle scopes
  4. Proposing the creation of a phone app to conduct remote background checks via the NICS system that would give government greater access to personal information without due process and eventually lead to the creation of a de facto national gun registry
In a recent report by Michael Maharrey for the Tenth Amendment Center, we find more evidence of Trump’s pro-gun control, anti-Second Amendment approach to gun rights.

For the third straight year, the Trump administration has ramped up enforcement of unconstitutional federal gun control, according to the latest data released by the ATF.

Last year, the ATF investigated 35,790 firearms cases. That was on par with the 35,839 firearms cases the agency investigated in 2018. This after the ATF significantly increased the number of cases it pursued during Trump’s first year in office.

In 2016, the final year of the Obama administration, the ATF investigated 31,853 firearms cases. During Trump’s first year, the agency investigated 35,302. That was 3,349 more firearms cases than under Obama, a 10.81 percent increase.

Cases Recommended for Prosecution

The big jump we saw in 2019 was in the number of cases recommended for prosecution.

Last year, the ATF recommended 11,319 cased for prosecution. That compares with 10,691 cases recommended for prosecution in 2018, a 5.9 percent increase year-on-year. This continues an upward trend in prosecutions we’ve seen going back to the Obama years.

    • 2019 – 11,319
    • 2018 – 10,691
    • 2017 – 9,591
    • 2016 – 8,805
    • 2015 – 7,516
    • 2014 – 7,577
Since Trump has been in the White House, the number of cases recommended for prosecution has increased by 28.6 percent.

Indicted cases

The number of cases leading to indictment also went up significantly last year. The ATF got indictments in 8,360 cases last year compared to 7,630 in 2018. In all, the feds indicted 12,441 defendants last year.

    • 2019 – 8,360
    • 2018 – 7,630
    • 2017 – 7,137
    • 2016 – 6,357
    • 2015 – 5,503
    • 2014 – 5,310
Convicted cases

The number of cases leading to a conviction was up 20.4 percent year on year. In 2019, the ATF tallied 6,887 convicted cases compared with 5,485 the year before. In total, the federal government convicted 9,773 defendants in cases brought by the ATF.

    • 2019 – 6,887
    • 2018 – 5,485
    • 2017 – 6,068
    • 2016 – 5,517
    • 2015 – 4,031
    • 2014 – 4,482
The ATF also investigates arson, cases involving explosives, and alcohol and tobacco cases, but these make up a small percentage of the total. Under Trump, 92 percent of the cases investigated by the ATF have involved firearms. It was slightly less under Obama – 90 percent.

ATF enforcement of federal gun laws under Trump in year one increased at roughly the same trajectory as it did during the last three years of Obama’s second term and it has continued at roughly the same pace since. In other words, the NRA-backed, GOP protector of the Second Amendment has been no better than the Democratic Party gun-grabber.

Nice try. Assuming all of that were true (which it's NOT), do you think Biden (Harris) would be a better choice? Trump and Biden are the only two choices that have any chance of winning, whether you like that or not. Face reality.

If you help Biden (Harris) get elected, THIS is what you're voting for (from Biden's own website):

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzzT5SQ7Pk0



If you really value your gun rights, you might want to think twice about helping Biden (Harris) get elected. it's about the easiest decision it could possibly be especially if gun rights/2A are important to you.






Vote Trump/Republican 2020!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,396 Posts
Ross laid the groundwork for a Trump and was the best candidate when he ran.

No, history did. Bush was never going to win.
Perot had no business running for President. He was the most paranoid and insane CEO on the planet - what with all those black helicopters following him everywhere he went...

And you can keep rationalizing all you want, but the clowns who voted for Perot put Clinton in the White House because they do not get the fact that the US is a two-party system during Presidential elections. Period.
 

·
Man, I'm Pretty
Joined
·
29,979 Posts
There seems to be a trend to vote for a third party candidate as well as financial backing of third candidates by the liberals. All I can say is that if you vote for a third paryy at this time you are dodging your responsibilities to our republic by voting to a realistically ineffectial candidate. If liberals win by a meager margin then you are deserving of what you receive. Realistically such a vote is really a vote for the liberals. Enough said.
Normally I would agree with you but our Governor has to go and I'm not voting for the lunatic Democrat. I just voted for a Libertarian for the fist time in my life.

Rainwater was the only one in the race I could vote for in good conscience.

Regards,
Happyguy :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: syntaxerrorsix

·
If the coronavirus doesn't take you out, can I?
Joined
·
1,017 Posts
Perot had no business running for President. He was the most paranoid and insane CEO on the planet - what with all those black helicopters following him everywhere he went...

And you can keep rationalizing all you want, but the clowns who voted for Perot put Clinton in the White House because they do not get the fact that the US is a two-party system during Presidential elections. Period.
I have to respectfully disagree. Bush was NEVER going to win. Perot, or no Perot. The Republicans had already had 12 years, they were not getting 16. I wish they had, but it wasn't going to happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,704 Posts
That's fine as long as people have the sense to realize a vote for a Libertarian or Constitution Party or whatever is a vote FOR the Democrats. Voting for candidates who can beat them is the only way to vote against them.

Voting as effectively as possible against the Democrats means voting for the Republicans, correct. It's like damned if you do, f ***** d if you don't. I'll take damned lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,396 Posts
I have to respectfully disagree. Bush was NEVER going to win. Perot, or no Perot. The Republicans had already had 12 years, they were not getting 16. I wish they had, but it wasn't going to happen.
You can disagree all you want.

Perot took 19% of the vote.

Clinton won with 43%.

If Perot voters voted for Bush he would have had 56% of the vote. No candidate has ever lost the EC vote with 56% of the popular vote.
 

·
If the coronavirus doesn't take you out, can I?
Joined
·
1,017 Posts
Perot
You can disagree all you want.

Perot took 19% of the vote.

Clinton won with 43%.

If Perot voters voted for Bush he would have had 56% of the vote. No candidate has ever lost the EC vote with 56% of the popular vote.
You’re assuming all 19% would have voted Bush. That is not the case. Data suggested something like 66% of Perot voters were Democrats or Independents. Only 25% or so identified as conservatives.

At the best, maybe Perot voters would have been split 50/50 between Bush and Clinton. Perot didn’t change the outcome, he just siphoned off votes from both.
 

·
Wolverine
Joined
·
8,829 Posts
You can disagree all you want.

Perot took 19% of the vote.

Clinton won with 43%.

If Perot voters voted for Bush he would have had 56% of the vote. No candidate has ever lost the EC vote with 56% of the popular vote.
People who don’t understand this were probably brought up on New Math.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,090 Posts
You’re assuming all 19% would have voted Bush. That is not the case. Data suggested something like 66% of Perot voters were Democrats or Independents. Only 25% or so identified as conservatives.

At the best, maybe Perot voters would have been split 50/50 between Bush and Clinton. Perot didn’t change the outcome, he just siphoned off votes from both.
This. And some would not have not voted at all.
 

·
With Liberty and Justice for all.
Joined
·
20,496 Posts
Perot

You’re assuming all 19% would have voted Bush. That is not the case. Data suggested something like 66% of Perot voters were Democrats or Independents. Only 25% or so identified as conservatives.

At the best, maybe Perot voters would have been split 50/50 between Bush and Clinton. Perot didn’t change the outcome, he just siphoned off votes from both.
Can you cite this source? I recall it was the other way around. 66% of Perot voters were Republicans. Perot knew this and only ran because he hated Bush and knew he could affect the election.
 

·
If the coronavirus doesn't take you out, can I?
Joined
·
1,017 Posts

·
With Liberty and Justice for all.
Joined
·
20,496 Posts

·
If the coronavirus doesn't take you out, can I?
Joined
·
1,017 Posts
41 - 60 of 71 Posts
Top