View Full Version : If the Establishment pulls a fast one at the convention and gives us a RINO, you'll:
Say they get cute and deny Trump or Cruz the nomination through backroom shenanigans, and offer us a Romney/Ryan/Kasich/any other RINO, then have the unmitigated nerve to chide us all into holding hands and "sticking together" to beat the Sea-Hag Bitch, what would you do?
I would skip the POTUS lever altogether in November, even if that means Cuntlery wins.
Sadly, I honestly believe that the Establishment RINO's could stomach her for 4-8 years rather than allow Trump or Cruz to be leader of the party.
BoringGuy45
03-22-16, 13:33
I'll pull the lever for the RINO. Even .0000001% better than Hillary is still better. There's a chance that a RINO could still give us a pro-2A judge; there's a 0% chance that Hillary or Bernie will.
I'll pull the lever for the RINO. Even .0000001% better than Hillary is still better. There's a chance that a RINO could still give us a pro-2A judge; there's a 0% chance that Hillary or Bernie will.
You do know that is playing right into their hands don't you? If they pulled a stunt like that they'd need to be taught a valuable lesson. I predict (as I think this poll will show) enough people would say "Go to hell RNC" that the Dems would win.....quite handily as a matter of fact, perhaps a landslide. It would be a self-inflicted yet deserved outcome for the Establishment.
Honestly I'm voting 2A this election cycle. Who ever impresses upon me they hate guns the least will get my vote.
I will vote for what ever R we end up with. Playing into their hands, maybe. But if after the election they received 10,000,000 calls or emails telling them no more votes and no more money until they start acting like constitution supporting conservatives.
We might get their attention.
But any gun guy that votes for the D's in any form this election might as well stick a pistol in his mouth. Cause that will be the last act he will get to do with a gun before it is banned.
Auto-X Fil
03-22-16, 13:48
You're assuming Hillary wins. Bernie's stance on guns is decidedly better. I trust him with my rights more than Trump.
But yes, I'd vote for any R over Hillary.
I will do everything legal in my power to ensure Hillary is not POTUS
I'll vote for anyone to keep Hillary out. Maybe at least we can slow this disaster a couple of mph.
Don't care.
Anybody but Hillary.
If Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and freaking Pol Pot showed up in a time machine. I'd literally vote for any one of those over Hillary because at least they on their worst day would still be more honest and genuine than that cobweb crotch bitch
BoringGuy45
03-22-16, 14:24
You do know that is playing right into their hands don't you? If they pulled a stunt like that they'd need to be taught a valuable lesson. I predict (as I think this poll will show) enough people would say "Go to hell RNC" that the Dems would win.....quite handily as a matter of fact, perhaps a landslide. It would be a self-inflicted yet deserved outcome for the Establishment.
I'm not for cutting off my nose to spite my face. Intentionally handing this country over to the enemy so that we can say "told ya so," is going to destroy us. A GOP establishment candidate may not improve this country, but he'll either keep it from getting worse or at least slow down our slide into chaos a bit more than Hitlery or Comrade Sanders. Once we've solidified a better SCOTUS make up, we can work on sticking it to the GOP. For now, I'm just for getting the Donkeys out of the White House.
Although it hasn't been posted long, half the people who have voted in this poll thus far won't vote for the RINO. While I don't understand those who would instead vote for Hillary/Bernie (I could NEVER hit the "D" lever) it nonetheless shows that such chicanery in Cleveland would (and should) cost the Republicans the election.
I guess the key is to lean on the convention-goers to not pull any such bullshit, right?
Eurodriver
03-22-16, 14:36
I'll vote for the Dem.
Outlander Systems
03-22-16, 14:41
Same. If I get ****ed, you get a ****in' right back.
As far as I'm concerned, if the Whigs decide to pull a fast one, then they deserve to fail.
I ain't votin' for a loser, to pacify losers. It's like turning down Michael Jordan for Brian Scalabrine. And then having Tonya Harding's muscle break Michael Jordan's leg.
Then you turn around, and lose the game.
Naw, ninja. I'll pass.
I'll vote for the Dem.
Say they get cute and deny Trump or Cruz the nomination through backroom shenanigans, and offer us a Romney/Ryan/Kasich/any other RINO, then have the unmitigated nerve to chide us all into holding hands and "sticking together" to beat the Sea-Hag Bitch, what would you do?
I would skip the POTUS lever altogether in November, even if that means Cuntlery wins.
Sadly, I honestly believe that the Establishment RINO's could stomach her for 4-8 years rather than allow Trump or Cruz to be leader of the party.
At that point I will no longer be a Republican.
Eurodriver
03-22-16, 14:49
Look, eventually, whether its 2016 or 2020 or 2024 one of those lefty lunatics is gonna get back in the WH with a full congress behind him or her. Why kick the can down the road? You guys have families. I get that when you have kids you actually don't want BLM looting in your neighborhood. You don't want any gun control laws because you'll have to turn your shit in or else your family ends up on the streets when you go to jail. Some of us don't have your problems, and Hillary 2016 will be an awesome party. Let's get it started.
But my real reason for voting (D) will be because it is easier to fight the enemy than your own. What if Kasich gets in office, and (as is historically the case) a Democratic congress takes control in the mid term. Then some nutcase white guy blows away 30 more kindergarteners? You think he's going to plant his flag in the ground and say he won't sign anything? Do any of you think anyone on the R ticket is going to do anything at all about immigration when they are being funded by businesses making $$$$$ off cheap labor? At least losing the Presidency (especially if its a RINO) means we keep the House and can name call the President for 4 more years.
What I'm saying, in a nutshell, is that electing a RINO to the Presidency will be significantly worse than either Bernie or Hillary because this charade will just drag on...and on...and we won't even be able to say "No **** that bitch, now it's time for the white people to riot". Because the bitch won't be in office. Our bitch will...
brickboy240
03-22-16, 14:51
Maybe voting for the RINO is playing into the GOP establishment's hands.
However, not voting at all is ALSO playing into the Democrat's hands. They are hoping and praying that the GOP establishment pulls this stunt so Hillary can cake-walk right in to the Oval Office. They know that Hillary is an awful candidate with a truckload of baggage and a mealy-mouthed and spineless moderate GOP candidate will be what they need to ensure many of you take your crayons and go home and THEY win.
I would suck it up and vote for the RINO, knowing that we MUST keep Hillary from winning...at all costs. I would even vote for Trump over Hillary.
We were NOT going to get our perfect candidate in one whack, come on now. We did not get INTO this mess in one election cycle....why would anyone think we'd climb out of it in one cycle?
Deal with the RINO prez and keep our eyes focused on state and local elections and putting more conservative people in place. This is how we replaced other RINOs with people like Cruz, Lee and Paul. It is probably going to be easier to fill Congress with real conservatives by doing it a few races per election cycle. The national elections, like president, might not be won again by a conservative for a few more cycles. However, if we are filling Congress and state and local spots with real conservatives, this WILL make a national impact eventually.
But in the end, we cannot have Hillary ease her way into the WH. That means 4-8 years of absolute darkness and our fragile republic just cannot take this after 8 years of Obama.
Eurodriver
03-22-16, 14:56
But in the end, we cannot have Hillary ease her way into the WH. That means 4-8 years of absolute darkness and our fragile republic just cannot take this after 8 years of Obama.
This is exactly why we need her, nephew.
Look, eventually, whether its 2016 or 2020 or 2024 one of those lefty lunatics is gonna get back in the WH with a full congress behind him or her. Why kick the can down the road? You guys are a bunch of pussies with families. I get that when you have kids you actually don't want BLM looting in your neighborhood. You don't want any gun control laws because you'll have to turn your shit in or else your family ends up on the streets when you go to jail. Some of us don't have your problems, and Hillary 2016 will be an awesome party.
Let's get this party started, but my real reason for voting (D) will be because it is easier to fight the enemy than your own. What if Kasich gets in office, and (as is historically the case) a Democratic congress takes control in the mid term. Then some nutcase white guy blows away 30 more kindergarteners? You think he's going to plant his flag in the ground and say he won't sign anything? Do any of you think anyone on the R ticket is going to do anything at all about immigration when they are being funded by businesses making $$$$$ off cheap labor?
Losing the Presidency (especially if its a RINO) means we keep the House. I'll take that trade.
Look man, I get it. Might as well throw a parade whilst the ship sinks and all.
It's obvious it's going to turn into a shooting in the streets scenario eventually anyway, it always has and always will. I just want more time, more people to wake the F up- so when it does go down we have a better chance of it ending with a good result and the right people holding the reigns.
Hence, I deleted my post.
Eurodriver
03-22-16, 14:58
Look man, I get it. Might as well throw a parade whilst the ship sinks and all.
It's obvious it's going to turn into a shooting in the streets scenario eventually anyway, it always has and always will. I just want more time, more people to wake the F up- so when it does go down we have a better chance of it ending with a good result and the right people holding the reigns.
I deleted my quote of your post because I didn't want you to think I was directing it toward you ;) I just went off on a rant after quoting you.
I deleted my quote of your post because I didn't want you to think I was directing it toward you ;) I just went off on a rant after quoting you.
No worries brother. I didn't take it that way.
It's just so frustrating. Part of me still has hope we can turn things around, but the other part of me knows we don't and just to be ready for when things go sideways and do everything I can as an individual to make it out alive and not under the control of an even worse evil than we've had before and currently.
The world is going into an epoch of great turmoil and chaos. The thin veneer of civilization is fading. Those that seek total control of the world didn't magically go away or get defeated- they've just been slowly slithering their way into power throughout the world and are squeezing the shit out of you, me and the rest of the "regular folks" throughout the world.
There is no easy or fun way to stop it. Only to be as ready as possible for the roller coaster of chaos and hope for it to end in a positive fashion.
Doc Safari
03-22-16, 15:08
Hitlery would be our worst nightmare of an anti-Second Amendment president. After living through the Clinton years the first time, I became convinced that Bill wouldn't have pursued the anti-gun agenda without her prodding him into it from the background.
She is militantly anti-gun. She will use whatever powers and influence she has to bring back assault weapons bans (this time with Australian-style confiscation), as well as mandatory waiting periods, licensing of gun owners, limits on ammo purchases and things she probably hasn't even thought of yet.
I literally would rather have the world's worst Republican than her.
Straight Shooter
03-22-16, 15:21
Im sick & tired of voting for the lesser of two evils...not doing it anymore. Don't blame me or people who feel like me for the sorry ass selection we have to choose from. Ive done my part for a few decades now..IM OUT.
A RHINO shenanigan will almost definitely hand the election to the D's. If that's the case, I think Trump and Cruz will unite and go third party. The government has quickly discounted the people's votes and frankly that pisses me off. This is the reason I am an Independent. The people will vote for Trump or Cruz and it will probably be the first time in history a third party wins.
If that isn't the case, I will still vote R because anything D at this point is going to weaken this country further and almost guarantee a terrorist attack or even worse, an invasion.
Im sick & tired of voting for the lesser of two evils...not doing it anymore. Don't blame me or people who feel like me for the sorry ass selection we have to choose from. Ive done my part for a few decades now..IM OUT.
Perfectly worded sir! NO MORE!!!!!!! There are only two guys who have a shot at the LEGITIMATE nomination. No others. One I actually like (Cruz), one I'll reluctantly hold my nose and vote for only because he's not an Establishment candidate. Anyone else would not be legit so don't try it.
Doc Safari
03-22-16, 15:25
Im sick & tired of voting for the lesser of two evils...not doing it anymore. Don't blame me or people who feel like me for the sorry ass selection we have to choose from. Ive done my part for a few decades now..IM OUT.
I totally hear you. If Sanders ends up the nominee, I may just stay home.
BUT WE CANNOT LET HILLARY CLINTON BECOME PRESIDENT!
A RHINO shenanigan will almost definitely hand the election to the D's. If that's the case, I think Trump and Cruz will unite and go third party.
If that happens I'll most certainly vote 3rd party.
I wonder how the poll would change if instead of Hillary, it was Bernie as the assumed Dem nominee. From the comments here, I'd imagine it would be overwhelmingly stay-at-home.
brickboy240
03-22-16, 15:41
All of you that are staying home on November.
Please refrain from coming here and complaining about the new gun laws that Hillary enacts, your tax rate, lack of employment or the far left Supreme Court nominees that will tip the court for the next 30-40 years.
No coming here and whining because you cannot find 9mm ammo anywhere or your neighbor wants you to pay him 1500 bucks for his Bushmaster AR.
No whining...m-kay?
Eurodriver
03-22-16, 15:48
All of you that are staying home on November.
Please refrain from coming here and complaining about the new gun laws that Hillary enacts, your tax rate, lack of employment or the far left Supreme Court nominees that will tip the court for the next 30-40 years.
No coming here and whining because you cannot find 9mm ammo anywhere or your neighbor wants you to pay him 1500 bucks for his Bushmaster AR.
No whining...m-kay?
I'm not staying at home. I'm voting for Hillary if some convention Whig wizardry is afoot. Why would I complain about any of that? The higher the taxes get, the more guns that are banned, the more people that are unemployed, and the harder ammo is to find all create a perfect scenario where I am the most heavily armed guy on the block with the least to lose.
I wouldn't expect you to understand this because you'll be standing in line handing in your guns and complaining about "those psychos" down in Florida.
WickedWillis
03-22-16, 15:59
There is nothing on this planet that would make me vote for Hillary, or not vote for someone running against her.
I wasn't joking.
If Hillbitch gets up in there and the Geriatric Old People pull some shit I'm writing in Joe Stalin and Traci Lords for veep.
All I need to survive the apocalypse is Mr. Pibb, an MP3 player full of alt and post punk, a bolt action, a box of Trojans, a 5.11 ruck, Marlboro Reds, some really badass bourbon, and that's all.
then trump will be independent on the ticket I reckon ?
if not would be good if all trump supporters did a write in :)
A RHINO shenanigan will almost definitely hand the election to the D's. If that's the case, I think Trump and Cruz will unite and go third party.
If that happened, they could win. I would go for that. Trump would have to be P and Ted VP though. Wouldn't work the other way around.
Eurodriver
03-22-16, 16:42
If that happened, they could win. I would go for that. Trump would have to be P and Ted VP though. Wouldn't work the other way around.
No way Jose. Whoever wins needs a majority of electoral votes. Without a majority the tie goes to the House.
You know, big daddy Ryan and his cronies. But it is broken down by state delegation not number of reps. I wonder what that break down would look like.
Does anyone know how many states have representative delegations with a plurality of republicans?
Doc Safari
03-22-16, 16:59
All I can say is that if the RINO's do take the nomination away from the top vote-getter , it will be the end of the Republican party long-term. The people are not going to stand for their votes not counting once it becomes apparent that their votes don't matter as a verified fact versus just the suspicion that their votes don't matter.
I would vote for a so called RINO over trump any day. Trump doesn't even pretend to be a Republican.
All of you that are staying home on November.
Please refrain from coming here and complaining about the new gun laws that Hillary enacts, your tax rate, lack of employment or the far left Supreme Court nominees that will tip the court for the next 30-40 years.
No coming here and whining because you cannot find 9mm ammo anywhere or your neighbor wants you to pay him 1500 bucks for his Bushmaster AR.
No whining...m-kay?
Well Kaisch supported the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban and Romney passed a state version so one gun banner is no different than the other.
Door #1. But it will be a case of gnawing my arm off in the hopes that we will somehow benefit from something awful.
While you can't compare M4C to the "general population" as far as voting goes, you can at least somewhat accurately compare us to the folks who would vote "R". If that is the case it appears a solid 45% (so far at least) would rebel against any GOP shenanigans at the convention. That spells disaster in November. You think that the Establishment would take heed to what they have to know would be outright rejected by half, but certainly enough to lose the general if they pulled some stunt. But as I said in the OP, I truly believe they would rather endure the Twat as POTUS than turn over the reigns of power to the likes of Trump or Cruz.
This primary has been a RUDE awakening to the Establishment and they don't like it one fvcking bit.
If they pull a fast one at the Convention it is time for the silent majority to riot. Burn it down.
Dist. Expert 26
03-22-16, 18:51
If/when they pull a fast one I'm voting democrat. We're headed off the cliff anyway, might as well go full steam ahead. If we burn it down now my kid might be able to grow up in a country worth living in.
FlyingHunter
03-22-16, 18:57
If/when they pull a fast one I'm voting democrat. We're headed off the cliff anyway, might as well go full steam ahead. If we burn it down now my kid might be able to grow up in a country worth living in.
Exactly my thoughts. Accelerate Balkanization.
We shot down the "presumed" heir to the throne, Jeb. Then their second offering, the neo-RINO Rubio, was soundly trounced. Dem-lite Kasuck remains, but only to queer the deal as much as possible. Any horseshit in Cleveland will be a temper tantrum of epic proportions, the dying throes of a party that has perhaps run it's course (?).
I will vote for what ever R we end up with. Playing into their hands, maybe. But if after the election they received 10,000,000 calls or emails telling them no more votes and no more money until they start acting like constitution supporting conservatives.
We might get their attention.
But any gun guy that votes for the D's in any form this election might as well stick a pistol in his mouth. Cause that will be the last act he will get to do with a gun before it is banned.
NO. The thing to do would be 10,000,000 calls to the RNC BEFORE the convention, putting them on notice that if they steal the nomination, they WILL regret it come November! :mad:
NO. The thing to do would be 10,000,000 calls to the RNC BEFORE the convention, putting them on notice that if they steal the nomination, they WILL regret it come November! :mad:
Agreed 110%. I can't believe that just over half these guys would accept an outright theft and rejection of the "democratic" process of what the voters want. I don't give a shit who's running on the Dem side, tactics like what has been bandied about are downright sinister. If it happens it CANNOT be allowed to stand.
crusader377
03-22-16, 19:33
I will vote for any Republican candidate who fairly wins the primary. If the nomination is stolen, I will back a third party run my Trump or Cruz. If the political establishment tries to undermine a third party run or if is extensive voter fraud against the 3rd party and if Hillary wins we learn two things for a fact. First, with the stolen election we know that the United States is no longer a Republic but an Oligarchy controlled by entrenched elites. Second, if Hillary wins and avoids her investigation we know that Rule of Law is dead.
With both of these two conditions proven true, I think it is time for patriotic American's especially ones who swore an oath to defend the Constitution may have to start considering other options to restore the Constitution and the Republic.
.46caliber
03-22-16, 19:47
A RHINO shenanigan will almost definitely hand the election to the D's. If that's the case, I think Trump and Cruz will unite and go third party. The government has quickly discounted the people's votes and frankly that pisses me off. This is the reason I am an Independent. The people will vote for Trump or Cruz and it will probably be the first time in history a third party wins.
If that isn't the case, I will still vote R because anything D at this point is going to weaken this country further and almost guarantee a terrorist attack or even worse, an invasion.
That's about the only scenario I'd be happy to vote for a ticket with Trump on it. I'd love to stick it to the Dems and the RINOs by getting a 3rd party in.
No way Jose. Whoever wins needs a majority of electoral votes. Without a majority the tie goes to the House.
You know, big daddy Ryan and his cronies. But it is broken down by state delegation not number of reps. I wonder what that break down would look like.
Does anyone know how many states have representative delegations with a plurality of republicans?
I get this but don't forget that the establishment is trying to change the Ron Paul rules about having 50% of the votes from so many states. By doing this and Trump or Cruz changing parties, it would actually be allowed. The RHINOs would actually shoot themselves in the foot by messing with the rules.
MountainRaven
03-22-16, 19:59
I'm still voting either Libertarian or write-in.
I'm still voting either Libertarian or write-in.
I understand your stance on this but it will also hand the election to Hillary.
No one anybody writes in will ever get enough votes to make a difference and is pretty much a waste of time. The only positive I can see about it is that you can say that you did your part as an American and voted (which I think is great).
I understand your stance on this but it will also hand the election to Hillary.
No one anybody writes in will ever get enough votes to make a difference and is pretty much a waste of time. The only positive I can see about it is that you can say that you did your part as an American and voted (which I think is great).
If it's somebody like Romney, it's going to be an automatic, guaranteed Clinton victory regardless.
MountainRaven
03-22-16, 21:06
I understand your stance on this but it will also hand the election to Hillary.
No one anybody writes in will ever get enough votes to make a difference and is pretty much a waste of time. The only positive I can see about it is that you can say that you did your part as an American and voted (which I think is great).
It doesn't matter who you vote for if you don't live in one of the pale blue, pale red, or "taupe" colored states on this map:
http://images.politico.com/global/2015/05/01/sabatographic503.jpg
So frankly, I could vote for Hillary or Bernie - or the Underking of the Mole People, for that matter - and it wouldn't make a lick of difference. Because of how the electoral college works, the three votes my state gets will go to the GOP.
It is possible that the GOP leadership picking their own nominee and burning the remaining nominees from the primaries might cause things to become completely unpredictable - but I'd bet my state still pulls the lever for whoever is running for PotUS with 'Republican' next to their name no matter what happens, no matter who wins the primaries, no matter who the GOP selects as their nominee.
I'd still vote republican, but dems would win, just like 2008 and 2012.
I'm sick of voting for the lesser of two evils also. But I'm sure as #@** not going to stay home and enable the greater evil to flourish. POTUS is a batlle, not the war. Fight to replace the smug, lying Rinos in state and fed elections. Rinos go along with whatever they percieve brings job security. Quite a few good folks have been elected the last two cycles. Keep making inroads in the house, senate, govs etc and this could be the last time The GOPe Rinos have even a chance at strongarming the true conservatives.
A finally angry enough congress that exercises power and stops delegating it to the regulators to avoid responsibility can put mucho heat on a Rino in the White House. What's he going to do? Veto bills from his own party and bring even more electoral vengence down on his Rino pals?
I wasn't joking.
If Hillbitch gets up in there and the Geriatric Old People pull some shit I'm writing in Joe Stalin and Traci Lords for veep.
All I need to survive the apocalypse is Mr. Pibb, an MP3 player full of alt and post punk, a bolt action, a box of Trojans, a 5.11 ruck, Marlboro Reds, some really badass bourbon, and that's all.
I was thinking Donald duck, prez, daffy for vp.....
If I"m presented with two evils, I'm going to choose the lesser.
Moose-Knuckle
03-23-16, 01:37
Say they get cute and deny Trump or Cruz the nomination through backroom shenanigans, and offer us a Romney/Ryan/Kasich/any other RINO, then have the unmitigated nerve to chide us all into holding hands and "sticking together" to beat the Sea-Hag Bitch, what would you do?
I would skip the POTUS lever altogether in November, even if that means Cuntlery wins.
I'll vote for the break away party formed after or John McAfee.
Sadly, I honestly believe that the Establishment RINO's could stomach her for 4-8 years rather than allow Trump or Cruz to be leader of the party.
Yes it would be monetarily advantageous to establishment Republicans for another Clinton to sit in the Oval Office as opposed to Trump or Cruz.
If I"m presented with two evils, I'm going to choose the lesser.
Which means we will never be presented with any other choice. Right now the lesser of two evils is to be willing to destroy the Republican party vs. continue down the establishment RINO path (do nothing while in office or help the dems win the election).
Eurodriver
03-23-16, 07:01
If Florida goes to Hillary by one vote and Florida's electoral college are what push Hillary to 270+, I will be happy that I took down the Republican Party by myself. I will write a book about it and send it to all of M4C for free.
I will title it "Swing State Voting - How to swing will Bill's wife. A memoir of a conservative swing state voter who took down the GOP"
Straight Shooter
03-23-16, 07:16
I totally hear you. If Sanders ends up the nominee, I may just stay home.
BUT WE CANNOT LET HILLARY CLINTON BECOME PRESIDENT!
I am on record here, a long time now, and Ill say this again- HILLARY R. CLINTON IS..IS!..GOING TO BE THE NEXT POTUS, PERIOD. Doesn't matter what you say, how/who you vote for, or what you do. The FIX is in, always has been, she WILL NOT EVER be tried, much less convicted of ANYTHING...I give her even being indicted a 50/50 chance. SHE WILL BE PRESIDENT. PLAN ACCORDINGLY.
Now, yall can fuss & cuss and say "how the hell do you know"...blah..blah..blah. HIDE & WATCH.
VooDoo6Actual
03-23-16, 07:55
Risible.
The fix was in since at least 1871.
Roosevelt told us way back in 1913 as did many other's Wilson, Butler, Camus, Nietzche, Dick et al etc.
“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.” ― Theodore Roosevelt
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_deep_state_the_unelected_shadow_government_is_here_to_stay
You do know that is playing right into their hands don't you? If they pulled a stunt like that they'd need to be taught a valuable lesson. I predict (as I think this poll will show) enough people would say "Go to hell RNC" that the Dems would win.....quite handily as a matter of fact, perhaps a landslide. It would be a self-inflicted yet deserved outcome for the Establishment.
That will only hurt us, the proles. For the d-bags in Washington, the money train keeps on rolling, lobbyists keep paying up. Do you really think that will punish them? Do you think they care?
It will suck, but I will vote R no matter what. The worst R is better that the "best" Democrat when it comes to the things I value.
****ing with the rules to keep power? Screw 'em. I won't vote. Or maybe I will vote democrat. In any case we'll get what we deserve.
brickboy240
03-23-16, 09:54
If you think that staying home or sitting out the election cycle will "teach the GOP establishment a lesson" you are completely delusional.
Doubt me?
Well haven't we "taught" them enough with the whole Tea Party movement as well as the two big wins in the mid-term elections?
The GOP establishment is not this stupid - they know exactly what they are doing 24-7. They would rather lose to Hillary that have an outsider like Trump or Cruz win under their party's name.
So go ahead and stay home on election day if it makes you feel more "principled" or whatever....you are not teaching anyone a damn thing.
(...and start hoarding ammo and mags now....you were warned!!!)
If you think that staying home or sitting out the election cycle will "teach the GOP establishment a lesson" you are completely delusional.
Doubt me?
Well haven't we "taught" them enough with the whole Tea Party movement as well as the two big wins in the mid-term elections?
The GOP establishment is not this stupid - they know exactly what they are doing 24-7. They would rather lose to Hillary that have an outsider like Trump or Cruz win under their party's name.
So go ahead and stay home on election day if it makes you feel more "principled" or whatever....you are not teaching anyone a damn thing.
(...and start hoarding ammo and mags now....you were warned!!!)
I don't see it as teaching anyone a lesson. Nothing that highbrow. It's not about principles. To me, IF Trump gets the minimum number of delegates for candidacy and the GOP decides to do some underhanded BS to get another nominee, their actions fly against the will of the voters. At that point, I am done. I won't vote, at all (being a little facetious in saying I would vote for HRC). And I agree, they would rather lose to HRC/Bern...the whole cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face thing. If their puny party political power means more to them than the process, so be it.
If you think that staying home or sitting out the election cycle will "teach the GOP establishment a lesson" you are completely delusional.
Doubt me?
Well haven't we "taught" them enough with the whole Tea Party movement as well as the two big wins in the mid-term elections?
The GOP establishment is not this stupid - they know exactly what they are doing 24-7. They would rather lose to Hillary that have an outsider like Trump or Cruz win under their party's name.
So go ahead and stay home on election day if it makes you feel more "principled" or whatever....you are not teaching anyone a damn thing.
(...and start hoarding ammo and mags now....you were warned!!!)
This. Absolutely.
brickboy240
03-23-16, 11:35
Think about it...if you all stay home, because they toss up some RINO candidate...the GOP establishment STILL wins. They STILL get to blame their loss on Trump and Cruz and go about their DC inner circle lives with Hillary as the President.
If everyone sticks together and the RINO gets elected, we have an opportunity to hold the RINO's feet to the fire on the tough issues. We have a ghost of a chance of maybe not getting more far leftists put on the Supreme Court as well. Ok, we might not get the wall on the border that everyone wanted but honestly, I don't think Trump would be able to totally pull that off to begin with. There is a chance that the RINO does less damage going forward, than a President Hillary would do.
If Hillary wins...you can totally forget it. The borders stay open, we definitely get more leftist SC judges and the downward spiral continues at the pace it has with 8 years of Obama.
So maybe, at this point, this is the best we can hope for by voting "R" no matter what - we get a person that will probably do less damage than Hillary.
Don't get me wrong...I would have loved to have had better choices but it is time to see the playing field for what it really is.
I get it...the GOP establishment does not DESERVE our votes or a win but hell....do you really think America DESERVES 4 to 8 years of Hillary and what that will bring?
If you think that staying home or sitting out the election cycle will "teach the GOP establishment a lesson" you are completely delusional.
Doubt me?
Well haven't we "taught" them enough with the whole Tea Party movement as well as the two big wins in the mid-term elections?
The GOP establishment is not this stupid - they know exactly what they are doing 24-7. They would rather lose to Hillary that have an outsider like Trump or Cruz win under their party's name.
So go ahead and stay home on election day if it makes you feel more "principled" or whatever....you are not teaching anyone a damn thing.
(...and start hoarding ammo and mags now....you were warned!!!)
I'm afraid Tedro has played into that mindset as well. I hope he smart enough to know the GOP doesn't suddenly like him. So why are they his best friends now?... to have a contested convention. He has more in common with Trump, he simply doesn't verbalize it. They are going to turn on him the instant the math creates a situation where Trump can't get the 1237. They will then go full tilt Kasich to bolster his share and also to justify going with a wildcard from within.
IOW, they haven't learned any lesson nor intend to. They simply function as an arm of the Liberal movement.
The Liberals should fire all their campaign staff and pocket the money. They don't need them. The GOP supplies enough bad press on themselves.
Eurodriver
03-23-16, 12:24
Too much "LOL, you guys are sticking to your principles?" and "The establishment wins if Hillary wins" BS in this thread.
I want Hillary to win over any GOP candidate running (except maybe Cruz)
I want to see you "Electable" guys standing in lines turning in your guns.
I want to see your white sons unable to be employed due to affirmative action policies.
I want a 16-year long reign of Obamanation and Hillary.
I want my gasoline powered car to be replaced with mass transit.
I want the corporate tax rate to increase.
I want single payer healthcare.
I want the military to be gutted.
I want every single thing Hillary stands for to be put into practice and then some.
It's going to happen eventually...why are you guys so content on kicking the can down the road? As if Hillary loses in 2016 she won't run in 2020 or there won't be someone worse to replace her. When you all are standing in line for food and the only firearm you have is a PVC pipe you use for bottle rockets on the Fourth of July maybe then conservatives will stand up for themselves.
Eurodriver
03-23-16, 12:42
Think about it...if you all stay home, because they toss up some RINO candidate...the GOP establishment STILL wins. They STILL get to blame their loss on Trump and Cruz and go about their DC inner circle lives with Hillary as the President.
That's great. I want Hillary as President and so do they.
If everyone sticks together and the RINO gets elected, we have an opportunity to hold the RINO's feet to the fire on the tough issues. We have a ghost of a chance of maybe not getting more far leftists put on the Supreme Court as well. Ok, we might not get the wall on the border that everyone wanted but honestly, I don't think Trump would be able to totally pull that off to begin with. There is a chance that the RINO does less damage going forward, than a President Hillary would do.
For what? 4 years? A RINO won't stop immigration which is leading us down the populist Socialist candidate road. And the "gold standard" to which a Republican President would be measured (Reagan) was the first President to institute amnesty for illegal immigrants anyway. So why should I stop what will happen in 4 years from what can happen in 6 months? I'm healthy now. I have money. I haven't got any kids. Why would I want to put it off? Are you saying a RINO elected this year will prevent this from happening the next time?
If Hillary wins...you can totally forget it. The borders stay open, we definitely get more leftist SC judges and the downward spiral continues at the pace it has with 8 years of Obama.
If a RINO wins the borders stay open, we will probably get more leftist SC judges, and the downward spiral continues anyway. Do you really not see that? When is the last time a Republican President has NOT nominated a SC Justice who tended to stray to the left?
So maybe, at this point, this is the best we can hope for by voting "R" no matter what - we get a person that will probably do less damage than Hillary.
I want Hillary's damage though. And so should you. A recession, riots, etc will be much more easy to withstand in your current financial situation than after 4 years of RINO bullshit
Don't get me wrong...I would have loved to have had better choices but it is time to see the playing field for what it really is.
I get it...the GOP establishment does not DESERVE our votes or a win but hell....do you really think America DESERVES 4 to 8 years of Hillary and what that will bring?
I think America NEEDS 8 years of Hillary to reach the point we press a reset button. I would rather that happen before I'm an old man in my 30s
Hillary 2016.
Like I said....
All I need anymore in life is a compact bolt action, a ruck, an ipod shuffle full of alt and post punk like maybe some Erasure and Depeche Mode, Mr. Pibbs, Trojans, bourbon, a camelbak fulla kool aid (red flavor) and I will just be a disaffected hippie hobo wandering around with groovy long hair and an M65 jacket.
In short, ain't skeered.
Eurodriver
03-23-16, 12:48
Like I said....
All I need anymore in life is a compact bolt action, a ruck, an ipod shuffle full of alt and post punk like maybe some Erasure and Depeche Mode, Mr. Pibbs, Trojans, bourbon, a camelbak fulla kool aid (red flavor) and I will just be a disaffected hippie hobo wandering around with groovy long hair and an M65 jacket.
In short, ain't skeered.
I can walk now, so I'll be next to you, if you'll have me, but imma have that Dirty Sprite in my camelbak.
I can walk now, so I'll be next to you, if you'll have me, but imma have that Dirty Sprite in my camelbak.
Sounds like a plan. I still have a limp myself but fuggit. Ain't in a hurry. I plan to smell roses.
Outlander Systems
03-23-16, 12:55
Screw that noise, homie.
I've always wanted to load up a Camelbak with soft-serve vanilla, or at a minimum, a milkshake.
Git sum!
I can walk now, so I'll be next to you, if you'll have me, but imma have that Dirty Sprite in my camelbak.
Doc Safari
03-23-16, 13:04
I can't believe any gun owner would deliberately vote for a gun-grabbing Democrat.
Outlander Systems
03-23-16, 13:12
Checkers vs. Chess, homie.
I can't believe any gun owner would deliberately vote for a gun-grabbing Democrat.
Eurodriver
03-23-16, 13:25
Checkers vs. Chess, homie.
Bingo.
Btw, you near Hotlanta? Delete your PMs so I can send you this:
Yo man, I was in Atlanta last summer for a few weeks and it looks like I'll be there again this fall.
Is open carry a big deal in GA? I won't be doing it in ATL but if I'm in South Georgia on the way up can I run into a store with a gat on me? Would like to OC at least once ;) Got any suggestions near ATL for some fun with a group of about 10 late 20s dudes and early 20s ladies? We did the basics last year. Coke museum, aquarium, BBQ, clubs, etc.
Not Outlander but....
OC is good to go unless they have a sign. But you must have a CWL to do so legally. Most places won't care except soccermom joints (parks, mickey Ds)
Malls will universally not allow it. But most unmarked places don't care.
As for ATL there's The Shelter, My Sisters Room (it's a lesbo joint but open minded), usually a concert somewhere, Little 5 Points and The Vortex. Great to people watch. Stone Mountain. There's also kinda of a dark burlesque underbelly to ATL but meh. If you're morbid...there's a bit of urban safaring in Mechanicsville. There are gun shops but they are gay.
....then there's the Jungle....they have some awesome club music but yeah...
There are a few goth hangouts and then there's the Masquerade but it all depends on who is playing.
brickboy240
03-23-16, 13:48
So where is that guarantee that there WILL be this Mad Max like recession/riot/end times event?
There is none. (I think some of you have been playing too many video games)
The "downward spiral" will not happen at once and be an event that will finally teach everyone a lesson about leftists and leftism. No sir. The Clintons have escaped blame on many other things - they have a track record of making it seem like a bad event is someone else's fault.
It will be more agonizing and not as glamorous as some of you are hoping for. It will NOT resemble the Tom Clancy based video games like many here obviously think it will. Example? Look at how long the Castros have held on to Cuba through embargoes and a total meltdown of their economy and living standards.
I am amazed at the "lets give up and let Hillary burn it all down" mentality around here. I was under the impression that most here were the "lets dig in and fight until we have absolutely nothing left" types but I guess I was wrong.
Stay home on election day if it makes you fell better - your "Hillary crashes and America hits the re-set button" moment is probably not going to come.
Outlander Systems
03-23-16, 13:55
; )
I am in the heart of the Dirty Souf / ATL mah brotha. Roger that, I never check 'em.
OC is nothin' but a thang. For example, while I was gassing up at the greatest gas station on planet earth this weekend, (QuikTrip) I saw three OC'd weapons in the time it took to fill my truck.
Fun, yeah man:
Stone Mountain (http://www.stonemountainpark.com/activities/attractions)
Bring the ladies here for supper (http://www.sundialrestaurant.com/)
Insert Crunk Here (http://sweetwaterbrew.com/brewery/)
Take Left-Leaning Broads Here and Justify it as "Ecotourism" (http://www.historicbanningmills.com/zipline-tours/)
I'm a busted old married ****, so my exciting adventures are doing the Ellijay Applefest in the fall, doing some hayride's at Cagle's Farm, and Calloway Gardens if I'm feeling spicy.
If you haven't been to Savannah...you need to peep it.
Bingo.
Btw, you near Hotlanta? Delete your PMs so I can send you this:
Yo man, I was in Atlanta last summer for a few weeks and it looks like I'll be there again this fall.
Is open carry a big deal in GA? I won't be doing it in ATL but if I'm in South Georgia on the way up can I run into a store with a gat on me? Would like to OC at least once ;) Got any suggestions near ATL for some fun with a group of about 10 late 20s dudes and early 20s ladies? We did the basics last year. Coke museum, aquarium, BBQ, clubs, etc.
Outlander Systems
03-23-16, 14:00
And Taco Mac. **** those mother****ers. My buddies used to try and drag my ass there for the "Brewniversity" bullshit, and after seeing the little table tents with gunbusters logos all over them, those rat ****s can go to hell and pull the hole in with 'em.
OC is good to go unless they have a sign. But you must have a CWL to do so legally. Most places won't care except soccermom joints (parks, mickey Ds)
Eurodriver
03-23-16, 14:04
Appreciate both of you guys. Been to Vortex. I'll peep Sun Dial as I'll be right in that AO most of the time.
I'll stop there as to avoid regressing this thread any further ;)
I forgot about sweetwater. Need to go back.
We still need to get some Pibbs one day though.
But anyways back to the collapse of the American Empire already in progress
Eurodriver
03-23-16, 14:20
So where is that guarantee that there WILL be this Mad Max like recession/riot/end times event?
There is none. (I think some of you have been playing too many video games)
The "downward spiral" will not happen at once and be an event that will finally teach everyone a lesson about leftists and leftism. No sir. The Clintons have escaped blame on many other things - they have a track record of making it seem like a bad event is someone else's fault.
It will be more agonizing and not as glamorous as some of you are hoping for. It will NOT resemble the Tom Clancy based video games like many here obviously think it will. Example? Look at how long the Castros have held on to Cuba through embargoes and a total meltdown of their economy and living standards.
I am amazed at the "lets give up and let Hillary burn it all down" mentality around here. I was under the impression that most here were the "lets dig in and fight until we have absolutely nothing left" types but I guess I was wrong.
Stay home on election day if it makes you fell better - your "Hillary crashes and America hits the re-set button" moment is probably not going to come.
Really? Obama has been in office 8 years. Did you think 8 years ago you would see shit like this?
http://media.vocativ.com/photos/2014/04/Dawn-America-Armed-Militias_021145990077.jpg
I see your Cuba, and I'll raise you Yugoslavia...
I'm not envisioning "mad max" at all. Maybe you're misunderstanding me. Maybe I'm not being clear.
I'm not advocating armed rebellion. I just want to see some mother****ing white Christian men stand up and grow a pair. Start making your voice heard. Start putting your foot down and stop rolling over every time they take another inch. Where is your line in the sand homie?
You can bitch all you like on an internet forum - when was the last time you were at a Trump Protest throwing bows with liberal hippies?
I was out there eleven days ago.
Really? Obama has been in office 8 years. Did you think 8 years ago you would see shit like this?
http://media.vocativ.com/photos/2014/04/Dawn-America-Armed-Militias_021145990077.jpg[/quote
That doesn't look like Alcatraz. Is it Ruby Ridge? Wounded Knee? Waco? Clark County? Burns, OR? Jordan, Montana? Plainfield? Alpine?
Yeah, I've seen that shit before. Every now and then there's a fringe with a bitch.
That doesn't look like Alcatraz. Is it Ruby Ridge? Wounded Knee? Waco? Clark County? Burns, OR? Jordan, Montana? Plainfield? Alpine?
Yeah, I've seen that shit before. Every now and then there's a fringe with a bitch.
Bundy standoff
Eurodriver
03-23-16, 14:44
Bundy standoff
I think Hmac knows ;)
I think Hmac knows ;)
Damn I need to get some more caffeine in me :lol:
...I'm not envisioning "mad max" at all. Maybe you're misunderstanding me. Maybe I'm not being clear.
I'm not advocating armed rebellion. I just want to see some mother****ing white Christian men stand up and grow a pair. Start making your voice heard. Start putting your foot down and stop rolling over every time they take another inch. Where is your line in the sand homie?
You can bitch all you like on an internet forum - when was the last time you were at a Trump Protest throwing bows with liberal hippies?
I was out there eleven days ago.
In regards to 2A issues actually not being all that important in the grand scheme of things, someone once said "once we get some iron in our souls, we'll get some iron in our hands...".
I think that pretty much sums up the whole situation here.
Per the Mad Max/armed rebellion thing, I don't see that day coming either (and if anyone here has spent any time in the "patriot/III%" community you would immediately understand why)- I see a very "Castigo Cay"-ish future. That long slow slide into oblivion where it will forever be "to late to work within the system and to early to shoot the bastards".
So as far as who to ordain as supreme leader, I guess it pretty much comes down to, if you're going to get stabbed in the chest is it better to have it done slow or all at once? Either way you get stabbed... :shrug:
I honestly have my doubts that a Trump/Cruz victory would change all that much.
Outlander Systems
03-23-16, 19:10
Absolutely.
Bracken's works have a haunting realism without the ZOMGSHTFTEOTWAWKISTAN!!!! bullshit.
SHTF is the same as "normal" life... with the "suck" knob all the way to the right.
I always use Liberia as an example. SHTF, for me, is these United States having more in common with corrupt, third-world shitholes, than Cannibalistic San Franciscans coming for my junks. Liberia has electricity, cars, etc. It's just a gigantic open-air cesspit.
SHTF: More corruption, less Liberty. The end.
In regards to 2A issues actually not being all that important in the grand scheme of things, someone once said "once we get some iron in our souls, we'll get some iron in our hands...".
I think that pretty much sums up the whole situation here.
Per the Mad Max/armed rebellion thing, I don't see that day coming either (and if anyone here has spent any time in the "patriot/III%" community you would immediately understand why)- I see a very "Castigo Cay"-ish future. That long slow slide into oblivion where it will forever be "to late to work within the system and to early to shoot the bastards".
MountainRaven
03-23-16, 23:00
So where is that guarantee that there WILL be this Mad Max like recession/riot/end times event?
There is none. (I think some of you have been playing too many video games)
The "downward spiral" will not happen at once and be an event that will finally teach everyone a lesson about leftists and leftism. No sir. The Clintons have escaped blame on many other things - they have a track record of making it seem like a bad event is someone else's fault.
It will be more agonizing and not as glamorous as some of you are hoping for. It will NOT resemble the Tom Clancy based video games like many here obviously think it will. Example? Look at how long the Castros have held on to Cuba through embargoes and a total meltdown of their economy and living standards.
I am amazed at the "lets give up and let Hillary burn it all down" mentality around here. I was under the impression that most here were the "lets dig in and fight until we have absolutely nothing left" types but I guess I was wrong.
Stay home on election day if it makes you fell better - your "Hillary crashes and America hits the re-set button" moment is probably not going to come.
To be fair, Cuba was propped up by the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact for decades. Then by Russia and Venezuela. All as a giant FU to the US. The fact that Cuba is an island nation and thus insular by geography hasn't exactly harmed the Castros, either.
In any event, I'd be extremely surprised if things get anywhere near as bad as anyone is thinking it will be, no matter who wins.
As for the US being on a slow decline... our star is still ascendent. It's just part of our nature as an immature nation to be so uncertain of ourselves and our place in the world that we think our collapse and decline into irrelevance is coming soon.
Moose-Knuckle
03-24-16, 01:12
"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
The Fall of the Athenian Republic:
Lord Woodhouselee 1787
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From Bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."
brickboy240
03-24-16, 10:14
Umm...the "apathy" in that scale belongs to those that plan on sitting the election out and giving Hillary a cake-walk into the Oval Office.
Trump might indeed be awful but he is nowhere near Hillary's level of suck...sorry!
If they pull a fast one at the convention and choose Kaisich I will thank God in heaven above. It will save me from having to vote for Bernie or Hillary this year, which I will do if Trump is the nominee. The only things that stop me are there positions on guns and abortion but I will swallow that in order to avoid Trump.
Straight Shooter
03-24-16, 10:36
Umm...the "apathy" in that scale belongs to those that plan on sitting the election out and giving Hillary a cake-walk into the Oval Office.
Trump might indeed be awful but he is nowhere near Hillary's level of suck...sorry!
I say the apathy...Ill call it IGNORENCE...is for someone to believe that Trump or anybody else for that matter, can ride in like the Prodigal Son, and despite a GOP lead Congress thatll oppose him harder than Hillary, will keep even 10% of the off the cuff promises made in vain, saying ANYTHING & EVERYHING all us conservatives want & need to hear JUST LIKE OBAMA DID TO ALL THE LIBS & WINGNUTS THAT VOTED FOR HIM. Now, listen to those nutwads today...MANY of them curse him claiming he did not keep his promises and did little of what he said he'd do. You people voting for Trump gonna be saying the damn thing if he gets in.
And finally, many of us have a moral, or religious reason for not voting for him. Im finally taking a stand this time myself, and HOPE Hillary gets in if its down to him & her. WHY? Because..if those two people are THE BEST that the United States of America has to offer in the way of Presidential candidates...THEN WE ARE SCREWED NO MATTER WHAT OR WHO gets in, period. I say let her win...SHE WILL...and lets get this party started...ala 1776...AGAIN.
If they pull a fast one at the convention and choose Kaisich I will thank God in heaven above. It will save me from having to vote for Bernie or Hillary this year, which I will do if Trump is the nominee. The only things that stop me are there positions on guns and abortion but I will swallow that in order to avoid Trump.
Other than his personality, what specifically don't you like about Trump? It must be really bad to vote your guns away.
I wish the RNC could realize the unmitigated disaster shoving a RINO on us again would be. Of course they probably know that and don't care as long as it means they hold onto power in their little corner of the world.......
Averageman
03-24-16, 12:38
I wish the RNC could realize the unmitigated disaster shoving a RINO on us again would be. Of course they probably know that and don't care as long as it means they hold onto power in their little corner of the world.......
And bank as much money as they can and make the sweetheart deals on the market etc etc.
The biggest thing I think they fear about Trump is his lack of a filter, if he gets the helm he is going to expose some of this stuff just to get his deals done.
At this point we wasted what, 50 million of the tax payers dollars on the FSA, a better investment might be to have taken that money and bought a President with it who could take a decade and unscrew this mess,.
Other than his personality, what specifically don't you like about Trump? It must be really bad to vote your guns away.
Differences on taxes, regulation, the environment, immigration, foreign policy, health care, and I truly don't trust him any more than I do Hillary. Also I don't think he is going to be as positive as you think he is, he is very much known for talking a game far beyond what he is capable of. I may not like Hillary and Bernie on their policies on guns and abortion but I agree with them most everywhere else.
Dist. Expert 26
03-24-16, 14:46
To borrow a quote from another thread, this is why you cannot trust your fellow gun owners simply on the merit that they support the 2nd amendment.
Socialism cannot truly exist without civilian disarmament, because at some point people grow tired of living as pesants while the government taxes them to death. Thus, supporting socialist policies, however well intended, is still a step down the road to being disarmed.
Kasich is ruling out a VP position but is open to a Dem running mate. He needs to go home..
Kasich said. "Just because someone happens to be a Democrat doesn't mean they're disqualified. President Obama, he had his secretary of defense, Bob Gates, a Republican. And I think Bob did a fantastic job for him."
http://tinyurl.com/jb57cup
Kasich is ruling out a VP position but is open to a Dem running mate. He needs to go home..
http://tinyurl.com/jb57cup
I actually think Kasuck is WORSE than the other RINO's who ran this time (Christie, Rubio, Jeb). Not that it makes me wish for ANY of them but he is a freaking douche.
Putting it mildly. He's delusional believing he's going to get the nomination. Can't stand the guy, he's there as the spoiler.
Averageman
03-24-16, 15:41
Kasich is ruling out a VP position but is open to a Dem running mate. He needs to go home..
http://tinyurl.com/jb57cup
Look at where he stands on Guns. He may need to go home, but he needs a swift kick in the Nutz on the way out the door.
Moose-Knuckle
03-25-16, 01:54
To borrow a quote from another thread, this is why you cannot trust your fellow gun owners simply on the merit that they support the 2nd amendment.
That would have been me.
There are straight up Karl Marx Kool-Aid drinkers who own guns.
That would have been me.
There are straight up Karl Marx Kool-Aid drinkers who own guns.
Ever wonder who "buys the crate" or goes outta their way for a Makarov?
It's them.
Moose-Knuckle
03-25-16, 02:38
Ever wonder who "buys the crate" or goes outta their way for a Makarov?
It's them.
Wait just a minute . . . YOU'RE a Makarov guy!
:jester:
That would have been me.
There are straight up Karl Marx Kool-Aid drinkers who own guns.
Just because I think the lower class deserves a safety net does not make me a Marxist. Honestly my tax and spending policies would not make you happy as I would like to see a 50% income tax rate on the top 1% in this country with no deductions and then additional progressive tiers based on income with no deductions. This would assist in paying for universal healthcare, universal college, and domestic infrastructure rebuilding. However the removal of deductions would at least get the special interests out and the simplification of the tax code would reduce billions in regulatory burdens.
Just because I think the lower class deserves a safety net [But it shouldn't be a safety HAMMOCK] does not make me a Marxist. Honestly my tax and spending policies would not make you happy as I would like to see a 50% income tax rate on the top 1% in this country with no deductions and then additional progressive tiers based on income with no deductions. This would assist in paying for universal healthcare, universal college, and domestic infrastructure rebuilding. However the removal of deductions would at least get the special interests out and the simplification of the tax code would reduce billions in regulatory burdens.
And with that manifesto I'd say you and Marx are at least in the same ballpark........
And with that manifesto I'd say you and Marx are at least in the same ballpark........
Marx believed in the government ownership of the sources of production. My views fall more in line with European Socialism like Finland and other Nordic countries.
Know what I notice about the poll results in this thread vs the other two polls ("If Trump wins you'll..." and "If Cruz wins you'll...")? In the other two polls the overwhelming majority (like 90+%) would vote for the other guy. But factor in a RINO foisted upon us by a condescending GOP Establishment such as in this thread and you're looking at a MUCH different result.
Think the GOP realizes we traditional "R" voters are sick and tired of RINO's? Nah, me neither.
Marx believed in the government ownership of the sources of production. My views fall more in line with European Socialism like Finland and other Nordic countries.
That's why I said "in the same ballpark", not necessarily verbatim views, but relatively close.
Whiskey_Bravo
03-25-16, 10:40
Just because I think the lower class deserves a safety net does not make me a Marxist. Honestly my tax and spending policies would not make you happy as I would like to see a 50% income tax rate on the top 1% in this country with no deductions and then additional progressive tiers based on income with no deductions. This would assist in paying for universal healthcare, universal college, and domestic infrastructure rebuilding. However the removal of deductions would at least get the special interests out and the simplification of the tax code would reduce billions in regulatory burdens.
Why stop at 50%? If you are going to make someone work half of every year to pay for your free shit, lets make it 75% and then maybe we can have even more free shit. Free shit is super awesome. With all this extra money rich people are handing over we can expand other programs too, I mean why not it's not your money.
Wait just a minute . . . YOU'RE a Makarov guy!
:jester:
I had one. But I was young and in my salad days.
Now I have a walther ppk. So I'm either a british spy, a disheveled angry loner who monologues about the pissbucket that is society, or a godless fascist.
Or Austin Powers.
Quite a versatile handgun, that PPK
Why stop at 50%? If you are going to make someone work half of every year to pay for your free shit, lets make it 75% and then maybe we can have even more free shit. Free shit is super awesome. With all this extra money rich people are handing over we can expand other programs too, I mean why not it's not your money.
Actually, why not just tax them to the point where they are left with $30,000 to $40,000 a year? Look at all the money the country would have then. We could put silk toilet paper in the free colleges.
Actually, why not just tax them to the point where they are left with $30,000 to $40,000 a year? Look at all the money the country would have then. We could put silk toilet paper in the free colleges.
I know you are being hyperbolic but let's look at that for a moment. If you did do that you would remove the ability for individuals to buy higher end goods which would damage our consumer driven economy. At 50% you still have the ability for millionaires to buy new cars, houses, and invest. However you are also providing for the public good and allowing for the improvement of infrastructure, universal healthcare, and education.
Averageman
03-25-16, 12:05
I know you are being hyperbolic but let's look at that for a moment. If you did do that you would remove the ability for individuals to buy higher end goods which would damage our consumer driven economy. At 50% you still have the ability for millionaires to buy new cars, houses, and invest. However you are also providing for the public good and allowing for the improvement of infrastructure, universal healthcare, and education.
Punishing the Winners at that level is never good for an economy.
A flat tax would work, would reduce the size of government and would be more likely to force that same government to stay within a budget.
Thinking that raising the level to X while not keeping spending and "gifting" that same money to the corporate and private FSA's would only mean they have more "Free Stuff" to give away. They have more than enough money to operate on, it's just that they spend it in a manner that would embarrass drunken Sailors.
I know you are being hyperbolic but let's look at that for a moment. If you did do that you would remove the ability for individuals to buy higher end goods which would damage our consumer driven economy. At 50% you still have the ability for millionaires to buy new cars, houses, and invest.
You aren't looking at the big picture friend. The money taken from them would allow others to consume more. Everyone would have a degree and be healthy enough (due to universal healthcare) to go out and live an active high consumption lifestyle.
It would be a net gain. Instead of 1% doing the consuming, it would be 99% doing the consuming.
However you are also providing for the public good and allowing for the improvement of infrastructure, universal healthcare, and education.
Well if it's so good for the programs then please don't stop at 50%. Go to 90-99%. Do it right the first time.
Punishing the Winners at that level is never good for an economy.
A flat tax would work, would reduce the size of government and would be more likely to force that same government to stay within a budget.
I'm a flat tax or federal sales tax guy myself.
What I've never completely bought into is the notion that taxes have much deterrence on the drive to expand one's business - obviously if you can't pay the taxes you can't expand, but at the entrepreneurial level, the drive to build, create, succeed are also motivators.
From 1932 until 1981 the tax rates on the wealthiest Americans were above 60%; from 1941-1947 the highest rates were 94%. During that time period there was a lot of industrial growth in America.
I don't think tax rates on the wealthy stifle growth as much as most folks seem to think.
That being said, I think everyone can pay their fair share. I can make a legitimate argument for a progressive tax rate, but I don't think it is righteous.
Flat tax or federal sales tax. No exemptions.
morbidbattlecry
03-25-16, 16:36
Don't care.
Anybody but Hillary.
If Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and freaking Pol Pot showed up in a time machine. I'd literally vote for any one of those over Hillary because at least they on their worst day would still be more honest and genuine than that cobweb crotch bitch
Actually this. God i hate Hillary. Would vote for Literally Hitler over Hillary.
Eurodriver
03-25-16, 17:06
I'm a flat tax or federal sales tax guy myself.
What I've never completely bought into is the notion that taxes have much deterrence on the drive to expand one's business - obviously if you can't pay the taxes you can't expand, but at the entrepreneurial level, the drive to build, create, succeed are also motivators.
From 1932 until 1981 the tax rates on the wealthiest Americans were above 60%; from 1941-1947 the highest rates were 94%. During that time period there was a lot of industrial growth in America.
I don't think tax rates on the wealthy stifle growth as much as most folks seem to think.
That being said, I think everyone can pay their fair share. I can make a legitimate argument for a progressive tax rate, but I don't think it is righteous.
Flat tax or federal sales tax. No exemptions.
I could get behind an increase in the tax code if:
EIC is eliminated.
All refundable tax credits are eliminated.
All deductions and exemptions are eliminated.
Everyone pays something. Everyone.
I could get behind an increase in the tax code if:
EIC is eliminated.
All refundable tax credits are eliminated.
All deductions and exemptions are eliminated.
Everyone pays something. Everyone.
That is actually exactly want I want. The EIC would be completely unnecessary if the low income tax payers are getting universal free healthcare, and other already existing benefits were strengthened (public transportation in rural American for instance).
and other already existing benefits were strengthened (public transportation in rural American for instance).
That needs to be strengthened quite a bit. Many of the smaller rural towns are dying on the vine. One about 40 miles from us lost it's only grocery store - big chain store, closed because, well, not losing money, just not making enough for us to bother with. (That is a corporate decision not a human decision IMO) The locals have already started a community movement to organize rides for the elderly to get to the nearest regional shopping area - 25 miles north, or 40 miles east. There really is no rural public transport in the area.
Dist. Expert 26
03-25-16, 18:28
That is actually exactly want I want. The EIC would be completely unnecessary if the low income tax payers are getting universal free healthcare, and other already existing benefits were strengthened (public transportation in rural American for instance).
"Free" does not mean free. "Free" means the taxpayer foots the bill for subpar care. It also means .gov is in charge, which if you're at all familiar with the VA is certainly not a good thing.
Government is never the answer. Never.
Eurodriver
03-25-16, 21:20
Privatize everything
I will never understand why people place so much faith in the government running things, but not private businesses.
Eurodriver
03-25-16, 21:21
That is actually exactly want I want. The EIC would be completely unnecessary if the low income tax payers are getting universal free healthcare, and other already existing benefits were strengthened (public transportation in rural American for instance).
You mean no charge, right? Not free. Because it cannot be free.
I'm a flat tax or federal sales tax guy myself.
What I've never completely bought into is the notion that taxes have much deterrence on the drive to expand one's business - obviously if you can't pay the taxes you can't expand, but at the entrepreneurial level, the drive to build, create, succeed are also motivators.
From 1932 until 1981 the tax rates on the wealthiest Americans were above 60%; from 1941-1947 the highest rates were 94%. During that time period there was a lot of industrial growth in America.
I don't think tax rates on the wealthy stifle growth as much as most folks seem to think.
That being said, I think everyone can pay their fair share. I can make a legitimate argument for a progressive tax rate, but I don't think it is righteous.
Flat tax or federal sales tax. No exemptions.
While it is true that America once had confiscatory income tax rates on paper, the number of people actually paying those rates was very small due to various shelters and loopholes.
As it stands now, I would much rather have targeted tax cuts for businesses before lowering the individual (or jointly filing) income tax rates. I would also like to see reductions in spending that focus on government programs that disincentivize employment (i.e. welfare cuts rather than reform) such as Medicaid, SSI-D, public housing, WIC, etc. Once we have cut the budget to pre-2008 levels, then we can talk about tax reforms such as a flat, fair, or some other reduction in rates.
Needless to say, this is an issue that for which I'm very passionate. I would not consider myself to be a single issue voter, but I'm damn close. Sadly, I do not feel that the GOP has offered up a candidate that is enough of a spending hawk to satisfy my palate. Kasich had a pretty good record in the House, but grew OH's budget as governor and is saying all the wrong things now. Cruz gives spending some lip service, but I'm not seeing the fire in his belly when colleagues have offered some reasonable road maps like the Mack-Penny Plan (he likes "some" of its principles). Perhaps the GOP can offer up someone better suited to address this issue once we get to the contested convention; yes, I think that it's going to happen.
"Free" does not mean free. "Free" means the taxpayer foots the bill for subpar care. It also means .gov is in charge, which if you're at all familiar with the VA is certainly not a good thing.
Government is never the answer. Never.
Are you aware that we in the US actually pay nearly double what those in most European nations pay and now receive worse care than some of those same nations. I will pull the numbers later but on average we spend almost double per capita for healthcare. And to Firefly on privatizing healthcare, have you forgotten what happens you privatize a massive industry like say the financial markets or airlines. Deregulation is not your friend.
Are you aware that we in the US actually pay nearly double what those in most European nations pay and now receive worse care than some of those same nations. I will pull the numbers later but on average we spend almost double per capita for healthcare. And to Firefly on privatizing healthcare, have you forgotten what happens you privatize a massive industry like say the financial markets or airlines. Deregulation is not your friend.
When you pull those numbers, be sure to do 2 things:
1) Look at the details of what is included as healthcare expenses. For example, a lot of the budget for Medicare and Medicaid (about 1/3) goes toward warehousing the elderly in nursing homes. I don't know about you but I never considered my rent or mortgage a healthcare expense. Many countries that get compared against us do not either. A good way to adjust for these confounders is to see how much the US pays for specific conditions such as bypass surgery, cancer treatments, and hip replacements compared to other countries. If you see a disparity, next look to see if it can be explained by better outcomes, shorter waits, etc. For example, a CABG in the US is almost twice the cost in the Canada despite similar outcomes. However, that cost is NOT made up in administrative indirects. Instead, it's made up in more direct costs in the US such as more front end testing. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/787721. It also takes half the time to get a non-emergent CABG in the US and we discharge patients in half the time. These are not things that will be "fixed" with a single payer.
2) Be sure to focus your comparison on those countries with single payer systems and populations greater than 300 million people. I'd like to know how they are doing so that we can compare apples to apples. In your analysis, please only include true single payer systems; countries like Canada and Great Britian do not count since the are either tiered systems (private for the rich, public for the poor), or require the patient to pay for vital services such as medications.
Dist. Expert 26
03-26-16, 00:28
Are you aware that we in the US actually pay nearly double what those in most European nations pay and now receive worse care than some of those same nations. I will pull the numbers later but on average we spend almost double per capita for healthcare. And to Firefly on privatizing healthcare, have you forgotten what happens you privatize a massive industry like say the financial markets or airlines. Deregulation is not your friend.
Since Sensei has already addressed your claims about healthcare, I'll simply address your assertion that deregulation is a bad thing.
Government by its very nature is incapable of managing anything efficiently. I don't know if you've ever served in the military, but if you have you will understand how laughable the phrase "military efficiency" really is. Government means layer upon layer of needless bureaucracy, wasted money, and wasted time. The private sector, on the other hand, is profit driven and therefore motivated to be as efficient as possible.
Today we have people wanting to explore space being held back by government interference. Warlords in Africa go unchecked because politicians are afraid of "private armies", but of course won't solve the problem themselves.
Deregulation opens the door for progress. Regulation does the exact opposite.
I will vote for what ever R we end up with. Playing into their hands, maybe. But if after the election they received 10,000,000 calls or emails telling them no more votes and no more money until they start acting like constitution supporting conservatives.
We might get their attention.
But any gun guy that votes for the D's in any form this election might as well stick a pistol in his mouth. Cause that will be the last act he will get to do with a gun before it is banned.
My sentiment exactly.
Moose-Knuckle
03-26-16, 01:51
Just because I think the lower class deserves a safety net does not make me a Marxist.
Never said you were.
And the vast majority of people who up chuck Marxist rhetoric on a regular basis have no idea where it originates from.
When you pull those numbers, be sure to do 2 things:
1) Look at the details of what is included as healthcare expenses. For example, a lot of the budget for Medicare and Medicaid (about 1/3) goes toward warehousing the elderly in nursing homes. I don't know about you but I never considered my rent or mortgage a healthcare expense. Many countries that get compared against us do not either. A good way to adjust for these confounders is to see how much the US pays for specific conditions such as bypass surgery, cancer treatments, and hip replacements compared to other countries. If you see a disparity, next look to see if it can be explained by better outcomes, shorter waits, etc. For example, a CABG in the US is almost twice the cost in the Canada despite similar outcomes. However, that cost is NOT made up in administrative indirects. Instead, it's made up in more direct costs in the US such as more front end testing. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/787721. It also takes half the time to get a non-emergent CABG in the US and we discharge patients in half the time. These are not things that will be "fixed" with a single payer.
2) Be sure to focus your comparison on those countries with single payer systems and populations greater than 300 million people. I'd like to know how they are doing so that we can compare apples to apples. In your analysis, please only include true single payer systems; countries like Canada and Great Britian do not count since the are either tiered systems (private for the rich, public for the poor), or require the patient to pay for vital services such as medications.
Good points. They escape many in the US, where the concept of "I want it good, I want it cheap, and I want it now" is representative of the pervasive entitlement mentality.
Good points. They escape many in the US, where the concept of "I want it good, I want it cheap, and I want it now" is representative of the pervasive entitlement mentality.
Suggesting that what is good for a county the size of North Carolina must also be good for the US is the medical equivalent of claiming that what is good for a neonate must also be good for the elderly. I mean, kids are just little adults, right?
Yes. And when those folks trot out the "outcomes are equilvalent" argument, they gloss over the amount of time that people in the single-payor system had to wait with their disabling (but stable) angina, or their crippling degenerative joint disease, before their coronary arteries are stented or their ruined joints are replaced.
The most effective way to control health care costs is to ration that care, which is a cornerstone of single-payor systems, and increasingly prevalent in the US's third-party payor system.
.....
Eurodriver
03-26-16, 10:25
Facts don't matter. When will the right wake up and realize that?
It's all about emotions and "Doing the right thing". How do we combat that?
I will never understand why people place so much faith in the government running things, but not private businesses.
I think most have a belief the government won't profiteer. Not necessarily directed at you - yeah, I know, free market, blah, blah, profiteering is okay if the consumers are willing to pay the price.
I honestly believe that if we desire that everyone has access to affordable healthcare, some governmental control is necessary. I believe that should be a desire of our society. Many don't because they've always had access to health care, I really don't get that thought process but it is the only explanation I can think of.
I believe that if the Government arrests and imprisons you, or takes you away from your parents, then the government needs to oversee, take care of that process.
I've seen firsthand the privatization of social services and what happens is workers suffer, services decline.
If we are to live as a Nation government needs to have a limited role in providing or regulating essential services. The dividing line between what is a limited role and what is not a limited role is, obviously, the major point of contention.
While it is true that America once had confiscatory income tax rates on paper, the number of people actually paying those rates was very small due to various shelters and loopholes.
As it stands now, I would much rather have targeted tax cuts for businesses before lowering the individual (or jointly filing) income tax rates. I would also like to see reductions in spending that focus on government programs that disincentivize employment (i.e. welfare cuts rather than reform) such as Medicaid, SSI-D, public housing, WIC, etc. Once we have cut the budget to pre-2008 levels, then we can talk about tax reforms such as a flat, fair, or some other reduction in rates.
Needless to say, this is an issue that for which I'm very passionate. I would not consider myself to be a single issue voter, but I'm damn close. Sadly, I do not feel that the GOP has offered up a candidate that is enough of a spending hawk to satisfy my palate. Kasich had a pretty good record in the House, but grew OH's budget as governor and is saying all the wrong things now. Cruz gives spending some lip service, but I'm not seeing the fire in his belly when colleagues have offered some reasonable road maps like the Mack-Penny Plan (he likes "some" of its principles). Perhaps the GOP can offer up someone better suited to address this issue once we get to the contested convention; yes, I think that it's going to happen.
Sensei - I know this is going to sound bad, can't help it - have you ever stopped to consider whether your views are what is best for the nation, or best for you, in your position?
I don't believe that government programs such as Medicaid, SSI-D, public housing, WIC, etc. dis-incentivize employment across the board. This might just be regional, but in my locale, there are not pages of want ads. Most of the jobs in our area are lower wage jobs that put people pretty close to the edge of disaster if anything untoward happens. When my daughter's were in grade school we intentionally moved them from the best elementary school in the district to the second worst in the district in terms of socio-economics. The school we moved them to had the best principal in the district and a highly motivated, innovative teaching staff. The folks I met at PTO meetings were a pretty rough bunch, but they were all workers. My wife told me over 90% of the kids in the school were getting free or reduced lunches.
I don't know about you, but I just have a hard time saying 'fvck you' to people who are trying.
I don't know about you, but I just have a hard time saying 'fvck you' to people who are trying.
I have a hard time with that too. I don't have a hard time saying "fvck you" to people who are using those public programs to buy cigarettes and candy bars. And when those people decide not to go to work because their government programs provide them with a better income...that's an even bigger problem for me to swallow.
The amount of waste, fraud, and abuse in our various entitlement programs is staggering, and I see that first hand every day at work.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-26-16, 11:42
Wife is in medicine and the free stuff they hand out, outside of any kind of Obamacare, is staggering. WIC is great in concept, medicaid is great idea and then it meets people who try to game the system. When people see others gaming the system, the leads to others figuring they are owed it it. That isn't a 'low-class' thing. Our RINO friends and most of the GOP has decided that they had better get fat at the trough while people are handing out money.
Family had insurance, but they were trying to get their kid on medicaid so that it would cost them less. WIC stories about people wanting scripts for everything so that the govt will pick up the tab while people wear the latest and greatest hood-rat wear are too common to warrant notice anymore. Hello, hello- Obamaphones?
I'm not saying that we shouldn't do those things, but the costs- fiscal and moral, are high.
Hello, hello- Obamaphones?
History: http://www.obamaphone.com/started-obama-phone-program
.46caliber
03-26-16, 12:44
I have a hard time with that too. I don't have a hard time saying "fvck you" to people who are using those public programs to buy cigarettes and candy bars. And when those people decide not to go to work because their government programs provide them with a better income...that's an even bigger problem for me to swallow.
The amount of waste, fraud, and abuse in our various entitlement programs is staggering, and I see that first hand every day at work.
I'm in a similar boat. I think moving the task of helping those in need is where a good portion of the abuse stems from. When a government meets needs of those struggling, people become dependent upon the government.
A church can clothe the kids of a single mom who is working hard to provide. A group of neighbors can drop off a couple bags of food to the neighbor that just got laid off. A union can reallocate man hours to curtail layoffs. We can help those who need it without handing that task to the government and let abuse go unchecked.
I worked at a gas station part time in college and we had our fair share of EBT customers. We had the single mom who would come in with her two well behaved kids to grab a gallon of milk on the way home. Then another would come in with a half dozen hooligans. She bought them all Powerade and Funyuns on the EBT card. Then she pulled out a roll of 20s the size of my fist to buy a carton of cigarettes, a dozen lottery tickets and a pint of Crown.
I'm all for helping the needy, but not via an abused, unchecked, tax-funded, dependent-building Government program.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't do those things, but the costs- fiscal and moral, are high.
That is true. Sometimes solving problems the least expensive way isn't fair, but doing it the old way is stupid: “It cost us one million dollars not to do something about Murray,” Officer O’Bryan said. Not a big Malcolm Gladwell guy, but this is a good read:
http://tamarackcommunity.ca/downloads/TO_res/Million_Dollar_Murray.pdf
The article begins focusing on homelessness, then rogue cops, then emissions from autos. To me it presents a compelling argument. Identify chronic abusers and manage them.
One of the problems that has been explained to me is that a lot of times a single-mother who wants to become a nurse often becomes a CNA first. While going through the CNA program she is often getting subsidized daycare, etc. Once they get a job as a CNA they make too much for the childcare subsidy, and that pretty much stops their progression. We are probably still giving some support though, wouldn't it be scheaper in the longer run to manage her case and get her to be that RN, who earns enough to pay taxes and isn't on the dole anymore?
It is fvcking complicated, ain't it?
VooDoo6Actual
03-26-16, 13:48
I guess this voting nonsense game paradigm is for those who are late to the party that have not figured out it's rigged still.
The empire never ended.
Panem et Circenses
Sensei - I know this is going to sound bad, can't help it - have you ever stopped to consider whether your views are what is best for the nation, or best for you, in your position?
If I wanted what is best for me, then I would be calling for a reinstatement of the Bush tax cuts or a flat tax. Or, I would want more people on public healthcare plans like Medicaid to increase reimbursement for the indigent care that I provide. In fact, I've done very well under Obama, and more democratic policies would continue to line my pockets as I treat patients and apply for NIH grants.
Instead, I'm calling for policies that will hurt my bottom line. The programs that I want to see abolished like Medicaid might enrich my accounts, but they have been show to do next to nothing for healthcare outcomes. Take a look at the OR experience with Medicaid expansion; the vast majority of patient-centered outcomes were unchanged despite spending millions. The same can be said for WIC, public housing, and SSI-D. The research is fairly clear, cut those programs and people go back to work - you will not have to step over their bodies in the street if you turn off the welfare.
So no, I have absolutely no problem telling people to fu<ck off. I do it daily at work, so I have a lot of practice.
I just have a hard time saying 'fvck you' to people who are trying.
It is good that you recognize this - a man should know his limitations. ;)
BoringGuy45
03-26-16, 14:24
I have a hard time with that too. I don't have a hard time saying "fvck you" to people who are using those public programs to buy cigarettes and candy bars. And when those people decide not to go to work because their government programs provide them with a better income...that's an even bigger problem for me to swallow.
The amount of waste, fraud, and abuse in our various entitlement programs is staggering, and I see that first hand every day at work.
The problem is, the system is designed to make it impossible to get off assistance. Another personal example: When my wife and I first got married, we both had very low paying jobs and researched subsidized housing. We were obviously applying for higher paying jobs (to no avail), but we figured we could afford to stay in lower rent places until we had enough money to move up. We found such a place, it was about $700 a month with all utilities included, and it was actually pretty nice housing all things considered; not slummy and in a decent section of town.
Well, we met with the super of the place; she was a cold, unfriendly woman who seemed to act like my very existence was a personal insult. She informed us of the lease terms:
-Our combined income could not exceed $31,000 a year for us to be eligible
-One year lease. Once signed, we would not be permitted under any circumstance to break the lease early, or to transfer it to anyone else if we wished to move
Okay, those sound normal, but here's where it gets F'd up:
-If during the lease either one of us got a job or came into any money that would in any way put our income over $31,000, we would have one week to move out.
-Even if we were kicked out for going above the income cap, our lease remained: Though we would not be permitted to stay in our apartment, we would still have to pay the monthly rent of $700 until the end of the lease! Even if another tenant moved into our vacant apartment and was paying the monthly rent, we would STILL have to pay our monthly rent until our lease was up.
So, there was absolutely no incentive to go out and get a better job. We would be bound to the system unless we wanted to be homeless.
The problem is, the system is designed to make it impossible to get off assistance. Another personal example: When my wife and I first got married, we both had very low paying jobs and researched subsidized housing. We were obviously applying for higher paying jobs (to no avail), but we figured we could afford to stay in lower rent places until we had enough money to move up. We found such a place, it was about $700 a month with all utilities included, and it was actually pretty nice housing all things considered; not slummy and in a decent section of town.
Well, we met with the super of the place; she was a cold, unfriendly woman who seemed to act like my very existence was a personal insult. She informed us of the lease terms:
-Our combined income could not exceed $31,000 a year for us to be eligible
-One year lease. Once signed, we would not be permitted under any circumstance to break the lease early, or to transfer it to anyone else if we wished to move
Okay, those sound normal, but here's where it gets F'd up:
-If during the lease either one of us got a job or came into any money that would in any way put our income over $31,000, we would have one week to move out.
-Even if we were kicked out for going above the income cap, our lease remained: Though we would not be permitted to stay in our apartment, we would still have to pay the monthly rent of $700 until the end of the lease! Even if another tenant moved into our vacant apartment and was paying the monthly rent, we would STILL have to pay our monthly rent until our lease was up.
So, there was absolutely no incentive to go out and get a better job. We would be bound to the system unless we wanted to be homeless.
So she can make twice the money on a single apartment? Assuming you came into money and was above the $31k/year. In other words she can have new tenants and still charge you?
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
BoringGuy45
03-26-16, 15:46
So she can make twice the money on a single apartment? Assuming you came into money and was above the $31k/year. In other words she can have new tenants and still charge you?
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
That's exactly it. I would be forced to pay for an apartment I was not allowed to live in because I made the mistake of trying to make more money. I could understand maybe having a rule that you couldn't renew your lease after the year if you got a higher paying job, but that you could stay till the end. Nope. Not here. One week to get out and you still have to pay!
Never heard of that and it sounds like some serious bullshit. I mean the rule not your post. The super is in a win win situation and has no reason to look for better tenants.
When we first came here my parents were on food stamps. I remember them arguing because my mom would refuse to use them because she felt like it was embarrassing to show strangers that you couldn't afford to feed the family. They comprised and she would only use it for 10% of the grocery purchases.
This was back when food stamps were actually money like paper notes that came in $1, $5, $10, $20....
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Cagemonkey
03-26-16, 19:45
Indeed. Some are just hard learners. You'd think that with Bush and then Obama and the Establishment Circus attacking Sanders and Trump, that people would at least start to question their belief systems. I hope people start to wake up before its too late.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.