View Full Version : Given the current candidates, couldn't we just write in ___ ____ ....
Ron Paul?
But seriously, despite his given quirks, I would think both parties' demographics would find him favorable to our current candidates. A few commercials urging a write-in campaign, promotion of his digital media... what's to lose?
/discuss
Moose-Knuckle
08-11-16, 04:24
https://c2.staticflickr.com/9/8786/28293054113_eef685b114.jpg
Business_Casual
08-11-16, 06:20
What's to lose? The 1st and 2nd and 4th Amendments when HRC wins. Bill wouldn't have been president is Ross Perot hadn't been on the ballot.
Sure. We could write in anyone we want, but it's the same thing as voting for Hillary.
He's very unpopular among most people I know for his foreign policy but I can't help but get excited when I hear him talk about ending entitlement programs and eliminating alphabet agencies.
Other politicians would never say things like that because it automatically throws millions of votes away.
Sure. We could write in anyone we want, but it's the same thing as voting for Hillary.
That is 100% FACT.
Rand Paul is who I was hoping would get the nomination, but realistically I knew he didn't stand a chance against the RINO's and moderates who are too scared to grow a pair. He or his father would be perfect for the job IMHO, but they're not "sellable" because everyone out there is on the take and don't want to see their sugar money dry up.
Ron Paul?
But seriously, despite his given quirks, I would think both parties' demographics would find him favorable to our current candidates. A few commercials urging a write-in campaign, promotion of his digital media... what's to lose?
/discuss
My take: If the GOP elite had any brains they would have put all their weight behind Rand as the guy who could have pulled a ton of HC voters, most of the Bernie voters, pretty much all the independents, and the GOP rank and file would vote for him - even the far right neocon types - because he's not HC. But, they are so out of touch, and more interested in keeping their power over the GOP. I think Rand dropped out way too early, but I guess he didn't have the war chest for it.
If i were going to do a write in, it would be Paul. As Johnson is on the ballot of all states, I'm leaning heavily toward him at this time, but want to see him make the debates to have any real impact.
If you're not in a swing state, nothing to lose as far as I know and it will send the message people are not happy at all with their choices from the two parties. I voted third party last few elections as the state I was in was firmly blue and candidates didn't even bother to visit the state it's so blue.
If in a swing state, than one does have to think seriously about the choices they make and the outcomes they are willing to live with. It comes down to the usual issue: voting your conscience vs voting for lesser of two evils, even if one is only 0.0001% less evil ...
Ron Paul?
But seriously, despite his given quirks, I would think both parties' demographics would find him favorable to our current candidates. A few commercials urging a write-in campaign, promotion of his digital media... what's to lose?
/discuss
It has been so long since I didn't write myself in I've lost track. Voted for Reagan, and pretty sure Bush 1 the first time. I do believe I began writing myself in after that. I guess this time according to you guys I'm going to help Hilary, probably voting for Johnson, or, myself.
Sure. We could write in anyone we want, but it's the same thing as voting for Hillary.
That is 100% FACT.
But it's not. Polls continue to show Trump benefits in a three way race vs two way. Not sure why people seem to ignore that fact. It appears HC is the loser when people are given other choices in the polls. Not sure how that applies to write ins per se, vs those actually on the ballot, but it's far from a fact as voting for HC it appears.
My take: If the GOP elite had any brains they would have put all their weight behind Rand as the guy who could have pulled a ton of HC voters, most of the Bernie voters, pretty much all the independents, and the GOP rank and file would vote for him - even the far right neocon types - because he's not HC. But, they are so out of touch, and more interested in keeping their power over the GOP. I think Rand dropped out way too early, but I guess he didn't have the war chest for it.
If i were going to do a write in, it would be Paul. As Johnson is on the ballot of all states, I'm leaning heavily toward him at this time, but want to see him make the debates to have any real impact.
If you're not in a swing state, nothing to lose as far as I know and it will send the message people are not happy at all with their choices from the two parties. I voted third party last few elections as the state I was in was firmly blue and candidates didn't even bother to visit the state it's so blue.
If in a swing state, than one does have to think seriously about the choices they make and the outcomes they are willing to live with. It comes down to the usual issue: voting your conscience vs voting for lesser of two evils, even if one is only 0.0001% less evil ...
I'm still undecided myself on what I'm going to do. All I know for sure is that just like last time, I'm not voting for "the lesser of two evils". Holding my nose and voting for McCain was the final time for me doing that EVER. Romney was the slap in my face that ensured "never again".
Ron Paul?
But seriously, despite his given quirks, I would think both parties' demographics would find him favorable to our current candidates. A few commercials urging a write-in campaign, promotion of his digital media... what's to lose?
/discuss
I have relatives who are heavily involved in unions and they are still crying the blues over supporting Ross Perot. If you file a protest vote, the power brokers could not care less and your vote will be forgotten in short order.
Voting will have long term ramifications, especially in regards to Supreme Court nominations. Vote carefully.
Averageman
08-11-16, 10:26
Hold your nose and vote for Trump or get ready for Hillary.
They are burning the Midnight oil getting ready for her SCOTUS choices to seriously kick the 2nd in the nutz.
Doc Safari
08-11-16, 10:30
Hold your nose and vote for Trump or get ready for Hillary.
They are burning the Midnight oil getting ready for her SCOTUS choices to seriously kick the 2nd in the nutz.
THIS. Whether you like Trump or not, the two-party system is what rules this country (really a one-party system but that's another debate). You either are going to get Trump or Hillary. Period. End of story. Nuff Said. Anybody else is either a spoiler, a waste of a vote, or a vote for Hillary.
YOU CANNOT LET HILLARY CLINTON BECOME PRESIDENT UNLESS YOU THINK IT WILL BE FUN TO BURY YOUR GUNS IN THE BACKYARD.
Sure. We could write in anyone we want, but it's the same thing as voting for Hillary.
That is 100% FACT.
Say DJT has 50 votes and HRC has 50 votes.
If you vote for HRC, she has 51 to DJT's 50 and wins. If you vote for DJT, he has 51 to HRC's 50 and wins. If you don't vote or vote for a third option, the tie between them stays the same. The vote totals change by 1 or not at all.
Similarly, if you start from the perspective of already voting for DJT and its tied at 50 to 50, a vote for HRC changes it 49 to 51 while a vote for a third party only changes it 49 to 50. For the math challenged, changing from DJT to HRC changes the vote difference by 2, but changing from DJT to a third party changes the vote difference by 1. I don't know why you'd use this comparison though; it's not like anyone seriously considering a 3rd party has ever voted in a poll for DJT.
This doesn't even touch on the fact that third parties don't only pull from one of the major candidates. It doesn't need to, because in what world is 0=1 or 1=2 "100% FACT"?
crusader377
08-11-16, 10:37
YOU CANNOT LET HILLARY CLINTON BECOME PRESIDENT UNLESS YOU THINK IT WILL BE FUN TO BURY YOUR GUNS IN THE BACKYARD.
This is spot on.
Averageman
08-11-16, 10:46
This doesn't even touch on the fact that third parties don't only pull from one of the major candidates. It doesn't need to, because in what world is 0=1 or 1=2 "100% FACT"?
Perot.
Drops Mic, walks off stage.
Not buying it. I can't vote for either of these clowns.
****ing 2 party system.
Hold your nose and vote for Trump or get ready for Hillary.
They are burning the Midnight oil getting ready for her SCOTUS choices to seriously kick the 2nd in the nutz.
This is the truth right here. Rand Paul was the guy I supported through the primaries, and I didn't and still don't like Trump. Obviously a LOT of Repulicans are sick of the power brokering RINO's and voted for Donald Trump. Trump won the nomination plain and simple, and now it's time for ALL of us Republicans to step up and support him. Despite all the Republican and Republican Convention's attempts to knock him out of it, Trump won fair and square. Our fellow Republicans have spoken by their primary vote, so now it's time to get off our asses, quit complaining and go out and vote Trump. It's sad that a bunch of fellow Republicans out there are still pouting over the fact that Trump won. It's high time to get over it. If you don't vote for Trump, your vote will ensure that Hillary gets elected, don't kid yourselves. The Supreme Court is at stake at what I feel is a pivotal time in our nations history. It's time for us to stick together! I know I like Hillary a lot less than I do Trump, so I'm willing to take the chance as I know what voting for that wench will get us.
Doc Safari
08-11-16, 10:59
Not buying it. I can't vote for either of these clowns.
****ing 2 party system.
I know it's hard. What's even harder is watching your Second Amendment rights be taken away from you by one Supreme Court decision.
What's worse: eating a small part of a turd now to vote for someone you'd rather not, or eating a whole bucket of filthy steaming turds when you realize that you have to turn in your weapons?
Think it won't happen?
Watch this:
1. Hillary takes the oath of office.
2. One or more SCOTUS members "suddenly" decides to retire.
3. Hillary appoints only anti-gun candidates who state up front that they will gut the Second Amendment
4. The Senate tries to stop a couple of nominees, if they have the balls, but eventually the Princess of Darkness gets her way
5. The administration fast-tracks a case to the Supreme Court that will force a decision on whether 2A is an individual right..
6. Six months go by and the SCOTUS decides to set aside Heller and delcares 2A obsolete and there is no individual right
7. Whether through executive order, or simply taking the SCOTUS decision as law, ATF visits every gun dealer in the country to
confiscate every person's 4473 going as far back in time as they can.
8. For the next few months, ATF sends letters to every address on every 4473 demanding that all guns be turned in within a 90-day grace
period under threat of prosecution.
9. The majority of the gun-owning public, lacking the intestinal fortitude to do anything else, dutifully complies, leaving only that oddball
nutcase here and there for SWAT teams to raid in the wee hours of the morning.
Game. Set. Match. It's over.
This is the reason I will walk ten miles through hurricane-force weather to vote for Trump.
Anybody who wants to write in another candidate might as well write in Hillary because that's who you are helping.
It's your vote. Cast it for whomever you wish...
Averageman
08-11-16, 11:01
Not buying it. I can't vote for either of these clowns.
****ing 2 party system.
No, really, hold your nose and vote Trump.The whole World as we know it revolves around the lesser of two evils at this point.
I'm going to say "Lets set the Second Amendment aside for a moment" and concentrate on foreign policy. I think Trump will be more likely to rebuild our Military and stay out of Foreign Wars, perhaps even some "Make America Great Again" stuff like infrastructure and manufacturing and fixing the tax code.
Don't let yourself down.
Hillary gets us, more corruption and azz deep in another Middle East War, all while we import those playing War to be our neighbors here in 'Merica.
Now lets talk Second again, Hillary is going to gut it like it was last nights Fish.
Yeah it is an ugly choice, but it's the better of the two.
I know it's hard. What's even harder is watching your Second Amendment rights be taken away from you by one Supreme Court decision.
What's worse: eating a small part of a turd now to vote for someone you'd rather not, or eating a whole bucket of filthy steaming turds when you realize that you have to turn in your weapons?
Think it won't happen?
Watch this:
1. Hillary takes the oath of office.
2. One or more SCOTUS members "suddenly" decides to retire.
3. Hillary appoints only anti-gun candidates who state up front that they will gut the Second Amendment
4. The Senate tries to stop a couple of nominees, if they have the balls, but eventually the Princess of Darkness gets her way
5. The administration fast-tracks a case to the Supreme Court that will force a decision on whether 2A is an individual right..
6. Six months go by and the SCOTUS decides to set aside Heller and delcares 2A obsolete and there is no individual right
7. Whether through executive order, or simply taking the SCOTUS decision as law, ATF visits every gun dealer in the country to
confiscate every person's 4473 going as far back in time as they can.
8. For the next few months, ATF sends letters to every address on every 4473 demanding that all guns be turned in within a 90-day grace
period under threat of prosecution.
9. The majority of the gun-owning public, lacking the intestinal fortitude to do anything else, dutifully complies, leaving only that oddball
nutcase here and there for SWAT teams to raid in the wee hours of the morning.
Game. Set. Match. It's over.
This is the reason I will walk ten miles through hurricane-force weather to vote for Trump.
Anybody who wants to write in another candidate might as well write in Hillary because that's who you are helping.
So you operate under the assumption that Donald Trump would nominate people we like?
I can't make that assumption.
Welp, ya had 12 years to have yer fun.
Now it's voting time. Good luck with it.
Doc Safari
08-11-16, 11:03
So you operate under the assumption that Donald Trump would nominate people we like?
I can't make that assumption.
I think he will. He has campaigned as a Second Amendment supporter.
What other choice have you got? Someone you know will end your rights or someone who might not be a 100% NRA "A" rated candidate?
The choice is still clear in my mind: do you prefer castration or at worst a vasectomy?
I think he will. He has campaigned as a Second Amendment supporter.
What other choice have you got? Someone you know will end your rights or someone who might not be a 100% NRA "A" rated candidate?
The choice is still clear in my mind: do you prefer castration or at worst a vasectomy?
Option C: Resist both until aggressors are out of the picture or I'm dead.
wilson1911
08-11-16, 11:31
The only way we can remove power from the dems and repubs is to not vote for them. This means taking a hit for the team for a bit, but no one is willing to do that.
No one is willing to use the reset button. Instead we will be standing in line with all the other moan labe guys.
So we continue down the same path we have been on for decades.....leaving less for our children and more for the gov.
The one thing I would like to know is how the founders of this country managed to draw their line in the sand. They had the same problems we have now, but chose to take a different path than we have. One of the things I do like about the beginnings is how they would form a new party when none of the others suited them.
The reality is that we continue to bleet like sheep....griping and complaining the whole way, but also continue to be herded by the gov. I am normally one of those people who vote third party when possible. I am not so sure this time.
Doc Safari
08-11-16, 11:34
"LOSE THE BATTLE; WIN THE WAR" is the operative phrase for this election.
If Hillary loses this time she will be too old to ever run again and we will be rid of the Clintons. That's reason enough in my book to vote for Trump.
Maybe he isn't a great candidate (lose the battle), but at least we won't have four or eight years of utter natiional horror (win the war).
The only way we can remove power from the dems and repubs is to not vote for them. This means taking a hit for the team for a bit, but no one is willing to do that.
I feel it's now my duty to point to the ongoing Gary Johnson thread HERE (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?183846-Gary-Johnson-polling-at-15-(was-13-)) for those interested. Back to the regularly schedule programing for those not interested.
If the next four to eight years of Hillary go as bad we think maybe it would be the spark we need to really change shit instead of continuing this slow slide into hell.
I just don't see how anyone can see Trump as being any different than Hillary. He used to have all the same positions and support her but now he wants to get elected so he says a bunch of shit that sounds good and we're supposed to forget he's a Northeast Liberal? Hell, that's the WORST kind too. Everything about him is a lie: his terrible combover, his sudden "conservative" lean, his "self made man" status. He's a ****ing reality TV star; this isn't a popularity contest or a quest to see who has the best marketing skills (which he clearly has since he has so many fooled) its an election for President of the United States.
Doc Safari
08-11-16, 11:39
The only way we can remove power from the dems and repubs is to not vote for them. This means taking a hit for the team for a bit, but no one is willing to do that.
I hate being "that guy" all the time, but this argument is similar to "if everyone stopped paying their taxes the government would be bankrupt and we could start over."
It's a false premise. People will not stop paying their taxes, and they will not stop voting for the two major parties.
Won't happen.
Only a catastrophic exodus of members from one or both major parties would even make it possible for a third candidate to win.
Doc Safari
08-11-16, 11:39
I feel it's now my duty to point to the ongoing Gary Johnson thread HERE (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?183846-Gary-Johnson-polling-at-15-(was-13-)) for those interested. Back to the regularly schedule programing for those not interested.
Much as I despise the very air exhaled by Gary Johnson, if I thought he'd beat Hillary I'd even vote for his sorry, stinking corpse.
But he can't win.
He can only siphon votes from Trump.
Doc Safari
08-11-16, 11:41
If the next four to eight years of Hillary go as bad we think maybe it would be the spark we need to really change shit instead of continuing this slow slide into hell.
I just don't see how anyone can see Trump as being any different than Hillary. He used to have all the same positions and support her but now he wants to get elected so he says a bunch of shit that sounds good and we're supposed to forget he's a Northeast Liberal? Hell, that's the WORST kind too. Everything about him is a lie: his terrible combover, his sudden "conservative" lean, his "self made man" status. He's a ****ing reality TV star; this isn't a popularity contest or a quest to see who has the best marketing skills (which he clearly has since he has so many fooled) its an election for President of the United States.
I actually think he's changed his mind on some things. Remember that Reagan was a Democrat for many years, too.
Averageman
08-11-16, 11:42
So you operate under the assumption that Donald Trump would nominate people we like?
I can't make that assumption.
Lets consider this, Bush nominated John Roberts. Roberts had a conservative history was a solid stand up guy and right until Obama-Care was pretty dependable.
So if you can't trust a Judge, who can you trust?
I think Trump's agenda on who he nominates will likely be more likely be a business centrist Judge than anyone Hillary or Obama could nominate. I think they will very likely be less inclined to take on social issues and leave those decisions at the lower courts.
All in all I would look for more favorable issues for business and less favorable for things like the overreaching ATF and EPA.
I don't think we will see another Liberal though.
Lets consider this, Bush nominated John Roberts. Roberts had a conservative history was a solid stand up guy and right until Obama-Care was pretty dependable.
So if you can't trust a Judge, who can you trust?
I think Trump's agenda on who he nominates will likely be more likely be a business centrist Judge than anyone Hillary or Obama could nominate. I think they will very likely be less inclined to take on social issues and leave those decisions at the lower courts.
All in all I would look for more favorable issues for business and less favorable for things like the overreaching ATF and EPA.
I don't think we will see another Liberal though.
Don't even get me started on the Supreme Court. As much as I love the US Constitution I really dislike the way the Supreme Court works.
Instead of interpreting the law verbatim, we get activists in there who want to get creative. I know that the other two branches are out of control as well but man, a bad ruling can take a century to get rid of.
Business_Casual
08-11-16, 12:05
LOL, did you notice who has been president for the past two terms?
Quote Originally Posted by Falar View Post
If the next four to eight years of Hillary go as bad we think maybe it would be the spark we need to really change shit instead of continuing this slow slide into hell.
Averageman
08-11-16, 12:18
Don't even get me started on the Supreme Court. As much as I love the US Constitution I really dislike the way the Supreme Court works.
Instead of interpreting the law verbatim, we get activists in there who want to get creative. I know that the other two branches are out of control as well but man, a bad ruling can take a century to get rid of.
There in is the key to deciding to hold your nose and vote Trump.
These Globalists sitting on the court are more likely to decide for the United Nations than the United States Citizens. I really have a lot more confidence that Trump will do less harm than Hillary in nearly every aspect of my Life.
With the money She has gotten from the Saudi's and the shape that they are in right now with Yemen and other neighboring Countries. With the likely hood that things will get worse in Iraq and Syria long before it gets better. With the things She has already supported with Russia?
Trump may not be a good candidate, but he is far less damaging thanm Hillary.
There in is the key to deciding to hold your nose and vote Trump.
These Globalists sitting on the court are more likely to decide for the United Nations than the United States Citizens. I really have a lot more confidence that Trump will do less harm than Hillary in nearly every aspect of my Life.
With the money She has gotten from the Saudi's and the shape that they are in right now with Yemen and other neighboring Countries. With the likely hood that things will get worse in Iraq and Syria long before it gets better. With the things She has already supported with Russia?
Trump may not be a good candidate, but he is far less damaging thanm Hillary.
Once again, I don't think Trump would choose better.
Averageman
08-11-16, 12:46
Once again, I don't think Trump would choose better.
To some degree until they are there and deciding cases, you just don't know.
I swear after all Roberts did in the past, for Obama-Care to pass, someone must have had video of Roberts laying naked in a pile of Thai Ladyboys and snorting coke of one of their behinds while swigging Jack straight out of the bottle and being air tight on several occasions.
But it's not. Polls continue to show Trump benefits in a three way race vs two way. Not sure why people seem to ignore that fact. It appears HC is the loser when people are given other choices in the polls. Not sure how that applies to write ins per se, vs those actually on the ballot, but it's far from a fact as voting for HC it appears.
Philosophically a lot of people may align with Johnson, but at the end of the day when it's time to vote they are going to have to think, "Is my vote for Johnson going to result in the Presidency of the person I'd least like to see in office?"
Sanders voters aren't completely retarded, they know a vote for Johnson could result in President Trump.
And most of those on the right who are dissatisfied with Trump know a vote for Johnson could result in President Clinton.
The ONLY was Johnson has a chance of winning is if he is actually polling higher than one of the other two following the debates. If he has less than 35% support after the debates, he is simply going to be a spoiler for one of the other two.
And given the fact that we actually have Republicans who are going to vote for Clinton, I'd say voting for Johnson is a Clinton vote by proxy.
But again, if he's polling at some insane number like 45% after the debates, I'll get behind him.
Philosophically a lot of people may align with Johnson, but at the end of the day when it's time to vote they are going to have to think, "Is my vote for Johnson going to result in the Presidency of the person I'd least like to see in office?"
Sanders voters aren't completely retarded, they know a vote for Johnson could result in President Trump.
And most of those on the right who are dissatisfied with Trump know a vote for Johnson could result in President Clinton.
The ONLY was Johnson has a chance of winning is if he is actually polling higher than one of the other two following the debates. If he has less than 35% support after the debates, he is simply going to be a spoiler for one of the other two.
And given the fact that we actually have Republicans who are going to vote for Clinton, I'd say voting for Johnson is a Clinton vote by proxy.
But again, if he's polling at some insane number like 45% after the debates, I'll get behind him.
And there we have it, a reasoned logical response. Instead of saying "can't" you covered what it would take for yourself and many others to support GJ realizing it's far from impossible, just highly unlikely. Most said Trump being the GOP nominee was highly unlikely and it was. I'm pretty much right there with you on that assessment. He needs to be in the debates, and if he does, and does well, then I'll make an assessment then. If he does not make the debates, he's DOA. If he does, and enough people think he's the only adult in the room, polls suggest strongly it is possible however improbable.
MountainRaven
08-11-16, 13:20
Sure. We could write in anyone we want, but it's the same thing as voting for Hillary.
Let's be honest, voting for anybody but Hillary is voting for Hillary.
And there we have it, a reasoned logical response. Instead of saying "can't" you covered what it would take for yourself and many others to support GJ realizing it's far from impossible, just highly unlikely. Most said Trump being the GOP nominee was highly unlikely and it was. I'm pretty much right there with you on that assessment. He needs to be in the debates, and if he does, and does well, then I'll make an assessment then. If he does not make the debates, he's DOA. If he does, and enough people think he's the only adult in the room, polls suggest strongly it is possible however improbable.
I'm looking for my best case scenario. Given that Trump is a long way from Rand Paul (who was my first choice), if the numbers are there I'd gladly take a President Johnson (woah that sounded scary to say given the last one) over Trump any day. Johnson may have a Fuddtard VP but Trump comes with his own set of problems.
All things considered, I'd actually prefer Johnson to Trump as we could use a Libertarian president. But I'm voting for whoever is in the best place to stop Hillary.
I can always write in Ronald Reagan's Zombie Corpse, but no matter what I write in or whichever third party I go with, It will just guarantee another Clinton white house.
Meh, Who needs guns and national security, anyways
eightmillimeter
08-11-16, 17:02
Just stand in that ballot box and reflect on what you have and what could happen. Look at pictures of your kids while you fill in the oval for "anyone but Trump" and see if you still have a set big enough to risk it. 4 years into a HRC White House at least the next D'Souza movie should be good...
Doc Safari
08-11-16, 17:10
Just stand in that ballot box and reflect on what you have and what could happen. Look at pictures of your kids while you fill in the oval for "anyone but Trump" and see if you still have a set big enough to risk it. 4 years into a HRC White House at least the next D'Souza movie should be good...
Will D'Souza live to see inauguration day? I doubt it. He will get on the wrong plane, drop a barbell on his neck, or be shot (but not robbed) while out jogging.
Will D'Souza live to see inauguration day? I doubt it. He will get on the wrong plane, drop a barbell on his neck, or be shot (but not robbed) while out jogging.
Or go into a park and commit suicide for no apparent reason?
I took civics class back in the 10th grade, that was in the late 70s, so my memory isn't quite so fresh. But I remember some of it, we vote in November for the electoral college, they in turn sometime in December gather in Washington to vote for the actual person. In this case, Trump, Hildabeast and independent weirdo (the other two are weird too). So a write in candidate whether it's Peyton Manning or Mickey Mouse, won't be receiving any electoral vote since their names were not on the November ballots.
Am I right? maybe one of you Constitutionalist expert can enlighten me.
eightmillimeter
08-11-16, 18:11
Theoretically if say a write in candidate like Rand Paul received a majority of votes in a state like Utah then The electoral reps for Utah would be required to vote for Rand Paul in the electoral vote IF the said person meets the requirements for the Presidency as laid out in the Constitution; 35 YOA, natural citizen, etc
Yes?
I took civics class back in the 10th grade, that was in the late 70s, so my memory isn't quite so fresh. But I remember some of it, we vote in November for the electoral college, they in turn sometime in December gather in Washington to vote for the actual person. In this case, Trump, Hildabeast and independent weirdo (the other two are weird too). So a write in candidate whether it's Peyton Manning or Mickey Mouse, won't be receiving any electoral vote since their names were not on the November ballots.
Am I right? maybe one of you Constitutionalist expert can enlighten me.
I took civics class back in the 10th grade, that was in the late 70s, so my memory isn't quite so fresh. But I remember some of it, we vote in November for the electoral college, they in turn sometime in December gather in Washington to vote for the actual person. In this case, Trump, Hildabeast and independent weirdo (the other two are weird too). So a write in candidate whether it's Peyton Manning or Mickey Mouse, won't be receiving any electoral vote since their names were not on the November ballots.
Am I right? maybe one of you Constitutionalist expert can enlighten me.
If a write in, far as I know they can't win. It's strictly a protest vote. If you're talking about third party that is on the ballot of all 50 states, that's where things get real interesting. Depending on how the electoral college falls and it's close between Hill-Trump, GJ may only need to win his home state to become POTUS. That's pretty wild but true. Unlikely? Frankly, I think the House of Representatives would leap at the opportunity to work with two ex GOP governors and be given an out to Trump:
"The 12th Amendment sets up the system by which state electors are appointed or elected and are supposed to vote for the candidate that wins the popular vote of their state. The Electoral College requires that in order to be elected President a candidate must win a majority of these votes. Right now, a Presidential candidate has to win 270 electoral votes to be elected President. If no one candidate is able to achieve an outright majority, then the fate of the election falls to the House of Representatives. The newly elected House decides when they take office in January and each state delegation is granted one vote. The Congressmen from that state vote amongst themselves, and then cast their one vote as a whole. Congressmen are not required to vote for who won their state. They are only required to vote for one of the top three finishers."
Electoral map:
https://alibertarianfuture.com/2016-election/gary-johnson-elected-president-home-state-new-mexico/
How many Electoral votes did Perot get?
There ya go!
skywalkrNCSU
08-12-16, 15:01
This whole hold your nose and vote for Trump thing is the same thing that has happened for three elections now. First it was hold your nose and vote for McCain and then it was hold your nose and vote for Romney. You know what? That doesn't work and Trump is going to get slaughtered worse than those two other clowns did because he is the biggest joke of a candidate running for president under a major political party. The fact that the Republicans couldn't do better than him spells massive trouble for the future of the party. At some point you have to realize when to jump off the sinking ship because the rescue boat isn't coming back. Reality is a bitch but it beats living in fantasy land.
Doc Safari
08-12-16, 15:16
This whole hold your nose and vote for Trump thing is the same thing that has happened for three elections now. First it was hold your nose and vote for McCain and then it was hold your nose and vote for Romney. You know what? That doesn't work and Trump is going to get slaughtered worse than those two other clowns did because he is the biggest joke of a candidate running for president under a major political party. The fact that the Republicans couldn't do better than him spells massive trouble for the future of the party. At some point you have to realize when to jump off the sinking ship because the rescue boat isn't coming back. Reality is a bitch but it beats living in fantasy land.
But you ARE living in fantasy land, don't you see? Yes, the choices for the last twenty-plus years have been AWFUL. But we can't do anything about that.
To think that enough people will "jump off the sinking ship" (as you put it) that it will ever make a difference is ignoring the fact that one of the two parties WILL put someone in the White House for this election, the next election, and probably ten elections after that.
Only something unexpected and catastrophic will ever break the power of the two parties in this country. So, yeah, we are perpetually stuck with the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils, but that's our lot in life. We do not live in a time when true patriots or staunch defenders of freedom or even political geniuses run for office. We will get someone awful no matter who we vote for because the smart people do not want to run.
So....if the choice between two awful candidates is one who will definitely take your guns and promises to do so openly, or one who at least says he's for the Second Amendment---how is that a hard choice?
This is not just directed at you, but all of you that refuse to vote for Trump because he's not your ideal candidate: Can't you put your pride aside long enough to save your guns?
This whole hold your nose and vote for Trump thing is the same thing that has happened for three elections now. First it was hold your nose and vote for McCain and then it was hold your nose and vote for Romney. You know what? That doesn't work and Trump is going to get slaughtered worse than those two other clowns did because he is the biggest joke of a candidate running for president under a major political party. The fact that the Republicans couldn't do better than him spells massive trouble for the future of the party. At some point you have to realize when to jump off the sinking ship because the rescue boat isn't coming back. Reality is a bitch but it beats living in fantasy land.
Trump is the symptom, not the problem.
We did do better than Trump when we had Rand Paul and Ted Cruz in the running, so it's not like America can't produce better candidates; we did produce them, but America simply wanted Trump more.
The harsh reality is that the presidential candidates we have now are a direct reflection of "conservatives" and, by extension, of the American people. Not all American people, but most American people. We rejected Constitutionalists, Libertarians, and even brain surgeons with PhDs for a ruthless, prideful, but arguably successful, disestablishment billionaire. That is who American conservatives wanted as a leader. They didn't want better, they wanted Trump. Any pro-GOP voter arguing otherwise is literally in the minority.
Let that sink in.
Doc Safari
08-12-16, 15:25
Trump is the symptom, not the problem.
We did do better than Trump when we had Rand Paul and Ted Cruz in the running, so it's not like America can't produce better candidates; we did produce them, but America simply wanted Trump more.
The harsh reality is that the presidential candidates we have now are a direct reflection of "conservatives" and, by extension, of the American people. Not all American people, but most American people. We rejected Constitutionalists, Libertarians, and even brain surgeons with PhDs for a ruthless, prideful, but arguably successful, disestablishment billionaire. That is what American conservatives wanted as a leader. They didn't want better, they wanted Trump.
Let that sink in.
This explanation works for me too.
NOW CAN WE PLEASE STOP WRINGING OUR HANDS OVER WHAT A SORRY STATE WE'RE IN AND JUST SAVE OUR GUNS?
This explanation works for me too.
NOW CAN WE PLEASE STOP WRINGING OUR HANDS OVER WHAT A SORRY STATE WE'RE IN AND JUST SAVE OUR GUNS?
I don't understand how "our guns" are at stake in the Presidential election. First, for any real bans to take place hard line liberals will need a large majority in both houses of Congress.
2nd, I don't believe Trump, who prior to this election was just another Northeast Liberal Elitist, is very pro-2A. Virtually all of his positions are 180 degrees from where he was just a short time ago.
Sounds like the same argument everyone was making trying to get us to vote for "weapons of unusual lethality" Mitt Romney.
Doc Safari
08-12-16, 15:32
I don't understand how "our guns" are at stake in the Presidential election. First, for any real bans to take place hard line liberals will need a large majority in both houses of Congress.
No they don't. They need a radical anti-gun president who will appoint radical anti-gun Supreme Court justices who will overturn Heller. Then they will use regulations to implement the gun confiscation.
I don't understand how people miss this. They will bypass Congress.
2nd, I don't believe Trump, who prior to this election was just another Northeast Liberal Elitist, is very pro-2A. Virtually all of his positions are 180 degrees from where he was just a short time ago.
You may be right, but I think he has changed his mind on many things. At least he seems to be on our side now. We know Hillary is not.
No they don't. They need a radical anti-gun president who will appoint radical anti-gun Supreme Court justices who will overturn Heller. Then they will use regulations to implement the gun confiscation.
I don't understand how people miss this. They will bypass Congress.
You may be right, but I think he has changed his mind on many things. At least he seems to be on our side now. We know Hillary is not.
When was the last time the Supreme Court reversed one of its own decisions within that short of a time frame?
Genuinely curious, case law isn't my area of expertise and the only big-time reversals I've ever seen were decades or a century apart.
Doc Safari
08-12-16, 15:38
When was the last time the Supreme Court reversed one of its own decisions within that short of a time frame?
Genuinely curious, case law isn't my area of expertise and the only big-time reversals I've ever seen were decades or a century apart.
It doesn't happen very often, to be sure. My contention is that the Princess of Darkness will only appoint justices who promise up front (as a condition of being nominated) that they will overturn Heller at the first opportunity.
I do not think I'm wrong on this one. I think she would do such a thing.
It doesn't happen very often, to be sure. My contention is that the Princess of Darkness will only appoint justices who promise up front (as a condition of being nominated) that they will overturn Heller at the first opportunity.
I do not think I'm wrong on this one. I think she would do such a thing.
We already have one open spot, and Ginsburg is 83, Kennedy is 80, and Breyer is 77. It is absolutely feasible to expect all three to pass in the next 8 years. That is a potential four SCOTUS seats to be nominated by Hillary. Even if they don't do it immediately we are still looking at a liberal stacked SCOTUS for the next 20-30 years if Hillary gets elected, so if you care about our gun rights or any of our bill of rights, you need to vote for Trump. I don't understand why its so hard for people to see this.
Doc Safari
08-12-16, 15:48
Even if they don't do it immediately we are still looking at a liberal stacked SCOTUS for the next 20-30 years if Hillary gets elected, so if you care about our gun rights or any of our bill of rights, you need to vote for Trump. I don't understand why its so hard for people to see this.
Thanks for restoring some of my faith in the electorate.
skywalkrNCSU
08-12-16, 16:26
We already have one open spot, and Ginsburg is 83, Kennedy is 80, and Breyer is 77. It is absolutely feasible to expect all three to pass in the next 8 years. That is a potential four SCOTUS seats to be nominated by Hillary. Even if they don't do it immediately we are still looking at a liberal stacked SCOTUS for the next 20-30 years if Hillary gets elected, so if you care about our gun rights or any of our bill of rights, you need to vote for Trump. I don't understand why its so hard for people to see this.
If I vote for Trump or not it won't make a difference. If the entire active user base of this site voted for Trump or wrote in Santa Clause it wouldn't make a difference. Trump is not only going to lose, it is going to be a beat down of epic proportions. The only thing that will prevent Hildog from being the next president is if Trump pulls out or they indict her after some wikileaks bombshell drops.
Given the unlikelihood of either of those things happening the Republicans better be focusing on the down ticket races and start pull their heads out of their collective asses and prepare for what should be a very winnable 2020 election by not having a primary of 50 clowns watering down the vote.
Trump is the symptom, not the problem.
We did do better than Trump when we had Rand Paul and Ted Cruz in the running, so it's not like America can't produce better candidates; we did produce them, but America simply wanted Trump more.
The harsh reality is that the presidential candidates we have now are a direct reflection of "conservatives" and, by extension, of the American people. Not all American people, but most American people. We rejected Constitutionalists, Libertarians, and even brain surgeons with PhDs for a ruthless, prideful, but arguably successful, disestablishment billionaire. That is who American conservatives wanted as a leader. They didn't want better, they wanted Trump. Any pro-GOP voter arguing otherwise is literally in the minority.
Let that sink in.
I also happen to think that Cruz, Paul and even Carson had some personality, relatability and sadly, even appearance flaws that worked against them. It's not enough to be ideologically pure or even "good" to win the White House. You have to craft, package and sell yourself as an appealing product to the idiot masses in order to take the brass ring. Too much of what it takes to win, isn't even applicable to being a good president. :(
We already have one open spot, and Ginsburg is 83, Kennedy is 80, and Breyer is 77. It is absolutely feasible to expect all three to pass in the next 8 years. That is a potential four SCOTUS seats to be nominated by Hillary. Even if they don't do it immediately we are still looking at a liberal stacked SCOTUS for the next 20-30 years if Hillary gets elected, so if you care about our gun rights or any of our bill of rights, you need to vote for Trump. I don't understand why its so hard for people to see this.
I also don't believe Trump's picks would be any better than Hillary's.
No way I'm voting for him. No one pulls a 180 in that timeframe and means it.
I also don't believe Trump's picks would be any better than Hillary's.
No way I'm voting for him. No one pulls a 180 in that timeframe and means it.
Most of us disagree with you. Even by accident, Trump is unlikely to pick all four judges to be such ideologically pure, leftwing and activist as what Hillary will pick. It would be almost impossible for Trump's selections to be as bad as hers. :(
Most of us disagree with you. Even by accident, Trump is unlikely to pick all four judges to be such ideologically pure, leftwing and activist as what Hillary will pick. It would be almost impossible for Trump's selections to be as bad as hers. :(
I know I'm in the minority. Most will hold their nose and vote for Trump, just like many held their nose and voted for "weapons of unusual lethality" Mitt Romney.
Romney was my line in the sand, didn't vote for him either. No more nose holding, no more lesser of two evils.
Business_Casual
08-12-16, 19:12
If I vote for Trump or not it won't make a difference. If the entire active user base of this site voted for Trump or wrote in Santa Clause it wouldn't make a difference. Trump is not only going to lose, it is going to be a beat down of epic proportions. The only thing that will prevent Hildog from being the next president is if Trump pulls out or they indict her after some wikileaks bombshell drops.
Given the unlikelihood of either of those things happening the Republicans better be focusing on the down ticket races and start pull their heads out of their collective asses and prepare for what should be a very winnable 2020 election by not having a primary of 50 clowns watering down the vote.
I'm curious why you think that?
Also, I hate to break it to you, but if Hillary wins, there will be no effective opposition in 2020. She will grant amnesty to the illegals already here and have a multi-generational, most likely permanent, Democrat majority.
skywalkrNCSU
08-13-16, 08:26
I'm curious why you think that?
Also, I hate to break it to you, but if Hillary wins, there will be no effective opposition in 2020. She will grant amnesty to the illegals already here and have a multi-generational, most likely permanent, Democrat majority.
He is getting smoked in all of the battleground states. Hillary doesn't have to hardly win any of those anyways assuming she picks up the states Dems always do. Even if Trump won every battleground state that he isn't behind in the polls by double digits he would still lose. And he isn't even going to win that many, that is being overly generous.
It's not like Trump is increasing his voter base. Every single day he says something incredibly stupid that his most solid base might like but it continually drives people who were on the fence away from voting for him. He isn't gaining any voters, he is just losing them. He is by far the most polarizing candidate for a major party and that doesn't work well when the goal is to sway a majority of voters (or states).
Even if he managed to stay on message and not say something incredibly stupid like Obama founded ISIS and double down on it multiple times only to come out later and say people don't understand sarcasm he won't gain much support if any. I get it if you have talked yourself into thinking he wouldn't be so bad just because Hillary will be that bad but that doesn't change the fact that he is a total clown and people just don't like him. This is the first election where the republicans are not leading the polls among the college educated women demographic. You can't win an election when you are driving away the base.
He is getting smoked in all of the battleground states. Hillary doesn't have to hardly win any of those anyways assuming she picks up the states Dems always do. Even if Trump won every battleground state that he isn't behind in the polls by double digits he would still lose. And he isn't even going to win that many, that is being overly generous.
It's not like Trump is increasing his voter base. Every single day he says something incredibly stupid that his most solid base might like but it continually drives people who were on the fence away from voting for him. He isn't gaining any voters, he is just losing them. He is by far the most polarizing candidate for a major party and that doesn't work well when the goal is to sway a majority of voters (or states).
Even if he managed to stay on message and not say something incredibly stupid like Obama founded ISIS and double down on it multiple times only to come out later and say people don't understand sarcasm he won't gain much support if any. I get it if you have talked yourself into thinking he wouldn't be so bad just because Hillary will be that bad but that doesn't change the fact that he is a total clown and people just don't like him. This is the first election where the republicans are not leading the polls among the college educated women demographic. You can't win an election when you are driving away the base.
I had been wondering if Trump was popular enough in the tri state area to make a dent in their "California and the Mid-East/North-East carry us to victory" plans.
Florida going blue really hurts things. Looking at the 4 most populous states they used to be split 2 and 2 but now......its 3:1 with just Texas as a lock.
skywalkrNCSU - I think you are spot on.
I was reading about some state polling (Kansas) in other races and the dissatisfaction with our current Republican Governor is spilling over into the Presidential race. According to a Republican party poll,n the eastern part of the state, Trump trails Clinton. Overall, statewide Trump leads Clinton by 4 to 11 percent in the various polls I've seen.
What is really telling is that nearly 2/3 of Trumps support comes from folks who are not voting for Trump, but voting against Clinton. If (actually AS) Trump continues on his current strategy of non-PC statements some ofthose folks are likely to get spooked and crossover, vote 3rd party or not cast a ballot in the Presidential.
In 2012 Romney won Kansas by 22%. This cycle it looks like Kansas may be up for grabs. The last time this happened was in 1964 when Barry Goldwater scared the bejeezus out of everyone with some of the same rhetoric on nukes and Johnson carried Kansas by nearly 10%.
I think the vehement Trump supporters on this site need to take a deep breath, understand most folks aren't voting based on their perceptions of the likelihood of an AWB, and prepare for the almost certainty of a Clinton administration.
From my perspective we can do one of several things: 1) everyone push hard for the third party - Johnson/Weld - the lesser of the evils; 2) ensure that the Congress as a whole remains in Republican hands; 3) exhort your Congrss Critter to cinch up and grow a pair - the President can do very little that the Congress doesn't allow; or, 4) mass lobotomies for those Americans who rationally fear the damage that Trump would do to America.
At this point, I think only 2 and 3 are viable choices.
Averageman
08-13-16, 11:58
skywalkrNCSU - I think you are spot on.
I think the vehement Trump supporters on this site need to take a deep breath, understand most folks aren't voting based on their perceptions of the likelihood of an AWB, and prepare for the almost certainty of a Clinton administration.
From my perspective we can do one of several things: 1) everyone push hard for the third party - Johnson/Weld - the lesser of the evils; 2) ensure that the Congress as a whole remains in Republican hands; 3) exhort your Congrss Critter to cinch up and grow a pair - the President can do very little that the Congress doesn't allow; or, 4) mass lobotomies for those Americans who rationally fear the damage that Trump would do to America.
At this point, I think only 2 and 3 are viable choices.
I would agree except for a few things.
Congress wont do a damned thing, it's been made clear by their own inaction against anything Barry has put forth.
So, in effect, We're done.
You can be worried about the Second Amendment all you want, you can point out Hillary's total incompetence and criminal pay to play idea of government, but in the end 50% + require a hand out to pay the bills.
All of those folks will vote their paychecks.
And lastly, but perhaps most important;
There has been NO, None, Not an INCH of push back by anyone for a Third Party until we get to the time to elect a POTUS, then these Clowns come out of the wood work like Roaches.
If you really want a Third Party, the time to begin the push was when Romney crapped the bed in the debates, instead we have had four more years of a socialist republic and a failing economy propped up by the MSM and false numbers.
Sorry, we're watching the fall of a great experiment, but the Huns are at the gate, they have the key and the will to use it.
I know it's hard. What's even harder is watching your Second Amendment rights be taken away from you by one Supreme Court decision.
What's worse: eating a small part of a turd now to vote for someone you'd rather not, or eating a whole bucket of filthy steaming turds when you realize that you have to turn in your weapons?
Think it won't happen?
Watch this:
1. Hillary takes the oath of office.
2. One or more SCOTUS members "suddenly" decides to retire.
3. Hillary appoints only anti-gun candidates who state up front that they will gut the Second Amendment
4. The Senate tries to stop a couple of nominees, if they have the balls, but eventually the Princess of Darkness gets her way
5. The administration fast-tracks a case to the Supreme Court that will force a decision on whether 2A is an individual right..
6. Six months go by and the SCOTUS decides to set aside Heller and delcares 2A obsolete and there is no individual right
7. Whether through executive order, or simply taking the SCOTUS decision as law, ATF visits every gun dealer in the country to
confiscate every person's 4473 going as far back in time as they can.
8. For the next few months, ATF sends letters to every address on every 4473 demanding that all guns be turned in within a 90-day grace
period under threat of prosecution.
9. The majority of the gun-owning public, lacking the intestinal fortitude to do anything else, dutifully complies, leaving only that oddball
nutcase here and there for SWAT teams to raid in the wee hours of the morning.
Game. Set. Match. It's over.
This is the reason I will walk ten miles through hurricane-force weather to vote for Trump.
Anybody who wants to write in another candidate might as well write in Hillary because that's who you are helping.
This. I have been personally touched by something of this nature. Prior to SC becoming a NFA friendly state the ATF made the Street Sweeper shotgun a DD. My Dad had one at the time he bought legally. He received a letter (yeah) advising him of the change and that he would be subject to prosecution if he did not surrender or transfer it. Since SC was not a NFA state, I knew little about the law. My Dad donated it to a local Sheriff's Office. I seriously doubt it was ever properly registered thru NFA with that agency and last I heard it had gone "missing". Which is sickening. My Dad was paranoid from getting a letter on it and I don't blame him for doing what he did; but that really did suck.
If you think something like that cannot happen again you have your head in the sand.
Business_Casual
08-13-16, 14:15
He is getting smoked in all of the battleground states. Hillary doesn't have to hardly win any of those anyways assuming she picks up the states Dems always do. Even if Trump won every battleground state that he isn't behind in the polls by double digits he would still lose. And he isn't even going to win that many, that is being overly generous.
It's not like Trump is increasing his voter base. Every single day he says something incredibly stupid that his most solid base might like but it continually drives people who were on the fence away from voting for him. He isn't gaining any voters, he is just losing them. He is by far the most polarizing candidate for a major party and that doesn't work well when the goal is to sway a majority of voters (or states).
Even if he managed to stay on message and not say something incredibly stupid like Obama founded ISIS and double down on it multiple times only to come out later and say people don't understand sarcasm he won't gain much support if any. I get it if you have talked yourself into thinking he wouldn't be so bad just because Hillary will be that bad but that doesn't change the fact that he is a total clown and people just don't like him. This is the first election where the republicans are not leading the polls among the college educated women demographic. You can't win an election when you are driving away the base.
I take your point, but I have a couple of issues. One, the polls are skewing for two reasons, the models assume a 2008 turnout and the fact that polls always reach more Dems because we are out working or spending our money and not at home answering polls.
Two, why are HRC rallies empty and Trump rallies have to turn people away at the door for lack of space?
MountainRaven
08-13-16, 15:23
I take your point, but I have a couple of issues. One, the polls are skewing for two reasons, the models assume a 2008 turnout and the fact that polls always reach more Dems because we are out working or spending our money and not at home answering polls.
Two, why are HRC rallies empty and Trump rallies have to turn people away at the door for lack of space?
Generally, the polls are based on landlines. Most people who have landlines are older folks. Older folks are more likely to vote for Republicans.
Two, why are people who are too busy working to answer their phones attending Drumpf rallies?
skywalkrNCSU
08-13-16, 16:27
I take your point, but I have a couple of issues. One, the polls are skewing for two reasons, the models assume a 2008 turnout and the fact that polls always reach more Dems because we are out working or spending our money and not at home answering polls.
Two, why are HRC rallies empty and Trump rallies have to turn people away at the door for lack of space?
Some polls are better than others, unfortunately the ones that lean republican tend to be wrong more than others. These pollsters make their reputation on being accurate and the ones who are the most accurate over time are showing a landslide win for Hildog. The turnout for a rally is a completely pointless measure.
MountainRaven
08-13-16, 17:01
Some polls are better than others, unfortunately the ones that lean republican tend to be wrong more than others. These pollsters make their reputation on being accurate and the ones who are the most accurate over time are showing a landslide win for Hildog. The turnout for a rally is a completely pointless measure.
Truth.
If rally attendence meant anything substantial, Bernie Sanders would win the general in a landslide. And he didn't even get the nomination from the DNC.
The_War_Wagon
08-13-16, 18:41
Ron Paul?
But seriously, despite his given quirks, I would think both parties' demographics would find him favorable to our current candidates. A few commercials urging a write-in campaign, promotion of his digital media... what's to lose?
/discuss
I'd settle for President Trump naming him Treasury Secretary.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y194/Razor24/Funny%20Pictures%20and%20Smilies/Vote3rdPartyHillary_zpsqmnhxtlv.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/Razor24/media/Funny%20Pictures%20and%20Smilies/Vote3rdPartyHillary_zpsqmnhxtlv.jpg.html)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.