In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
It's not that we are outnumbered by democraps
Big Sky Redneck
Member Posts: 19,752 ✭✭✭
I don't think as a whole we are outnumbered overall but we are outnumbered at the polls. Why is that?
Well I think part of the problem is the bullheadedness displayed on the conservative side. The reliance on third party candidates who havent a snowballs chance in hell of winning, the "I don't like any of them" attitude, laziness and the constant complaining without action is why we are outnumbered at the polls. Then along comes the attitude of "if they lose we will teach them a lesson!!" Bullcrap!! Who really learns that lesson? The candidates or the public? Look at what those attitudes got us these last 8 years, thanks folks.
Why is it the liberal side can muster that many votes but we are too stubborn, pigheaded and stuckup to do anything other than * * *?
Sure, you can sit back and point fingers about voter fraud and blame it all on that or you can wake up and see what really happened. What happened was the rallied thier troops, set a goal and did it all the while we sat back and complained about the choice we had.
Well folks, it's gonna happen again and this time it will be worse. Right now we have a clueless puppet in office but we are fixing to get someone with experiance, knowledge of the system and the knowhow to get things done. Hillary is a dangerous woman, far more dangerous than the buffoon in office now, if you think the last 8 years hurt you just wait. So keep on proving those points, stay at home on election day or cadt a vote for someone who is never going to get close. Either we as a whole rally ourselves and back a candidate whom we may not always agree with but has a chance or we pay the price, again.
No, I'm not as educated as many of you and I somewhat think that gives me an advantage because I don't try to over evaluate but instead I can look at whats happening with a clearer mind and read between the lines.
The choice is yours, I know what I'm doing and whether or not it works depends on all of us. Whoever has the best chance, good or bad is getting my vote because the thought of Hillary following Obummer sends chills down my back and makes me nauseous.
Well I think part of the problem is the bullheadedness displayed on the conservative side. The reliance on third party candidates who havent a snowballs chance in hell of winning, the "I don't like any of them" attitude, laziness and the constant complaining without action is why we are outnumbered at the polls. Then along comes the attitude of "if they lose we will teach them a lesson!!" Bullcrap!! Who really learns that lesson? The candidates or the public? Look at what those attitudes got us these last 8 years, thanks folks.
Why is it the liberal side can muster that many votes but we are too stubborn, pigheaded and stuckup to do anything other than * * *?
Sure, you can sit back and point fingers about voter fraud and blame it all on that or you can wake up and see what really happened. What happened was the rallied thier troops, set a goal and did it all the while we sat back and complained about the choice we had.
Well folks, it's gonna happen again and this time it will be worse. Right now we have a clueless puppet in office but we are fixing to get someone with experiance, knowledge of the system and the knowhow to get things done. Hillary is a dangerous woman, far more dangerous than the buffoon in office now, if you think the last 8 years hurt you just wait. So keep on proving those points, stay at home on election day or cadt a vote for someone who is never going to get close. Either we as a whole rally ourselves and back a candidate whom we may not always agree with but has a chance or we pay the price, again.
No, I'm not as educated as many of you and I somewhat think that gives me an advantage because I don't try to over evaluate but instead I can look at whats happening with a clearer mind and read between the lines.
The choice is yours, I know what I'm doing and whether or not it works depends on all of us. Whoever has the best chance, good or bad is getting my vote because the thought of Hillary following Obummer sends chills down my back and makes me nauseous.
Comments
thanks BSR
He is a big government republican, and would have worked with the democrats and big government republicans in congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform, universal background checks, campaign finance restrictions, etc.
If the GOP is going to keep the Congress, something that looks likely, we need to be very careful about putting a big government republican in the White House.
GOP Congress and Hilary may be less dangerous than a GOP Congress and Bush, Christy, Trump, etc.
Brad Steele
Trump running as an independant, if that happens then we really need to hunker down at the election booth. I don't see it as voting for so and so, I see it as voting against hillary. We either got a soldi backing for Trump or we have to vote for whoever gets the nomination. Atleast that's how I see it.
We are out numbered by Democrats though. There are more registered D than R.
But you are correct in that to vote for a person who has no hope of winning or staying home because you don't like a candidate is the same as casting a vote of the other guy.
Point of fact; In 1992 if you voted for Ross Perot(18%) instead of George Bush(37%), you basically voted for Bill Clinton(43%). More Republicans and "Independents" voted for Perot that Democrats.
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-1992/
The other side of the coin is the GOP has not fielded a conservative candidate in a long time. Did not even try in the 90's.
Right now Trump has the Republicans gonads in a vice. They either nominate him or he's going to run as an independent which will assure that they will lose.
I agree but I don't think he will run 3rd party in the end, at least I hope so.
Many here will be surprised at how Trump fares against the other candidates. He is no Conservative.
This is how Crowdpac rates the candidates on a scale of 10L to 10C(10L is the most liberal and 10C the most conservative). Crowdpac is a neutral/nonpartisan voter education site.
http://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidate_ratings_and_scorecards#Crowdpac.com
They get these rating from the persons statements and the way they have voted in the past.
This is a good link to find out what the candidates really think and represent. You can click on their name and find out their stance to most of the issues.
You may be surprised on the stances they have in reality vs what the media has said about them.
I forgot you can check out how they are rated by the LPA also if you hit the other tab.
For me I look for a candidate that is at least a 6C or higher with a 90% rating from the LPA.
In the last 20 years or so I have found that I rarely vote FOR anyone, I find myself voting AGAINST someone at least on the national level.
We are out numbered by Democrats though. There are more registered D than R.
But you are correct in that to vote for a person who has no hope of winning or staying home because you don't like a candidate is the same as casting a vote of the other guy.
Point of fact; In 1992 if you voted for Ross Perot(18%) instead of George Bush(37%), you basically voted for Bill Clinton(43%). More Republicans and "Independents" voted for Perot that Democrats.
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-1992/
The other side of the coin is the GOP has not fielded a conservative candidate in a long time. Did not even try in the 90's.
The republicans have played that card until they have wore the numbers off of it. The fact is if Perot doesn't run Bush still loses. Bush lost because of his and the republicans actions. He did not lose because Perot ran.
I know the republicans have produced a bunch of statistical crap trying to prove otherwise, it doesn't hold water, it never did. For Perot to have cost Bush the election basically 81% of the people who voted for him would have had to voted for Bush. That wasn't going to happen. Does anyone really believe 81% of those voters would have voted for Bush? Hell, a lot of them wouldn't have even came out to vote if they weren't motivated to vote for someone not in the two major parties.
All the republicans have done for the past 27 years is make arguments as to why the people should vote against the other party. In the mean time all they have offered is increased spending, increased debt, increased intrusion of personal liberty, increased infringement of personal rights and bigger government
All this thread does is promote the same old republican line. Until people see through it nothing will change because nothing can change if you keep the same people in charge.
The reasons the democrats gained control is because the republicans failed. The only reason the republicans won anything back is because the democrats failed worse with ACA and other things. The republican party on a national level has nothing to actually offer other than they are not democrats, and folks, that is not going to fix what is wrong.
Clinton 43% + 6% = 49%
Bush 37% + 12% = 49%
Tossing in turnout considerations and such is great fun, but the reality is that a 3rd party candidate won't win absent a long serious effort to build a 3rd party from the ground up.
I don't see anyone who claims that the R's and the D's are equally bad doing that, so in the end, it becomes mental *.
The Democrats ground game seems much more effective.
The number isn't 81%. It is a bit above 66%.
Clinton 43% + 6% = 49%
Bush 37% + 12% = 49%
Tossing in turnout considerations and such is great fun, but the reality is that a 3rd party candidate won't win absent a long serious effort to build a 3rd party from the ground up.
I don't see anyone who claims that the R's and the D's are equally bad doing that, so in the end, it becomes mental *.
I agree but the bottomline is without Perot Bush would have had a better chance.
quote: The republican party on a national level has nothing to actually offer other than they are not democrats, and folks, that is not going to fix what is wrong.
+1
The other problem is they are run by a bunch who could care less about their base and openly hold their base in contempt, chitheads like Rove.
Hillary is no different than Obama, she is an Elite Socialist with Marxist leanings, just like Barry.
I don't think as a whole we are outnumbered overall but we are outnumbered at the polls. Why is that?
Well I think part of the problem is the bullheadedness displayed on the conservative side. The reliance on third party candidates who havent a snowballs chance in hell of winning, the "I don't like any of them" attitude, laziness and the constant complaining without action is why we are outnumbered at the polls. Then along comes the attitude of "if they lose we will teach them a lesson!!" Bullcrap!! Who really learns that lesson? The candidates or the public? Look at what those attitudes got us these last 8 years, thanks folks.
Why is it the liberal side can muster that many votes but we are too stubborn, pigheaded and stuckup to do anything other than * * *?
Sure, you can sit back and point fingers about voter fraud and blame it all on that or you can wake up and see what really happened. What happened was the rallied thier troops, set a goal and did it all the while we sat back and complained about the choice we had.
Well folks, it's gonna happen again and this time it will be worse. Right now we have a clueless puppet in office but we are fixing to get someone with experiance, knowledge of the system and the knowhow to get things done. Hillary is a dangerous woman, far more dangerous than the buffoon in office now, if you think the last 8 years hurt you just wait. So keep on proving those points, stay at home on election day or cadt a vote for someone who is never going to get close. Either we as a whole rally ourselves and back a candidate whom we may not always agree with but has a chance or we pay the price, again.
No, I'm not as educated as many of you and I somewhat think that gives me an advantage because I don't try to over evaluate but instead I can look at whats happening with a clearer mind and read between the lines.
The choice is yours, I know what I'm doing and whether or not it works depends on all of us. Whoever has the best chance, good or bad is getting my vote because the thought of Hillary following Obummer sends chills down my back and makes me nauseous.
If everyone got behind one man with common goals, this could be the answer. Right now, I have to agree with you Lonnie. There is not one viable candidate on either side. I do like Scott Walker and I do Like Dr. Ben Carson. I will NOT vote democrat ever, because they go against everything I believe in. I think the only time i have ever liked a Democrat, was when Ronald Reagan first became a political candidate, But then he switched to a republican and I loved him.[;)][^]
The number isn't 81%. It is a bit above 66%.
Clinton 43% + 6% = 49%
Bush 37% + 12% = 49%
Tossing in turnout considerations and such is great fun, but the reality is that a 3rd party candidate won't win absent a long serious effort to build a 3rd party from the ground up.
I don't see anyone who claims that the R's and the D's are equally bad doing that, so in the end, it becomes mental *.
Yea okay, I hurried the math a little, but the point doesn't change. The republicans didn't lose because Perot ran, they lost because they got beat by the democrats. If Perot doesn't run they still lose.
My point wasn't really about the chances of a 3rd party winning, that's a whole other can of worms.
The GOP has run off too many voters as I see it. And, there is another problem similar to that of a skunk in that even if the republicans win, they still dance to big money which backs progressive aims or they go home. It is what it is...sadly.
Ted Cruze is looking like a real Patriot and a Republican that cares for the American people.
I havn't heard his stand on Immigration but,he loves his Father for doing it the RIGHT WAY!!!
It gets fewer votes because the message alienates sectors of conservative leaning and moderate voters.
It gets fewer votes because it fights the other side without offering clear options. By that I mean the GOP and its minions spout rhetoric. Not detailed solutions to solve problems. Worse is they lean heavily on super-charged emotional issues while they are doing all the rest.
And yeah, absolutely the GOP ground game stinks.
Had McCain won the first time we would have seen a huge increase in Iraq and Afghanistan war efforts. Followed by a commitment to remain in both countries, in substantial force, for decades. The constant stream of casualties would have destroyed public support for the GOP and if it did not derail McCain for re-election, it would have killed any chance of another Republican succeeding him.
Had Romney won we would have seen a successful effort to pass an Assault Weapon Ban after Sandy Hook. Along with magazine and likely other restrictions. Remember, he was the only candidate int he race who did more than talk about stomping on Second Amendment Rights. He actually succeeding in an anti-gun agenda. After that, he lied about it and the NRA and others decided to believe his lies.
This next time around Clinton still looks very strong. Only Bush 3.0 polls even close to having a chance. I do not want either of them but right now there is no viable answer to a Clinton nomination.
Will just have to wait and see how this all plays out. I do know this however, pick poorly in the primaries, without a eye fixed squarely upon the end game the following November, and you will have placed a Clinton victory onto very firm ground indeed.
Nope. The Quinnipiac Poll taken two days ago has Hildabeast losing to Rubio, Walker, and Bush in Colorado, Iowa, and Virginia. Her favorable vs unfavorable numbers are also upside down.
Not sure why you keep typing the same incorrect information, but wrong it is.
Clinton was pimped as being invincible, unbeatable, and a lock in 2008, in just the same way she is being portrayed now. Have you enjoyed her two terms in office?
I vote R...and will always do so. But I find everyone's arguments for or against this very well thought out.
quote:Originally posted by kimi
The GOP has run off too many voters as I see it. And, there is another problem similar to that of a skunk in that even if the republicans win, they still dance to big money which backs progressive aims or they go home. It is what it is...sadly.
Ted Cruze is looking like a real Patriot and a Republican that cares for the American people.
I havn't heard his stand on Immigration but,he loves his Father for doing it the RIGHT WAY!!!
Cruz is liked by a lot of Texans. I'm certainly not happy with Walker's flag view in the least.
quote:This next time around Clinton still looks very strong. Only Bush 3.0 polls even close to having a chance. I do not want either of them but right now there is no viable answer to a Clinton nomination.
Nope. The Quinnipiac Poll taken two days ago has Hildabeast losing to Rubio, Walker, and Bush in Colorado, Iowa, and Virginia. Her favorable vs unfavorable numbers are also upside down.
...
Yes, she is bound to lose some states. Nobody scores a perfect win. The nationwide average of General Election match-ups has Clinton the winner every time.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
I hope this changes. But her negatives going up only counts if her opponents positives and negatives translate into Clinton being seen as the worst option when voters are forced to make that "Hold Your Nose And Vote For The Least Foul Stench" decision.
quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
quote:This next time around Clinton still looks very strong. Only Bush 3.0 polls even close to having a chance. I do not want either of them but right now there is no viable answer to a Clinton nomination.
Nope. The Quinnipiac Poll taken two days ago has Hildabeast losing to Rubio, Walker, and Bush in Colorado, Iowa, and Virginia. Her favorable vs unfavorable numbers are also upside down.
...
Yes, she is bound to lose some states. Nobody scores a perfect win. The nationwide average of General Election match-ups has Clinton the winner every time.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
I hope this changes. But her negatives going up only counts if her opponents positives and negatives translate into Clinton being seen as the worst option when voters are forced to make that "Hold Your Nose And Vote For The Least Foul Stench" decision.
Who was it again that you said that you would be voting for Chris?
quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
quote:This next time around Clinton still looks very strong. Only Bush 3.0 polls even close to having a chance. I do not want either of them but right now there is no viable answer to a Clinton nomination.
Nope. The Quinnipiac Poll taken two days ago has Hildabeast losing to Rubio, Walker, and Bush in Colorado, Iowa, and Virginia. Her favorable vs unfavorable numbers are also upside down.
...
Yes, she is bound to lose some states. Nobody scores a perfect win. The nationwide average of General Election match-ups has Clinton the winner every time.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
I hope this changes. But her negatives going up only counts if her opponents positives and negatives translate into Clinton being seen as the worst option when voters are forced to make that "Hold Your Nose And Vote For The Least Foul Stench" decision.
As I said on the other thread, national polls are of little value to serious political discussions, because we do not vote nationally. We vote by state and award the electoral votes accordingly. 49 electoral votes needed to change sides in 2012 and the results change. Very little state polling has taken place in anything other than a few swing states at this time.
That Hildabeast is trailing R's in three key swing states at this time is instructive, if you know what you are looking at.
GW Bush had control of congress for 7+ years.....What did he do?? Not a damn thing!! Did he fix Social Security?? Did he fix the border problem? Did he fix astronomical health care cost increases? Did he open up drilling on government land? Did he stamp out Al Qaeda? Did he catch the crooks behind 9-11?? Did he put Wall St. in check? Did he get rid of free phones for deadbeats?
Hell no. He didn't do an effen' thing while he was in office....except attack our own Liberties and Freedoms. Can you say "Patriot Act"??? Expansion of the NSA?? Hell....he even started the Quantitative Easing and Bailouts for the thugs on Wall St.
Keep on voting. If it could fix the problem, it would be outlawed.