TexasCHLforum.com

I told you exactly what to do to get my vote.

If you choose to do something different, don't come crying to me that you made a bad choice.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

srothstein wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:You can vote for whoever you want.

And when Obama gets elected as a result of your vote

The obvious flaw in your logic is that the only way Obama can be elected because of my vote is if I vote FOR Obama. The fact that not enough people supported your candidate is why yours lost.

It's just simple arithmetic. If someone who tends to vote conservative and who would probably (if reluctantly) vote for McCain, instead votes for a minor party candidate, that is one less vote that McCain gets. If a few thousand people do that, it's a few thousand less votes that Mccain gets. In some cases, this could be enough for him to lose the state, and in a close race, the presidency.

As I said, I did not cause the other guy to be elected. A lack of support caused your candidate to suffer the same fate as mine. If Obama wins, it is because too many of your supported McCain instead of voting for the candidate you really agreed with. You thought McCain could win, but he really couldn't, huh?

The math can work both ways. Both ways are wrong. I did not cause Obama to win, I just did not do enough to help my candidate win.

srothstein wrote: I will give you a couple free tips. First, making fun of my candidate, either his party or his name, will not help convince me to vote for yours. It might drive me into the camp of your enemy though. The things like "slow wheat" and "Obamamama" are not good tactics.

Aw, come on! Have a sense of humor.

I have a sense of humor. I can even understand where you are going with it. I may even laugh at it. But, it is bad tactics if you think it will help convince me to vote your way. Good tactics would be to take my objections and views seriously and explain how close your candidate comes to meeting my views and why our disagreements are not as important.

Given how close the election is going to be, I think it is time for the major parties to both start taking all of the independents and minority party supporters seriously and courting their votes. If it really could make as big a difference as you say, convince me to support you instead of trying to get you to support my candidate.

srothstein wrote: Second, give me a reason to support your candidate, besides your opinion that mine can't win. I will never vote for the candidate I think will win, just the one whose views I support.

See my other post in this thread regarding SCOTUS and federal bench appointments.

This is a valid argument, but only up to a point. I understand what could happen with the various justices. I also understand that what a judge will do is totally unpredictable. I saw your analysis of the records, but what will you do when all of the current justices say the Second is a personal right (I expect them all to agree to this in some part).

And much more important than the judiciary is the law makers themselves. After all, the judges only get to vote on things AFTER the legislators and executives make the law. McCain wrote what both Bush and I consider to be an unconstitutional law, and even worse, after saying that Bush signed it instead of vetoing it. If either had obeyed the Constitution, SCOTUS would never have had a chance to rule on what I can say in the media before an election.

srothstein wrote: So, convince me that your candidate is the one I should support because he agrees with me on a majority of the issues. I could be considered a one issue voter on freedom, but I recognize that this is a broad topic. I do weigh a persons record on guns heavily, as I find it indicative of their overall attitudes towards the citizens. I look at their stances on lots of issues though. Convince me on a majority of the issues and I will support your candidate.

SCOTUS. SCOTUS. SCOTUS. SCOTUS. SCOTUS. SCOTUS. SCOTUS. SCOTUS. SCOTUS. SCOTUS. SCOTUS. SCOTUS. SCOTUS. SCOTUS. SCOTUS.

As I said, show me on the issues. You are using the judicial appointments as a doomsday type argument. No matter who is on SCOTUS or the federal bench, I would bet on this country surviving. Well, at least as much as I bet on it anyway.

How about other issues, like taxation, the wars, Social Security, health insurance, immigration, the economy, guns, etc.?

boomerang wrote:I told you exactly what to do to get my vote.

If you choose to do something different, don't come crying to me when you don't get my vote.

The problem is that your "perfect" candidate didn't win and can't win a major party nomination. So the choices left now are to vote for a major party candidate who is not "perfect", but who might win the presidency and who will probably make good judicial appointments, (and will not be an active foe of 2A rights), or to waste your vote on some perfect candidate running under a minor party banner who has no chance whatsoever of winning. And by wasting your vote in this way, you are helping a true enemy of the 2A to possibly get elected.

Of course it is uncomfortable to think of this reality, which is why people sometimes get irritable when it is pointed out to them. It seems that some people would rather turn their heads and pretend the reality is something different.

But it doesn't matter if they turn their heads, shut their eyes, or rationalize until the cows come home. It doesn't matter how wide their self-satisfied grin is when they color in that circle on the ballot. ("I sure showed them!") It doesn't matter what they say to their gun shop buddies afterward. The reality is what it is. Uncomfortable as the thought may be, voting for a minor party candidate helps an enemy of the 2A win.

Show me a pro-2A, pro-constitution, pro-drilling, pro-conservation, pro-nuclear power, pro-solar power, pro-wind power, pro-geothermal power, tax cutting, minor party candidate who comprehends what we need to do to protect ourselves from the jihadists, knows how to cut foreign trade deals, and who is polling in the 40's, and he'd have a good chance of getting my vote.

Otherwise, best to keep both feet planted in the real world.

Do anything to help Obama get elected and watch your 2A rights, and the rest of the constitution, wither and die like a tree infected with Dutch Elm Disease.

srothstein wrote: As I said, I did not cause the other guy to be elected. A lack of support caused your candidate to suffer the same fate as mine. If Obama wins, it is because too many of your supported McCain instead of voting for the candidate you really agreed with.

No. If Obama wins it's because not enough people voted for McCain. Because those are the only two people with any chance of winning at all.

srothstein wrote: I have a sense of humor. I can even understand where you are going with it. I may even laugh at it. But, it is bad tactics if you think it will help convince me to vote your way. Good tactics would be to take my objections and views seriously and explain how close your candidate comes to meeting my views and why our disagreements are not as important.

It's not a tactic. I just like a good line and a good laugh here and there. Be honest. Look at a portrait of Ron Paul. Doesn't it make you think of "Slow Wheat"? Just like when I picture Ralph Nader I think, "Caffeine Party".

Now all fun aside, please refer to the analysis of the voting patterns of Republican vs. Democrat judicial appointments that I did (and linked to earlier in this thread).

srothstein wrote: Given how close the election is going to be, I think it is time for the major parties to both start taking all of the independents and minority party supporters seriously and courting their votes. If it really could make as big a difference as you say, convince me to support you instead of trying to get you to support my candidate.

Three reasaons. Judges, judges, and judges.

srothstein wrote: This is a valid argument, but only up to a point. I understand what could happen with the various justices. I also understand that what a judge will do is totally unpredictable. I saw your analysis of the records, but what will you do when all of the current justices say the Second is a personal right (I expect them all to agree to this in some part).

My guess is that it could be as close as 5-4. 6-3 would be nice. But I can't see any way it would be unanimous. Breyer in particular seems to invariably pick the outcome he likes and "reason" his way into it. To me, it is a toss up between him and Souter as to who is the worst justice in the last 30 years or so (with Burger nipping at their heels). And trust me when I tell you that Breyer is no friend of the 2A.

Did you see any exerpts from Souter's opinion on the kiddie porn case that was decided today? FYI, he wrote the dissenting opinion urging that the federal law against kiddie porn be overturned. I'm paraphrasing here, but one of his lines was that it was wrong for the Court to outlaw forms of free expression that had previously been protected.

So in Souter's twisted view of the 1st Amendment, kiddie porn is, and should be, protected, while political speech within so many days of an election should not. It would not surprise me if this guy was found someday to be clinically sick.

And yes, I know that Souter and Burger were appointed by Republicans. But as I pointed out previously, conservatives were slow to realize how the judicial despot school of thought was permeating the ABA and worming its way into the court system. So in my view, pre-Reagan appointments don't "count" as much as more recent ones. These days, the game is up, and everyone knows what is going on.

srothstein wrote: And much more important than the judiciary is the law makers themselves. After all, the judges only get to vote on things AFTER the legislators and executives make the law. McCain wrote what both Bush and I consider to be an unconstitutional law, and even worse, after saying that Bush signed it instead of vetoing it. If either had obeyed the Constitution, SCOTUS would never have had a chance to rule on what I can say in the media before an election.

Bush's greatest mistake (failing to veto it) combined with Reagan's greatest mistake (appointing O'Connor).

But notice that the 4 justices joining O'Connor in this addled-brained ruling were all appointed by Democrats.

srothstein wrote: As I said, show me on the issues. You are using the judicial appointments as a doomsday type argument. No matter who is on SCOTUS or the federal bench, I would bet on this country surviving. Well, at least as much as I bet on it anyway.

How about other issues, like taxation, the wars, Social Security, health insurance, immigration, the economy, guns, etc.?

I think McCain is good on national security issues, decent on taxes, lousy on immigration, OK on guns, OK on health care, OK on the economy, lousy on free speech, and lousy on energy.

But he is far, far, better than any of the Democrats on all of these issues (except maybe free speech where I'd say it was a tie).

And on free speech, I'm looking for the current Court (or maybe after Stevens retires) to throw McCain-Feingold completely overboard and go back to "Congress shall make no law........." as the law of the land. That decision was so far off the charts that I cannot conceive that it will survive very long.

His dismissal of the the 1st amendment and disavowing of the constitution, makes him a dangerous man that needs to be stopped.

Liberty wrote:His dismissal of the the 1st amendment and disavowing of the constitution, makes him a dangerous man that needs to be stopped.

So let's say you are successful and he (McCain) is "stopped". What happens then? Who takes the presidency in his place? (And please, no Slow Wheat or Electric Caffeine Party predictions. Let's stick to candidates who are polling in the 40's.) And what is their view on the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, etc.?

And what kind of views on the 1A and 2A and the rest of the constitution will be held, and implemented, by the several hundred federal judges that any president appoints in the course of an 8 year term?

If you're gonna advocate "stopping" the guy, you have to describe the expected consequences of doing that in order to be serious about it.

Otherwise, it's just a big grin when you color in the circle and a satisfying position to hold forth on in the gun shop, while you watch the day (rapidly) approach when the government comes and closes the gun shop. (Hasn't Obama proposed no gun shops allowed within 5 miles of a school?)

Well, let's say we agree the Democrats need to be stopped (not agreeing yet, but for the sake of the argument). I think we agree McCain is no friend of the Constitution and only a lukewarm friend of guns and gun owners. We agree he is bad on some other issues and good on some.

But I think we also agree that Bob Barr is better on everything we both feel is most important. We just do not agree on his "electability".

So, if we want a good president, the answer to me is obvious. All we have to do is convince all of the independents and Republicans to vote for Barr. If Obama wins, it is all because you and your friends did not vote for Barr, the man you really agree with.

Do you see my point yet?

Nope! If McCain loses and Barr's tally, or any other 3rd party candidate, would have made the difference, it will be those 3rd party voters responsible for McCain's loss.

Mike1951 wrote:Nope! If McCain loses and Barr's tally, or any other 3rd party candidate, would have made the difference, it will be those 3rd party voters responsible for McCain's loss.

Why? I look at it as those people who voted for McCain could make the difference by voting for Barr. It will be all the McCain supporters fault if Obama wins.

You think it reasonable for tens of millions of voters to change their positions, yet unreasonable for a few hundred thousand to do the same?

Who is being impractical?

srothstein wrote: So, if we want a good president, the answer to me is obvious. All we have to do is convince all of the independents and Republicans to vote for Barr. If Obama wins, it is all because you and your friends did not vote for Barr, the man you really agree with.

Do you see my point yet?

I see your point.

But convincing all the independents and Republicans to vote for Barr instead of McCain is an uphill climb like trying to shinny up the side of the Washington Monument after hosing it down with synthetic motor oil.

There's just no way it could ever happen.

Here's my plan. Vote for McCain. But tell everyone at the gun shop, the office, etc. that you voted for Barr. That way, you'll have the best of both worlds.

frankie_the_yankee wrote: Here's my plan. Vote for McCain. But tell everyone at the gun shop, the office, etc. that you voted for Barr. That way, you'll have the best of both worlds.

Dishonesty is a time proven method for changing government.

Mike1951 wrote:Nope! If McCain loses and Barr's tally, or any other 3rd party candidate, would have made the difference, it will be those 3rd party voters responsible for McCain's loss.

They may deserve some of the credit for defeating McCain but not all. McCain and his supporters will deserve most of the blame (and also deserve the loss) because they intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly alienated the voters who decided the election.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

srothstein wrote: So, if we want a good president, the answer to me is obvious. All we have to do is convince all of the independents and Republicans to vote for Barr. If Obama wins, it is all because you and your friends did not vote for Barr, the man you really agree with.

Do you see my point yet?

I see your point.

But convincing all the independents and Republicans to vote for Barr instead of McCain is an uphill climb like trying to shinny up the side of the Washington Monument after hosing it down with synthetic motor oil.

Thanks, that was just what I was asking for. Now convince me to vote for McCain instead of Barr. After all, I do agree that there is a better chance of convincing the 1 or 2 million who support Barr than the 48 million who support McCain (even if the minority is correct).

As for the judges argument you used before, I have the perfect answer. Read the American Rifleman interview with McCain. He says he will appoint judges that will enforce the laws that the elected legislators pass. Sorry, but I want judges who do their job. Our current system includes judicial review of the laws for Constitutionality (not that I agree it was intended, just the way it is). McCain passes laws I believe to be unconstitutional and will appoint judges who will enforce them.

Sorry, but if I want that, I can vote for anyone other than Barr (and maybe Barr too, I have to go check).

And McCain still supports NICS checks at gun shows for all transactions. I still have problems with that, and with the Constitutionality of background checks at all.

srothstein wrote:If Obama wins, it is all because you and your friends did not vote for Barr, the man you really agree with.

I love it! I may have to change my signature quote.