TexasCHLforum.com

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

"Vote for the guy who signed a homeland defense weapon ban OR ELSE the big scary Black Man who signed NPS Carry is going to come take away your guns."

If that's the best the Republicans can do, they don't have what it takes to win.

recaffeination wrote:It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

"Vote for the guy who signed a homeland defense weapon ban OR ELSE the big scary Black Man who signed NPS Carry is going to come take away your guns."

If that's the best the Republicans can do, they don't have what it takes to win.

Oh? You're going to play the race card? REALLY?

If that's all you got, then this is all the reply your post merits.

President Ronald Reagan you are sorely missed.

Can the TEA Party defeat Obama and Romney to win one for the Gipper?

I'm an undecided "protest voter" for a few reasons:

1) I don't like Romney at all. If I have to choose between Obama and Obama-.00001, what's the point? I will agree: yes Romney will be better than Obama. But, I'm not sure I want to give the GOP precedent to keep nominating obama-clones and presume they'll keep winning; which they might due to the fact that some people don't look at a person's record they just look for the big fat R. That's a step forward and two steps back in my eyes.

2) Texas is the largest Red State in the nation. I don't want to be fed 3 awful candidates picked by moderates and New England conservatives in the primary. We don't get much talk because we vote GOP heck-or-highwater. If we want to throw our weight around for the '16 or '20 presidential race, a larger third party vote for a truly conservative candidate in Texas should cause the GOP to reconsider their current track of meeting obama in the middle.

I will either vote conservative or liberal-moderate. We all know the reasons for voting liberal-moderate but I thought I'd throw my thoughts out there for criticism.

I vote my heart in the primaries. As I was in VA and had a choice of Romney or Paul I voted Paul. When it come to the GE I get my grown up pants on and do what must be done. BO is a disaster. He is an unmitigated disaster on all fronts. Fiscal, judicial, foreign relations, military, etc etc etc. Romney though far less than ideal, is not a disaster. Do I love Romney, no not at all, but he is a far far cry from BO. We live in a real world, where real decisions must be made and yes sometimes you have to choose between an imperfect candidate and a horrible candidate. I choose the imperfect over the horrendous. That is my story and I am sticking to it!

As much as it pains me to say it, Obama will likely win a second term.

I'd love for someone to come back and say "Told you so!", but Romney can't beat Obama.

(and please don't take this as an endorsement of Obama as another forum member once did)

pbwalker wrote:As much as it pains me to say it, Obama will likely win a second term.

I just can't agree until I see, at least, how the Scott Walker recall in Wisconsin goes. That June (I think) recall election should give us a pretty good feel for how swing states are looking. I believe WI also had a voter ID law that was challenged and may not be in effect for the recall or general election. If the unions and other dem front groups can't prevail up there, even with all the likely shenanigans they'll try, it will look pretty good for Nov.

pbwalker wrote:As much as it pains me to say it, Obama will likely win a second term.

I'd love for someone to come back and say "Told you so!", but Romney can't beat Obama.

(and please don't take this as an endorsement of Obama as another forum member once did)

If Obama wins this thing, it won't be because democrat voters outnumber conservatives and independents by some huge percentage. It will be because a lot of conservative people would rather stay home and allow another Obama term than vote for the alternative that isn't ideologically pure enough for them.....even though they can't stand Obama. Independents—who trend toward right of center—actually aren't as freaked out about Romney's alleged lack of conservative credentials.

I don't even know how to process that kind of obstinance. All I know is if Obama wins, it is on those folks' shoulders......along with all the fallout......because he IS beatable. When he picks more Sotomayor/Kagan clones for SCOTUS, ensuring a not just liberal but radical leftist court for the next 30-40 years, it'll be their fault. When he uses presidential directives to subvert gun rights, it'll be their fault. When his DHS secretary dictates nationwide highway checkpoints, it'll be their fault. When he signs a misguided law to control the Internet and monitor all of our emails, it will be their fault. Why their fault? Because they could have prevented it but they were so stuck on their almighty principles that they were willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Personally, I don't want to hear a single complaint down the road about how bad things have gotten from someone who refused to stand in the gap and cast a vote that could have helped prevent it. And for all the Romney = Obama-light folks, that is just silly. Romney is measurably different—and better—in significant ways. You just don't want to see it because it doesn't fit your tidy paradigm. Unfortunately, the real world isn't that tidy. It's messy, and you don't always get perfect alternatives. One thing for sure is that when there are two choices, one hardcore leftist, and one right of center moderate conservative (that is the accurate description, not that "Obama-light" nonsense), and when the election is a close one which could go either way, the conservatives and/or (small "l") libertarians who stay home instead of voting for the right of center moderate will help to elect the hardcore leftist.

There's an appropriate word for refusing to accept that reality. It's called "denial."

VoiceofReason wrote:President Ronald Reagan you are sorely missed.

images[1].jpg

Michael Reagan, his son, said on Fox News a couple of days ago (I saw it) that he didn't think Ronald Reagan could win the Republican nomination today if he were alive and running. Why? Because Reagan had baggage from his days as California governor that would have made him unacceptable to today's self-identified as hardcore conservatives. And he said that his dad could not win a general election today because those same conservatives who would rather lose an election than vote for a compromise candidate. I remember Reagan fondly, but I believe his son is right. Reagan couldn't get nominated or win and election today. Too bad, because we could sorely use an optimistic president with an understanding of the benefits of capitalism and personal liberty.........and small government.

I have said for years that unfortunately, elections are about voting for the lesser of evils. That is exactly what I plan to do, vote for the lesser of evils which is anybody but Obama. To not do so is to aid Obama in his bid for reelection. Voting is not just a right. It is a responsibility.

pbwalker wrote:As much as it pains me to say it, Obama will likely win a second term.

I'd love for someone to come back and say "Told you so!", but Romney can't beat Obama.

(and please don't take this as an endorsement of Obama as another forum member once did)

I think you're right unless there's a brokered convention or some other big surprise.

I will not vote for the lesser of 2 evils.
I will not vote based on 1 issue.
I will not vote for the R or the D, on the national level.
I have donated to 4 republican candidates at the county level or below going into these primaries. I consider myself a moderate independent but there are no democrats who currently appeal to me in the local races.
My wife and I will both be casting ballots for Ron Paul in the republican primary. I will pick a 3rd party candidate to vote for in the general, I don't know for sure what my wife will do.

I would also like to add that I believe Romney to be a far greater threat to gun rights than Obama. Romney would not oppose anti-gun legislation and would likely support "common sense" measures. When he does that he would bring other moderate republicans along with him. Obama may be slightly more likely to support anti-gun legislation but he would not get bipartisan support for it.

Heartland Patriot wrote:Those who refused to go vote for Senator McCain helped ensure that we got stuck with the man currently occupying the White House...once again, McCain was not my first choice, but he would have been better than what we have now. (Of course, I only believe that because I'm dogmatic, bless my heart.)

...no he wouldn't,

dont take that personal, but this is the problem with voters today... you vote based on a party that has you trapped into an economic collapse ... both by unconstitutional wars fueled by propaganda, and both parties are not willing to cut anything. but they agree to keep spending.

If we were in a battleground state, I'd feel absolutely compelled to vote for Romney. If the race in Texas is in single digits the week of the election, I'll absolutely vote "against Obama" by clicking the GOP box regardless of how unexcited I am.

However, thanks to the electoral college and Texas being an all-or-nothing state, if Romney is on track to win by 15+ points, voting for a 3rd Party candidate of conscience is a valid way to send a message to the Party and the nation. Third Party candidates will likely never win a national election, but they serve a legitimate purpose of moving the focus and attention of the major parties. If the 3rd Parties make enough noise in a given year, their positions will likely be absorbed into a major Party platform. This could result in a shift to the extreme or to the center.

McCain won Texas so handily in '08, I was prepared to vote for Chuck Baldwin if he'd been on our ballot. I often regret not writing him in.

In the Senate, Congressional, state, and local races, I never vote straight Party. I get far too much joy out of selecting each Republican individually!

I use this electoral college reasoning to mock my liberal friends in Texas by always reminding them that their vote wasn't counted in D.C. and they contributed nothing to the election of BHO. I've also found over the years that it's easier to talk a liberal out of voting than it is to change their mind on how to vote - a strategy you should all keep in mind (it's so inconvenient, even the closest races are still decided by thousands of votes, nothing ever changes anyway, they're all crooks, MTV is on, that XBOX isn't going to play itself, etc.).