Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

The liberty loving voter is supposed to vote for the candidate they most align with and ignore the hype that THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER AND WE NEED TO GET THAT BUM OUT OF OFFICE because every election will be spun like that so that the statism status quo remains, whether it has a Democratic taste to it or a Republican taste to it.

If liberty minded Republicans were really liberty minded, Ron Paul would have been the nominee. But liberty wasn't the focus of the Republicans; getting BHO out of office was the focus. Sadly, I think liberty COULD have gotten BHO out of office.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

GeneFrenkle wrote:I'm kinda confused on your overall message, gunderwood. Please help me umderstand. If I'm reading correctly, democrats == statists (degredation of liberty, > nanny state, etc.), republicans == not much better (> "security", etc.), third party has little chance in winning, etc.

There really are only three choices (4 to include not voting, but...) and all choices are horrible, so what is a responsible, caring, and liberty loving voter to do? It sounds like even voting the least-horrible is being a shrill, rubber stamper, party fan boy, or whatever.

Having fun with ratherfish over the last election. Not all Democrat, nor all Republicans are statists. It just happens to be that the last election had two running for President, Obama and Romney. I don't buy the "lesser of two evils" argument (it's still evil), but more importantly I think Romney's record in MA showed that he was just as bad as Obama...different in the details, but just as bad. I have no doubt Romney would sign an AWB like he did in MA, just like Obama.

The argument between ratherfish and I over of the last election is that ratherfish blames people like me for Obama, rather than himself and the Republican establishment for choosing a candidate who turned a lot of people off (like me) because of his past statism (Romney's leadership in MA). The core of the argument is ratherfish insisting that we should vote R even if they put up another Romney or McCain in 2016. IMHO, that's not the path which will restore our great country. What's required is politicians who understand liberty and operate within the Constitution. Rand Paul is one such candidate and I hope he runs in 2016. I view ratherfish's position as naive and exactly the reason we keep getting RINOs. Like Romney said, why bother working for your vote if it's already a known quantity. The only way we get real liberty minded candidate through the primary process is to show the Republican establishment that our votes are not theirs by default, they must put up candidates who deserve our votes. If they don't, we won't vote for them...this diminishes the Republican establishment's power and it's the reason they attack real TP candidates and even attempt to get their candidates branded as TP by the media.

ShotgunBlast wrote:The liberty loving voter is supposed to vote for the candidate they most align with and ignore the hype that THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER AND WE NEED TO GET THAT BUM OUT OF OFFICE because every election will be spun like that so that the statism status quo remains, whether it has a Democratic taste to it or a Republican taste to it.

If liberty minded Republicans were really liberty minded, Ron Paul would have been the nominee. But liberty wasn't the focus of the Republicans; getting BHO out of office was the focus. Sadly, I think liberty COULD have gotten BHO out of office.

+1

Gunderwood,while i agree with your thought process,if the correct candidate(herman cain)is beat down by the media and run out of the election on a rail and an obama clone(romney)is built up god like by the media,guess who we end up with.the msm's candidate

No doubt the MSM does things like that, but its influence gets weaker and weaker with each election cycle. There are so many more sources of information available now and social media is becoming a big player (as Obama has shown its effectiveness).

Of course the Herman Cains and Ron Pauls don't have a chance of winning when registered Republicans themselves are saying "you're wasting your vote; they don't have a chance in the general election" during the primary race.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

@gunderwood - gotcha

But still, one side stinks, the other side is a different kind of stink, and the other options have a hard time getting on ballot and even then are considered "not real candidates" for one reason or another. It all stinks and even least stinky makes one hold their nose.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

We've had a de facto two party system for what, 110 (at least) years now?

Can't undo that in one or two election cycles. SB is correct in the MSM getting less relevant; information is increasingly decentralized, so this may start to change soon.

Kreutz wrote:We've had a de facto two party system for what, 110 (at least) years now?

Can't undo that in one or two election cycles. SB is correct in the MSM getting less relevant; information is increasingly decentralized, so this may start to change soon.

The change has already started with Gary Johnson pulling in 1% of the vote despite being mentioned in the MSM far fewer times than Obama and Romney, not being included in the vast majority of polls even though his name was on almost every state ballot, and not being in the televised presidential debates. 1% doesn't sound like much, but for a 3rd party candidate that has to go through hell just to get on the state ballots it's a game changer.

But i think we'll be dead or this country will be flushed down the tubes before it happens

dusterdude wrote:But i think we'll be dead or this country will be flushed down the tubes before it happens

A common, but misguided argument. If the country goes down the tubes, it's going to happen whether we fight for freedom or not. As far as us being dead, that's a pretty selfish position to take. I don't know about you, but I have future generations that I want to help make sure they have a better life than I do. It's not about "freedom in my lifetime", it's about "freedom".

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Screw those two useless idiots... There is no way in hell we could ever allow that nonsense to happen,

My point was,before the two party system goes away

I never though Obamarama would be re-elected. I am losing my faith in my fellow Americans and the fact VA went his way was a real kick in the doodads!

Our senators will back any gun control they see, as my written responses have shown. The house guys are all we have.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I never though Obamarama would be re-elected. I am losing my faith in my fellow Americans and the fact VA went his way was a real kick in the doodads!

Our senators will back any gun control they see, as my written responses have shown. The house guys are all we have.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

He shouldn't have been elected!!!!

If the right fought like the left he WOULDN'T have been elected.

We need to fight for our freedom as a people and be prepared to battle progressivism for 50 years. They did!

What's important your freedom, or legalized drugs? Gay marrage?????

What about A free Press? Education that's not a progressive brain washing????Things that will loose the progressive hold on the younger generation.

We must shrink the size and influence of the federal government or WE ALL LOOSE!

If you can't win with your first choice candidate vote in the less objectionable and ride him like a rented mule pushing constitutionalism. If he fails, replace him in the primaries with a Tea Party candidate. Be prepared to do that for 50 years!

They did!

Folks on the left have a "group identity" sort of mentality, plus they tend to have the ability to focus on one or two issues, and ignore the others. It is very easy to rally them together over a single issue, and get them convinced that the issue must be resolved, no matter the cost. This makes it easy to push a single candidate.

Folks on the right, however, tend to consider many issues, and the consequence of action or inaction. Plus, they tend to be more independent. Trying to get them to rally together is like herding cats. Plus, those on the right tend to have jobs and families to tend to, and don't have near the free time as those on the left. This makes it very hard for the right to agree on a single candidate.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

ratherfish wrote:What's important your freedom, or legalized drugs? Gay marrage?????

This made me chuckle and reinforces my beliefs that while some registered Republicans throw around the word "freedom", they're not quite on board with the concept of freedom.

Concur. That also supports why rural areas tend to be more republican/independent compared to more urban areas.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

ShotgunBlast wrote:This made me chuckle and reinforces my beliefs that while some registered Republicans throw around the word "freedom", they're not quite on board with the concept of freedom.

Thats the funny thing about drugs, their criminality really only benefits the prison-industrial complex. In the days when you could buy cocaine or heroin at the local pharmacy no one was being murdered over it. Ditto for alcohol until, derp, it was criminalized.

There seems to be a bit of a pattern there.

I myself have never used any drugs, but I fully respect the freedom of others to do what they chose. Denying them that freedom only perpetuates the status quo we have now.

So as a non-drug user I can use a stance on the asinine "war on drugs" as a pretty good litmus test to see where someones stance on overall freedom is....and a ton of Republicans fail the test.

Kreutz wrote:So as a non-drug user I can use a stance on the asinine "war on drugs" as a pretty good litmus test to see where someones stance on overall freedom is....and a ton of Republicans fail the test.

Same here. There are many things that I'm not going to do, but who am I to say that someone else can't do what they want? Like you said, those issues are good litmus tests to gauge someone's true stance of freedom lies. Unfortunately, many people confuse "the freedom my values and beliefs allow you to have" for freedom.