Please consider this point

[JettaKnight]

I agree with the OP. I may not like Donald as a person, but I still think he would do a much better job of running the country than Hillary - not to mention the implications for the SCOTUS and how that impacts us as gun owners if Hillary wins. It is a TERRIBLE idea not to vote. We need to all stand behind the person who is running against Hillary, whoever that is, or our children have a very good chance of not having the same freedoms that we do, especially regarding gun rights.

Huh? That wasn't the OP's point at all.


His point was, "even if you can't vote for Trump, vote for the other R's".

 

[Arm America]

Huh? That wasn't the OP's point at all.


His point was, "even if you can't vote for Trump, vote for the other R's".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand his point and I agree with those points.
It's just disgusting that the R's had many chances to block some of the sad choices the current administration made.
While I will still vote "R", all the way through, it blows my mind once people get elected, they check their backbone at the door.
Bottom line, I think this Countries best times are behind us.

 

[seedubs1]

This. I'll be voting R, but they're making it really hard for me to do that. The hard R's are SO far behind the times on a lot of social issues that it's embarrassing, and it's killing the party.

*raises hand

I have to decide which party represents me. When you have a GOP Representative saying that allowing married couples to use contraception is society "going downhill", then I have to ask: is this what I want to get behind? Is this the party that I want to lend legitimacy to?

I don't want Hillary for President, and I don't want to vote for her. But the GOP keeps offering so much worse that I can't do otherwise in good conscience.

 

[Lowe0]

Was he talking about the Griswold​ decision?

...because disagreeing with that decision is only equivalent to wanting to ban contraception for married adults if one evaluates issues according to the principles of HuffPo clickbait articles.

That one, and Eisenstadt. Judge for yourself, skip to 6:24:

https://caffeinatedthoughts.com/201...adio-5-14-16-guests-steve-king-daniel-ladoux/

You can contemplate whether those cases were decided correctly; you're the lawyer, not me. But whether they represent society on a downhill slope? I'm not convinced.

 

[Twangbanger]

...So, the assertion was half noTrumps will vote for Hillary. I don't want to speak for GPIAsvhunshshurhn (but I will), and say that neither he nor I will vote for HRC. So, that's less than half. Anyone else?

Let's get the reading comprehension difficulties addressed, first: this is a thread about DOWN-BALLOT preferences, and I believe half the NT'ers will vote Dem elsewhere on the ballot. And therefore, Bert's quest to get as many of them to the polls as possible to vote other races may be a wash at best, and a shot in the foot at worst, because we have no idea what they might think about the myriad other contests.

So with the issue thus scoped, and with one hand already enthusiastically raised (thanks for your honesty Lowe), and at least one $15 min. wage fan already following the thread (and limiting his loyalty to federal only)...I believe I'll stick with my suspicions for now.

 

[PaulKersey]

Along the same lines, how many of the Sanders supporters will stay home - thus helping Trump - if Hillary doesn't choose a running mate that is more liberal than she is? I lamented in another thread that I can't understand how people can't understand how a third party candidate harms Trump. In the same way, perhaps the Sanders supporters are so dedicated to him that they will refuse to compromise and vote for Hillary, thereby committing the greatest possible sin (in their eyes) - helping to elect Trump.

 

[JettaKnight]

Let's get the reading comprehension difficulties addressed, first: this is a thread about DOWN-BALLOT preferences, and I believe half the NT'ers will vote Dem elsewhere on the ballot. And therefore, Bert's quest to get as many of them to the polls as possible to vote other races may be a wash at best, and a shot in the foot at worst, because we have no idea what they might think about the myriad other contests.

So with the issue thus scoped, and with one hand already enthusiastically raised (thanks for your honesty Lowe), and at least one $15 min. wage fan already following the thread (and limiting his loyalty to federal only)...I believe I'll stick with my suspicions for now.

Please elaborate - why do you think this?

 

[PaulF]

I can't speak for anyone else, R or D...but speaking for myself:

I don't stay at home for elections. I vote my conscience, and that sometimes means a "D" gets my vote.

I will not be casting a vote for Hillary. I will not be casting a vote for Trump. I will vote in other races, so long as I have an informed opinion of the candidate running for the seat.

I will not vote for any candidate simply because of the political party with which they are affiliated.

Why? In my experience "Republcan" and "Democrat" are absolutely hollow terms on their own...there are worlds of diversity within each party. Romney and Cruz are both "Republicans", but both have their own (very different) agendas. The same is true of the Democrats...the label itself tells me nothing about the candidate.

Dont blame conservative voters when Trump loses this election for the Republicans...give them a secular conservative they can actually vote for. For the last several elections the Republicans have been selling crony capitalism and social division as a party platform...is there really any mystery why people aren't buying it?

 

[Twangbanger]

I think you need to explain this...I think you're trying to demonize anti-Trump folks as Democrats so you feel justified in your hatred.

No. I'm trying to demonize half of them. If you're not one of them, assume I'm talking about the other half.

When I joined INGO some time ago, my initial impression was that there were a heckuva lot of Democrats who come here and pretend to be Libertarians, in order to have a safe position from which to constantly lambaste Republicans. (Ed. - since L'nL has been hangin' with Trayvon, that impression has been ameliorated, somewhat). It's the perfect "cover persona," if you will, for a liberalish-person posting on a Gun Forum. If you're a drug-legalizer, or a religion-scoffer, or simply an African-American from a family that hasn't voted for a Republican in at least four generations (ie, forever), you can paste the "R. Paul" banner on your sleeve here and assure yourself of safe travels among the "gun people" - taking pot shots at Conservatives all the way.

I simply wouldn't be surprised if the Anti-Trump movement, now, is raking in some of these same people who might have been hiding under the Ron Paul penumbra in other elections.

But more to the point of this thread, I'm trying to point out that Bert's assumption, which is that the GOP Primary NT'ers will vote straight-ticket R in the down-ballot races - if we can convince them to show up - is something we have no right to expect. Now, to be fair to both sides, it's entirely possible that the new Trump voters (if any) that come off the sidelines in this election to vote for Trump might have some Democrat sympathies, as well. Trump excites a lot of passions on both sides, and I simply think we are in new territory here, dealing with passionate people we can't absolutely predict.

The people who stand at attention before the GOP Flag? Pledging loyalty to Trump because he's the Republican nominee, and "I always vote for the Republican nominee?" Yeah, those people are lifers. Their loyalty is not in doubt; you can set your watch by people like those. I'm not worried they are going to get a bug up their ass about something Mike Pence said about gays, and vote for John Gregg. I'm not worried they're going to get a burr in their hide about something Todd Young said about religion/abortion, and vote for Baron Hill.

But the NT'ers? Well, we just don't know about them. So, I'm going to start the bidding at 50%, and let the folks work it out. Perhaps we need to continue to listen to the thread, and see what they have to say, before assuming they're Reliable GOP'ers (for everything other than Trump).

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

I'm with BBI on this. Normally very conservative with a libertarian bent. And like PaulF has stated, I can't vote for Trump and I DANG sure can't vote for the witch. Sucks for me, but that's where I'm at. And I'm not alone.

ergo... Twang - your premise is a crock of iguana

We all knew that Lowe0 is a liberal - but a consistent one around here. That's 1 for that against a fair number of folks like me. There's a lot of us "NoTrumpers" that have explained our reasoning in quite solid detail. Perhaps the math has eluded you?

(half of the NoTrumpers my pasty white caucasian keister...)

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Dont blame conservative voters when Trump loses this election for the Republicans...give them a secular conservative they can actually vote for. For the last several elections the Republicans have been selling crony capitalism and social division as a party platform...is there really any mystery why people aren't buying it?

PaulF - I think you have hit on something that is important here. A secular conservative... What is needed is a rare breed. An atheist/agnostic that won't **** off religious conservatives by preaching to them that they are idiots OR a believer who will step up to the microphone and speak the truth - that in their opinion good governance is in no way tied to their personal take on religion, but rather on the general principles of liberty. And that they defend the right of agnostics/atheists to believe as they do just as much as anyone else. And arguably MOST importantly - that we need to focus on the economy, good governance and liberty and let the rest take care of itself. PERIOD.

Such a person will be needed, because those sorts of views (from one side or the other - no matter) are required in order to bridge the gap.

And a moratorium on all social legislation until the budget is balanced for a few years running. Just leave all of the social issues status quo for now. And fix the economy first.

 

[Twangbanger]

I'm with BBI on this. Normally very conservative with a libertarian bent....ergo... Twang - your premise is a crock of iguana

The guy you're "with" on this is a passionate defender of the mandatory $15 federal minimum wage (*Note - comment redacted as not true). Hardly conservative or libertarian. He seems like a good guy who has provided me with plenty of interesting information, so I've no desire to savage him here. This is just to point out that if you're that in-the-dark about someone you profess ideological solidarity with...you might want to pay a little more attention.

 

[T.Lex]

The guy you're "with" on this is a passionate defender of the mandatory $15 federal minimum wage. Hardly conservative or libertarian. He seems like a good guy who has provided me with plenty of interesting information, so I've no desire to savage him here.

And yet... you do....

Sometimes I envy people like you, without any notion of gray areas. The world must make so much sense to you. Hmmm... maybe you should walk the walk and try to lead people.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

The guy you're "with" on this is a passionate defender of the mandatory $15 federal minimum wage. Hardly conservative or libertarian. He seems like a good guy who has provided me with plenty of interesting information, so I've no desire to savage him here. This is just to point out that if you're that in-the-dark about someone you profess ideological solidarity with...you might want to pay a little more attention.

I stand with BBI because he has been singled out by Mr. Trump simply for his choice of religious belief. That does not mean for a second that I believe everything that BBI believes. But (to quote Voltaire) , I will defend to the death his right to believe it. And I will do so for ANY person singled out like that, be they Muslim, Christian, fire worshipper, Atheist, Agnostic or whatever. Trump fanned the fires of religious and xenophobic hatred for political populist gain. I cannot condone that. And I will not. Just that simple. I have personal reasons why that sort of thing falls pretty close to home (detailed in another thread - no need to drag it up here). For those reasons, things like what Trump did are important to me. And deal breakers.

I think that the $15 minimum wage is a dumb idea. But it doesn't have one [insert favorite expletive here] thing to do with why I stand with BBI regarding Mr. Trump.

For the record - had Trump not run his mouth in a way that hit a deal breaking nerve for me, I'd probably be in the "hold my nose and pull the handle" camp with guys like Jamil. But he crossed a very important line for me. I wish it were not so.

 

[HubertGummer]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand his point and I agree with those points.
It's just disgusting that the R's had many chances to block some of the sad choices the current administration made.
While I will still vote "R", all the way through, it blows my mind once people get elected, they check their backbone at the door.
Bottom line, I think this Countries best times are behind us.

Exactly why I dont consider myself a Republican, but a conservative who votes R because thats the closest I can get. Sometimes our two party system sucks...especially when both parties seem to have the same overall goal.(socialism)

 

[Bfish]

The point of voting for other things besides president especially when it comes to congressmen is important. People many times look at me funny when I bring that point up... It leaves me shaking my head, that's for sure!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The guy you're "with" on this is a passionate defender of the mandatory $15 federal minimum wage.

Care to post a link to back that up?

 

[Twangbanger]

Care to post a link to back that up?

I seem to recall this from a thread maybe a year or two back (the one where everyone went round and round about a "person's worth in the marketplace" - which you still obliquely reference from time to time), but if I'm wrong, and you are repudiating support for the $15 minimum wage, I will take this back right now. I do not wish to mis-attribute anyone's positions.

 

[T.Lex]

I seem to recall this from a very old thread (I think it was the one where everyone went round and round about a "person's worth in the marketplace"), but if I'm wrong, and you repudiate support for the $15 minimum wage, I seek instruction and correction and will take this back right now. I do not wish to mis-attribute anyone's positions.

Then don't. Otherwise, you clearly ARE willing to mis-attribute.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I seem to recall this from a thread maybe a year or two back (the one where everyone went round and round about a "person's worth in the marketplace" - which you still obliquely reference from time to time), but if I'm wrong, and you are repudiating support for the $15 minimum wage, I will take this back right now. I do not wish to mis-attribute anyone's positions.

Actual quotes:

Well, to be clear I'm not arguing for a specific number. That said, a minimum wage is a floor, not a ceiling. No one is saying you have to pay $X/hr. They are saying you have to pay $X/hr or more. How does the McD's differentiate itself today? Minimum wage has been the law of the land for, what, nearly 80 years now? Yet there are some stores that have good staff and some that have bad staff. That's why managers make more money. A good manager earns his pay by increasing efficiency via selection at hiring, motivation and morale, etc. Some stores will pay more, or will offer the employees some other incentives such as a better work environment, opportunity to move up, etc.

I'm not arguing a specific number at all. That's well above my level of expertise.

I'm not arguing for $15. As for why there should be a minimum wage at some level, I think I've already addressed that. In short, the unskilled labor market is entirely tilted in favor of the person doing the hiring, without some floor the wages fall to sustenance levels only, and it becomes nearly impossible to have the opportunity to improve your lot. It's easy to say "get an education" or "gain skills", but that takes both time and/or money, and people working at sustenance levels lack those.

I don't argue for a particular number because that's beyond my expertise. There is a balance to be struck. Too high and too few people are hired, the push for automation becomes stronger, etc. Too low and people are trapped. To pretend that I know where the right balance is when people with doctorates, research staff, and access to tons of data disagree on where it should be places would be a bit arrogant for someone who's highest level Econ classes were at the 300 level.

For those who do want to argue specific numbers, fun facts taken from Dept. of Labor's web site:





Maybe $10.10 is the right answer. It puts it nearly back to the actual purchasing power of the 1960s, and it seems plenty of learned people are onboard with it. I'll now sit back and listen to folks who haven't taken a Econ class since high school, if ever, explain why they know more about it than Nobel Prize winners in the field of Economics.