trump

[foszoe]

A vote for Johnson is just that, a vote for Johnson.

No matter how many times we all go through this illogical nonsense, it still seems to be the go-to line to disparage other people's votes.

I was listening to NPR today though and they said the Green Party pulls from the left and the Libertarian party pulls from the right...

 

[bwframe]

Harmful to whom?

Harmful to those who don't like to hear the truth, that they are promoting gun control.

 

[bwframe]

...I'd love to be wrong about that, but I'll bet you dinner at Elmo's that if he gets elected, his first SCOTUS appointment won't be one of those 11.

Lets bet on who Hillary would put on the court.

[video=youtube;Gp1U6tD4aXY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp1U6tD4aXY[/video]

 

[jamil]

Pence is a Trumper?

 

[JNG]

Lets bet on who Hillary would put on the court.

Someone terrible. Just like I think Trump will, when push comes to shove. And Hillary will attack the 2A. Just like I think Trump will, push come to shove.

Like you, I'm not willing to vote against my first or second amendment rights. That rules out Hillary. And it rules out Trump.

 

[bwframe]

Someone terrible. Just like I think Trump will, when push comes to shove. And Hillary will attack the 2A. Just like I think Trump will, push come to shove.

Like you, I'm not willing to vote against my first or second amendment rights. That rules out Hillary. And it rules out Trump.

With Trump there is a reasonable belief that he will follow through with what he has said he will do.

With Hillary, you can be sure she will do exactly as she has said she will do. She has the record to prove it.

Of course, it's your choice what to do with your vote.

With us or against us...

 

[jamil]

Someone terrible. Just like I think Trump will, when push comes to shove. And Hillary will attack the 2A. Just like I think Trump will, push come to shove.

Like you, I'm not willing to vote against my first or second amendment rights. That rules out Hillary. And it rules out Trump.

I think you're drawing a false equivilence. Hillary doesn't need pushes and shoves to attack the 2A. She's already campaigning on that. It is officially part of the Democratic platform. We know what kinds of justices she will appoint to SCOTUS. They'll look a lot like Ruth Buzzy. Certainly not 2A friendly. With Trump there is at lease a realistic doubt.

Sure, when push comes to shove, he may go against the 2A. But, given his pro-2A rhetoric, it would take some pushing and shoving to get there. Hillary is already there.

 

[JNG]

With Trump there is a reasonable belief that he will follow through with what he has said he will do.

That's a joke, right?

As a general matter, I'm probably against anyone who goes around saying "with us or against us" with regularity. Just as a matter of principle.

 

[jamil]

With Trump there is a reasonable belief that he will follow through with what he has said he will do.

With Hillary, you can be sure she will do exactly as she has said she will do. She has the record to prove it.

Of course, it's your choice what to do with your vote.

With us or against us...

Drawing nifty dichotomies is a good way to draw division between people, but it's not an argument.

 

[jamil]

That's a joke, right?

I don't think it's a joke. Read my response to your post.

 

[JNG]

Sure, when push comes to shove, he may go against the 2A. But, given his pro-2A rhetoric, it would take some pushing and shoving to get there. Hillary is already there.

That's a fair argument--but I don't think his pro-2A rhetoric will hold him back for a second. Particularly in the face of a lifetime of anti-2A positions. And particularly since his lower-taxes rhetoric didn't hold him back from supporting higher taxes, and his pro-business rhetoric didn't hold him back from switching and supporting an increase in minimum wage, and his pro-life rhetoric didn't stop him from turning on a dime and saying that Planned Parenthood was a great organization that shouldn't be defunded. Heck, his response to Orlando was to let the government deny gun sales to anyone on a secret list that requires no process to be put on and that is practically impossible to get off of.

If I only had two choices, I might have to dance on the head of that pin. But I don't have only two choices, so I don't have to rationalize voting for an anti-2A big government guy like Trump.

 

[bwframe]

Drawing nifty dichotomies is a good way to draw division between people, but it's not an argument.

The truth hurts because its the ****ing truth.

We NEED to highlight the division between those who are actually for the Second Amendment and those who treat it like their bathroom floor mat.

 

[JNG]

The truth hurts because its the ****ing truth.

We NEED to highlight the division between those who are actually for the Second Amendment and those who treat it like their bathroom floor mat.

I'm the guy who's for the Second Amendment (and doesn't believe that Trump is). Does that make you the other guy?

Or is it maybe, just maybe possible that we both value the Constitution highly--we just have a disagreement about whether your candidate of choice will do a better job of protecting it than the terrible job we all know Hillary will do? You think he will; I think he won't.

Your insistence that everyone who disagrees with you hates the Second Amendment is another version of a liberal calling racist anyone who disagrees with them. Just some food for thought.

 

[jamil]

OK, but how do you deal with Romney being sold to us on the platform of 'punish Obama for ObamaCare by voting for the guy who introduced it to this country'? Romney may also have had somewhat of a chance had he campaigned against Obama as hard as he campaigned against Trump when he wasn't even running. At the end of the day, Hillary, Obama, and Romney are all globalists and all establishment hacks. Trump has demonstrated a consistent pattern over decades of being pro-US. He may have plenty of flaws, but being a doppelganger of the same thing we have had every. damned. election. for. decades. is not one of them. Johnson has proven himself to be, well, selectively libertarian. When he wants to use the force of government to make me participate in things I don't want to participate with, he can go do something anatomically impossible.

I voted for Romney in 2012. It was a pragmatic choice. If I go through with voting for Trump, that will be a pragmatic choice as well. Hillary, Trump, Johnson. I don't want any of them to be allowed anywhere near the chair in the Oval Office. They all scare the **** out of me, but for different reasons. They're not all the same. Some things scare me more than others, and that makes one candidate ever so less scary than the others.

Just as the people saying Clinton and Trump are the same, it was just as much a false equivalency then between Romney and Obama as now between Clinton and Trump. I don't care if you couldn't find Romney worthy of your vote. That's the choice you get to make.

But my point wasn't even about that. My point was that the arguments you guys are using aren't really about logic or reasoning. In 2012 people were saying a vote for 3rd Party is a vote for Obama. Even though I was a Romney supporter, I disagreed with that sentiment then, and I disagree with it now. A vote for whomever you vote for is a vote for that person and no one else. People don't have to be strategic voters now, just as you didn't have to be a strategic voter in 2012.

Many of you guys called Romney and Obama variations of **** and turd sandwiches. And you're now rejecting the ****/turd sandwich argument, the one you used in 2012, for the #nevertrumpers. That's not logic. That's not reasoning. That's just arguing.

And as for GPIA, I'm pretty sure he was one of the Romney supporters in 2012 who was saying then, a vote for 3rd party is a vote for Obama. And now he's going with the ****/turd sandwich argument? Now, if you've all had a change in heart and have truly swapped your thinking, please forgive me for calling out some inconsistencies. All I mean to do is ask that you guys think about the real reasons you're saying what you're saying.

For those of you who have flipped. I'd like you to explain the flaw in your old argument that caused you to change your minds.

 

[printcraft]

I'm the guy who's for the Second Amendment (and doesn't believe that Trump is). Does that make you the other guy?

Or is it maybe, just maybe possible that we both value the Constitution highly--we just have a disagreement about whether your candidate of choice will do a better job of protecting it than the terrible job we all know Hillary will do? You think he will; I think he won't.

Your insistence that everyone who disagrees with you hates the Second Amendment is another version of a liberal calling racist anyone who disagrees with them. Just some food for thought.

So you KNOW that hitlary WILL do everything in her power to curtail and eliminate gun rights but you still think her getting in is preferable to Trump?

 

[jamil]

That's a fair argument--but I don't think his pro-2A rhetoric will hold him back for a second. Particularly in the face of a lifetime of anti-2A positions. And particularly since his lower-taxes rhetoric didn't hold him back from supporting higher taxes, and his pro-business rhetoric didn't hold him back from switching and supporting an increase in minimum wage, and his pro-life rhetoric didn't stop him from turning on a dime and saying that Planned Parenthood was a great organization that shouldn't be defunded. Heck, his response to Orlando was to let the government deny gun sales to anyone on a secret list that requires no process to be put on and that is practically impossible to get off of.

If I only had two choices, I might have to dance on the head of that pin. But I don't have only two choices, so I don't have to rationalize voting for an anti-2A big government guy like Trump.

I don't care who you vote for. It's a choice everyone has to make for themselves. I choose to be pragmatic about the choice, at least to a certain limit. That's what my conscience tells me. You follow yours. I'm not going to ridicule you for now making the same decisions I make.

 

[jbombelli]

I voted for Romney in 2012. It was a pragmatic choice. If I go through with voting for Trump, that will be a pragmatic choice as well. Hillary, Trump, Johnson. I don't want any of them to be allowed anywhere near the chair in the Oval Office. They all scare the **** out of me, but for different reasons. They're not all the same. Some things scare me more than others, and that makes one candidate ever so less scary than the others.

Just as the people saying Clinton and Trump are the same, it was just as much a false equivalency then between Romney and Obama as now between Clinton and Trump. I don't care if you couldn't find Romney worthy of your vote. That's the choice you get to make.

But my point wasn't even about that. My point was that the arguments you guys are using aren't really about logic or reasoning. In 2012 people were saying a vote for 3rd Party is a vote for Obama. Even though I was a Romney supporter, I disagreed with that sentiment then, and I disagree with it now. A vote for whomever you vote for is a vote for that person and no one else. People don't have to be strategic voters now, just as you didn't have to be a strategic voter in 2012.

Many of you guys called Romney and Obama variations of **** and turd sandwiches. And you're now rejecting the ****/turd sandwich argument, the one you used in 2012, for the #nevertrumpers. That's not logic. That's not reasoning. That's just arguing.

And as for GPIA, I'm pretty sure he was one of the Romney supporters in 2012 who was saying then, a vote for 3rd party is a vote for Obama. And now he's going with the ****/turd sandwich argument? Now, if you've all had a change in heart and have truly swapped your thinking, please forgive me for calling out some inconsistencies. All I mean to do is ask that you guys think about the real reasons you're saying what you're saying.

For those of you who have flipped. I'd like you to explain the flaw in your old argument that caused you to change your minds.

Supreme Court justices. Johnson won't win. No way, no how. I've seen Trump's list, and I know Hillary's plan. I'll chance Trump because I don't actually think he's a pathological liar, and he might hold to what he's said. I'll go with that before I go with the sure thing in the other direction. If we didn't have vacancies RIGHT NOW on the Supreme Court, with other justices getting there soon, my feelings on this might be different.

 

[MisterChester]

A vote not for Trump is a vote for Hillary. Sorry Never-Trumpers... Suck it up. Get 'em next time.

 

[bwframe]

...Your insistence that everyone who disagrees with you hates the Second Amendment is another version of a liberal calling racist anyone who disagrees with them...

There is only one vote in favor of the Second Amendment this November. It's not my fact, it is THE fact. I just pass it along.

For us or against us.

 

[JNG]

There is only one vote in favor of the Second Amendment this November. It's not my fact, it is THE fact. I just pass it along.

For us or against us.

Gary Johnson?