America's one choice in 2016.................

[utbagpiper]

Very easily verified Charles, it's on Camp Williams proper. Easily verified with a thousand articles, wikipedia, the NSA's site itself. But hey dont let the "facts" stop you from continuing to putting on a good show.

What do you know. It is on Camp Williams property.

So why yes, I'm posting from Camp Williams. I never noticed that my daily commute was taking me onto base every morning.

Charles

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I wont choose the "lesser of two evils", I won't voter for a Hilter over a Stalin.

 

[georg jetson]

I think you are right and so I take a hybrid view. I have voted for state and local R's if they're good. My old state rep didn't believe in state education, property taxes, and wants to do away with all "gun laws" and has been effective in getting pro gun legislation passed. I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries but could not bring myself to vote for Bush or McCain in the last national elections or anyone for national Congress. And I do not believe that Jeb Bush or Rick Perry or Scott Walker represent a lesser enough evil than whatever Demonrat we're presented with, Hitlery or somebody else.

Some of this stems from the fact that I think I have it all figured out on "national security" and war. I think these illegitimate wars and other foreign misadventures are a big, big deal and conservatives are either for them or tolerate them or don't understand what a huge impact it has had and will have in the future. This I can't abide. So while my Congressional R's in this district are definitely the lesser of two evils on a couple of domestic issues (especially on my beloved 2nd amendment) they're as bad or worse on foreign policy than the demonrats.

Not that it matters at all. There are not enough people like me.

I was speaking specifically of the race for pres. With regards to "lesser" federal positions, as matter of fact, recently in my state of Louisiana, we had an excellent opportunity to elect a guy on the R ticket that seemed to be very pro-freedom. However, the "lesser of two evil" montra was so powerful it blinded voters to the simple math of a run-off election. It made me realize without a doubt that people are not thinking things through. We need to be responsible for our own decisions.

I think there are enough people like you. They just need some encouragement.

 

[georg jetson]

I wont choose the "lesser of two evils", I won't voter for a Hilter over a Stalin.

Exactly. We need to think things through. You make the point that sometimes "lesser of two evils" means endorsing some form of intolerable evil. We really need to consider this.

 

[georg jetson]

Fan boys? Hardly. I haven't voted R for president since I was 18 years old and made the youthful mistake of thinking a vote for HW Bush was basically a vote for a third Reagan term. But I enjoy the advantage of living in a GOP-safe State where my vote for President is very unlikely to sway where our electoral votes go.

I live in a swing congressional district. Two years ago, the Democrat held his seat by less than 700 votes cast and thus was able to cast a vote for Pelosi to be Speaker. His prior wins for several elections before that were not quite so tight, but close enough to make clear that individual actions made a difference. This year, we sent a Republican to congress. She happens to be the first black female republican ever. She is far from perfect. And a vote for Boehner is not good. But it is less damaging to my RKBA than is a vote for Pelosi.

Some years I vote FOR the Republican candidate in my congressional district. Other years I vote against the Democrat candidate by marking the box for the candidate most likely to defeat the Democrat.

In our Senate races we did even better a few years back by replacing a RINO, Bob Bennett, with a TEA Party type, Mike Lee during our convention and primary campaigns. RINO Orrin Hatch managed to survive his last election, but I think it was enough of a fight he won't bother running again given his age.

Bottom line, the worst possible option is the worst possible option and voting for the lessor evil or even a decent but imperfect candidate is far better than letting the worst possible candidate waltz to victory over some kind of impotent "protest" non-vote. Getting out and doing some work for a good (if imperfect) candidate is even more effective than waiting for the general election to vote.

Charles

We were refering to the presidential election specifically. I can understand the application of "lesser of two evils" in other elections as long as it makes sense.

 

[utbagpiper]

We were refering to the presidential election specifically. I can understand the application of "lesser of two evils" in other elections as long as it makes sense.

In most regards, the presidential election is far less important than most others. And with the electoral college, a lot of the nation lives in States where their individual vote for president is very unlikely to affect the outcome anyway. (Though it may contribute to whether the media can attack the electoral college because the winner of the electoral vote didn't win the popular vote; As if anyone cares that the 2nd place team in the World Series actually scored more runs over the course of the series than did the team that won the series itself.)

But in Swing States, some real thought is needed. No one is nominating perfect justices to the SCOTUS. But Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts are way better on RKBA than are Gingsburg, Kagen, and Sotomayor. Right now our nation is being run by Kennedy. A republican president may appoint a justice hostile to RKBA. But a democrat president is all but assured to appoint an anti-RKBA justice. The makeup of the Senate will make a difference as well.

I think we also need to distinguish between the lessor of two evils, and a choice between a fairly bad candidate and one that is actually pretty decent. Less than perfect doesn't mean bad or evil. Good enough, is still good. Decent is acceptable. And even sorta-bad-on-some-issues is way better than holy-crap-batman-could-that-guy-pass-a-routine-military-background-check-to-pull-guard-duty-on-a-new-jet.

Bottom line, not voting just makes it easier for the really bad guys to win/steal an election. And every election they don't have to work to win/steal frees up resources they can use to win/steal other elections where there might actually be a really good choice. Strategy rather than simple tactics says you should not cede any ground you can easily and with minimal effort/risk force the enemy to spend resources trying to win.

Charles

 

[J_dazzle23]

From what I can see, unless a main party candidate truly has my freedoms in line, and represents the ideals that this country should represent, I will vote for the candidate that does. Independant, or otherwise. In my state it doesn't currently matter for presidential election. But had I known the privacy invasions gwb had in mind, I would have just as soon voted for carrot top. While I value rkba, I only value it more than the others in the sense that it is the ultimate insurance policy for preservation of all our rights. ALL my rights are important. LIBERTY is not just gun rights. I want privacy. I want due justice. I want freedom of speech. And the government to bug out of the citizens lives and actually allow us the freedoms our military members have given lives to preserve. Until I see a candidate that has those values, they won't get a single vote from me.

Lesser of two evils on a local level? Maybe. But if it is important enough, I'll involve myself and help get legislation passed (or repealed) that I agree with (much as Charles has done in utah).

Sure, since 2000 our gun rights have gotten better. But how has right to privacy done under the GOP?

 

[color of law]

This pretty well sums it up.

[video=youtube;YEqyU-g0vKg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEqyU-g0vKg&list=PLeiMYLBd1wS7pGyUOjJnmNj3Q5j4d0Ui7[/video]

 

[wittmeba]

Your entire statement is nullified by your last sentence. In case some of you haven't noticed, "our system" NO LONGER WORKS! We have no "Representation" from our local all the way to DC governments. The nations Debt is insurmountable, our education system has been intentionally reduced to a joke, more than half our population requires Government "assistance", more than half of our (producers) income is STOLEN BY THREAT OF FORCE, the list is truly endless.

Come on, Jeff. We are grossly affected by the extreme diversity of the two parties. They have never been further left and right respectively. We are fighting a major hurdle - BO and his hand picked team - until they are "VOTED" (emphasized) out.

40, 35, 30% voter turnout would send a message that the population has grown tired of the charade, and we aren't buying it or accepting it any longer.

What is the message other than that group of non-voters don't care enough to vote?

No matter what percentage of our population votes, it is still based on greater than/less than 50%. You can reduce the count by not voting but that only hurts the party of your preference by not voting. I'm sure you already know this.

We have an electoral voting process which is suppose to be representative of the general population. I have faith in that system. I just hope it comes thru in 2016 - or else there could be some demonstrations that might make Ferguson, Mo look like a 6 year olds birthday party.

In the last 20 plus years a significant percentage of Americans have been extremely "involved" on both the R and D side. Problem is they dont realize those they are sending to DC or elsewhere are working towards the same goal. Complete Government control in every aspect of OUR lives, that is a fact.

I agree with this and voting is your ONLY way to bring on change. Vote in someone else.

The "river" you are talking about diverting to dry fields is at the bottom of the Grand Canyon and the dry fields are at the top of the North Rim. Best pick a different river/system because the diversion/REFORM is impossible.

They got "IN" by being voted IN. They can be removed by being "VOTED" out. Please do go vote. It is still our best chance.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

I was speaking specifically of the race for pres. With regards to "lesser" federal positions, as matter of fact, recently in my state of Louisiana, we had an excellent opportunity to elect a guy on the R ticket that seemed to be very pro-freedom. However, the "lesser of two evil" montra was so powerful it blinded voters to the simple math of a run-off election. It made me realize without a doubt that people are not thinking things through. We need to be responsible for our own decisions.

I think there are enough people like you. They just need some encouragement.

I'm not completely sure, but I feel like the liberty movement is growing significantly in philosophy. I just hope that translates to actual votes for liberty minded candidates. I hope the Libertarian Party can bring some good prospects in future elections.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I'm not completely sure, but I feel like the liberty movement is growing significantly in philosophy. I just hope that translates to actual votes for liberty minded candidates. I hope the Libertarian Party can bring some good prospects in future elections.

It was growing pretty good in the late '70's too then Ronald Reagan talked small government and made some good libertarian comments. Got elected and grew government tremendously. Hopefully Rand won't do the same.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

It was growing pretty good in the late '70's too then Ronald Reagan talked small government and made some good libertarian comments. Got elected and grew government tremendously. Hopefully Rand won't do the same.

I've already seen the same crap in Rand. I can't vote for him.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I've already seen the same crap in Rand. I can't vote for him.

Same here he definitely isn't his father.

 

[since9]

It was growing pretty good in the late '70's too then Ronald Reagan talked small government and made some good libertarian comments. Got elected and grew government tremendously. Hopefully Rand won't do the same.

Wrong on about five counts.

Time for a reality check...

Counterpoint, but at least it's objective.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Reagan grew the government.

 

[utbagpiper]

Reagan grew the government.

He also appointed 2 justices to the Supreme Court who were part of the 5 member majority on Heller. While an imperfect decision, it is certainly better than a decision that did not find an individual right to KBA but instead ruled that the 2nd amendment was about some State right to a militia, or some collective right. And this is an RKBA/OC board.

As for spending: Government spending grew under Reagan and the Democratic controlled House (where by constitutional mandate all spending bills must originate). But rather than having all that growth go to welfare programs, he beefed up the military and fought the cold war, helping to bring about the fall of Soviet Union, saving tens or even hundreds of millions of lives compared to allowing the Soviets and other communists to continue their expansion across the world.

Some interesting numbers regarding Reagan's tax and expenditure policies from Wiki:

>>In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the highest income earners, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%.

>>The federal deficit under Reagan peaked at 6% of GDP in 1983, falling to 3.2% of GDP in 1987 and to 3.1% of GDP in his final budget.

>>The inflation-adjusted rate of growth in federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan;

>>The unemployment rate dropped from 7.1% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988.

>> A net job increase of about 21 million also occurred through mid-1990.

>>Reagan's administration is the only one not to have raised the minimum wage.

>>The inflation rate, 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988,

>>The misery index, defined as the inflation rate added to the unemployment rate, shrunk from 19.33 when he began his administration to 9.72 when he left, the greatest improvement record for a President since Harry S. Truman left office.

>>The percentage of total households making less than $10,000 a year (in real 2007 dollars) shrunk from 8.8% in 1980 to 8.3% in 1988 while the percentage of households making over $75,000 went from 20.2% to 25.7% during that period...

There was certainly some bad news under Reagan as well. But rather than accepting Soviet expansion and diminishing quality of life in the USA as inevitable--as did Carter--Reagan called the Soviets the "evil empire" they were and made clear we were going to win the cold war, which we did.

Bottom line and back to the OP, a vote for Reagan, while not perfect, was demonstrably better than had been another 4 years of Carter. And I hope we don't really need to discuss whether Reagan was a better choice than Mondale. Reagan's appointee, Scalia, wrote the majority opinion in Heller. The other Reagan appointee, Kennedy, joined the majority decision. Not a single democrat appointee joined the majority.

Elections rarely present us with a black and white choice between perfectly good and entirely evil. But quite frequently they present us with a choice between fairly good and really, really bad.

Voting makes a difference generally, and has made a huge difference on RsKBA. Save for the pro-RsKBA votes cast in the '94 congressional elections, the RKBA landscape in this nation be very different, far less good for our side, than it is.

Charles

 

[sudden valley gunner]

He grew government.

He grew theft of others money.

He grew the rising police state.

He grew the unconstitutional war on drugs.

He got credit for some things he didn't do.

PS he grew it faster than Carter who was also a crappy president.

 

[since9]

Reagan grew the government.

I even gave you the links, yet you still failed the reality check. The point is that his policies caused the overall economy to outgrow the government for 25 years.

Go back to the links. Try again.

utbagpiper's post is also a great synopsis.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I even gave you the links, yet you still failed the reality check. The point is that his policies caused the overall economy to outgrow the government for 25 years.

Go back to the links. Try again.

utbagpiper's post is also a great synopsis.

I read the links. I don't buy much of it.

He grew government. The fact you guys love him don't change the reality check you may need that he grew government.

That is why there is no counter to the many areas of government and tyranny that grew under his watch.

Utahs synapsis isn't all truth.

 

[Tricorn]

Vote all you want.

Vote all you want. The secret government won’t change.
The people we elect aren’t the ones calling the shots, says Tufts University’s Michael Glennon
http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/20...-won-change/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story.html