Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Craig's replacement???

  1. #1
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Im not sure if this is a thread thats even legal in these forums. If not Mods, feel free to delete it.

    Im not endorsing this guy, yet. But I ran into a Mr. Rex Rammell, who is running for Larry Craig's spot. I had a chance to talk at him, and He has it dead on on every issue I could ask him about. Im posting this, cuz that included 2a. I didnt think to ask him anything about open carry, but I did notice he had NRA stickers in his vehicle.

    Really a down to earth guy. I ask you to check him out: www.rexrammell.com

    Im not sure that Ill vote for him, I have more investigating to do on the candidates, but he's the top of my list so far.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Boise, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    The problem with Rex Rammell is that he is siphoning off votes from Jim Risch, which could in the end leave us with Larry LaRocco as our Senator. Rammell dropped out of the Republican primary to run as an Independent and now he could end up spoiling this election. Rammell can not win so voting for him is basically half a vote for Larocco.

  3. #3
    Guest

    Post imported post

    do you really want Risch though?? Dont forget he has raised taxes every chance he can find.

    Besides, He isn't that great of a governor; why do we want him in the senate screwing us over on the federal level??

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    340

    Post imported post

    The old "do you vote for the lesser of two evils" argument.
    I for one, will not.
    I'll vote my conscience. Unless something changes... Rex will get my vote.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Boise, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    IdahoCorsair wrote:
    The old "do you vote for the lesser of two evils" argument.
    I for one, will not.
    I'll vote my conscience. Unless something changes... Rex will get my vote.
    The old "make things worse to make a point" argument.
    Voting for Jim Risch is the smart choice for Idahoans.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Boise, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    hitbackfirst wrote:
    IdahoCorsair wrote:
    The old "do you vote for the lesser of two evils" argument.
    I for one, will not.
    I'll vote my conscience. Unless something changes... Rex will get my vote.
    The old "make things worse to make a point" argument.
    Voting for Jim Risch is the smart choice for Idahoans.
    Good thing some of us Idahoans are smarter that others

    Risch is not my choice!

  7. #7
    Guest

    Post imported post

    hitbackfirst wrote:
    IdahoCorsair wrote:
    The old "do you vote for the lesser of two evils" argument.
    I for one, will not.
    I'll vote my conscience. Unless something changes... Rex will get my vote.
    The old "make things worse to make a point" argument.
    Voting for Jim Risch is the smart choice for Idahoans.
    And sticking to stupid party lines is working soooooo well for us right now, huh?.

    We have freaking John McCain as the candidate of choice right now. ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!?

    The founding fathers said repeatedly that these parties would be the Death of this country. And, gosh, they've been wrong so often before.

    In the words of dave ramsey: "If you could just pull your head out of your politics....."

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Boise, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    GnGKlinger wrote:
    hitbackfirst wrote:
    IdahoCorsair wrote:
    The old "do you vote for the lesser of two evils" argument.
    I for one, will not.
    I'll vote my conscience. Unless something changes... Rex will get my vote.
    The old "make things worse to make a point" argument.
    Voting for Jim Risch is the smart choice for Idahoans.
    And sticking to stupid party lines is working soooooo well for us right now, huh?.

    We have freaking John McCain as the candidate of choice right now. ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!?

    The founding fathers said repeatedly that these parties would be the Death of this country. And, gosh, they've been wrong so often before.

    In the words of dave ramsey: "If you could just get your head out of your politics....."
    Do you honestly think wasting your vote on a candidate who can't win is somehow going to help our Country? I'm not happy with the selection of McCain either, but I will not waste my vote on some third party candidate just to make a point. All I can do is hope that others feel the same as me otherwise their 'protest' votes could be the deciding factor in putting an avowed Marxist into the White House. The two party system is far from perfect, but a three (or more) party system just makes it easier for a radical minority to gain control (Think Hitler and the Nazis.) For now your choices are vote Republican, vote Democrat, waste your vote on a third-party candidate, or don't vote at all. In the big picture, those last two options will bring about the same result.

    If voting for Rex Rammell makes you happy, go for it! For that matter, go vote for Bob Barr while you're at it. As disgusting as I find apathy, I find it even more ridiculous that someone who actually understands what is at stake in this election would withhold their vote from a viable candidate who isn't perfect in favor of a non-viable candidate - no matter how wonderful he may seem.

    Final question: What is actually gained by voting for Rex Rammell? How does voting for him make positive progress in our Country? If someone has a serious answer I would love to hear it.


  9. #9
    Guest

    Post imported post

    I wont waste the time on the other nonsense spewing from that keyboard other than:
    The simple fact is that you are SACRIFICING YOUR vote on a candidate that doesnt agree with you as much on issues for a candidate that has a better chance of winning. And I will ask you: How Exactly do you think that we got to where we are?? Just coincidence, maybe??

    "Final question: What is actually gained by voting for Rex Rammell? How does voting for him make positive progress in our Country? If someone has a serious answer I would love to hear it."

    final answer: What if he were to win?? We would have a candidate that understands the constitution, that it wasnt the permission slip for government to babysit or control its people. WE would be the state that could send people to D.C. with morals and beliefs that "The People" are the answer. WE have the proof that Idaho doesnt just vote for the same-old moron, simply because he has an "R" beside his name.

    WE would be the people that were thinking for OURSELVES. Not just thinking about bull$h!t party lines!!!

    One more thing: http://www.nrapvf.org/Elections/State.aspx?State=ID
    LaRocco has the same score from the NRA on 2A. If he were to win, and didn't tow the line, we still would be fine from our rep. If he toad along, we would get him out.....shortly.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Boise, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    GnGKlinger wrote:
    I wont waste the time on the other nonsense spewing from that keyboard other than:
    The simple fact is that you are SACRIFICING YOUR vote on a candidate that doesnt agree with you as much on issues for a candidate that has a better chance of winning. And I will ask you: How Exactly do you think that we got to where we are?? Just coincidence, maybe??

    "Final question: What is actually gained by voting for Rex Rammell? How does voting for him make positive progress in our Country? If someone has a serious answer I would love to hear it."

    final answer: What if he were to win?? We would have a candidate that understands the constitution, that it wasnt the permission slip for government to babysit or control its people. WE would be the state that could send people to D.C. with morals and beliefs that "The People" are the answer. WE have the proof that Idaho doesnt just vote for the same-old moron, simply because he has an "R" beside his name.

    WE would be the people that were thinking for OURSELVES. Not just thinking about bull$h!t party lines!!!

    One more thing: http://www.nrapvf.org/Elections/State.aspx?State=ID
    LaRocco has the same score from the NRA on 2A. If he were to win, and didn't tow the line, we still would be fine from our rep. If he toad along, we would get him out.....shortly.
    What if he were to win... What if it started raining roses and lollipops? He can not win this election. That is my point! All of your speculation is pointless because it does not fit with the reality that we are living in.

    I am not voting for Jim Risch because he has an "R" next to his name. I am voting for him because he is a much better choice than Larry LaRocco, and because he can actually win.

    As for LaRocco, there are more issues at stake here than just gun rights. I already explained my position on LaRocco in another thread, but I will repost what I wrote here as you decided to challenge what I assumed was a position that we agreed on, that LaRocco is a bad choice for Idaho.

    Both Risch and LaRocco received an 'A' from the NRA, so on gun rights they may be equal... (That's assuming LaRocco would not agree to a Democrat sponsored combo bill that included anti-gun legislation somewhere in it.) Aside from that, however, let's keep in mind that although more conservative than some Democrats, LaRocco still supports many traditional liberal "values."

    He supports abortion. He even opposed a law requiring parental notification before an abortion is administored to a minor.

    He supports increased penalties for so-called "hate crimes."

    He voted to declare almost 8 million acres in California "wilderness" - a designation which pretty much makes the land useless to humans.

    He supports increased Federal medling in helth care which means that more of your hard-earned money goes to pay for someone else's healthcare.

    He believes we need to "significantly reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by using alternative energy sources and increasing our energy efficiency."

    He suppoorts increased funding for pre-kindergarten education.

    On National Security, LaRocco supports "negotiations" and "the battles of ideas" rather than military action.

    On the issue of Iranian nukes his only (vague) comment refers to more "negotiations."

    Final straw? Larry LaRocco supports Barack Obama. How pro-gun is that?
    Aside from the points above, let's not forget that electing LaRocco could be the tipping point in giving the Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate.

    Oh, by the way, "nonsense spewing from that keyboard"? Really?

  11. #11
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Yeah,....really.:?

    You, sir, are the reason that this republic is broken. The Republicrap party is doing exactly the same screwing us to the wall politics that that other party is. (prescription drugs, amnesty, global warming, Pseudo-nationalizing our financial Industry is just the tip of this iceberg)
    Two years ago was supposed to be different. Nancy Peloci, was gonna bring down the price of gas, remember??-oh its down now (to about what it was back then). Now them R's are promising that things will change.
    And you expect it to be different this time?? These Fools are PLAYING YOU!!!!

    If you vote for the same, you'll get the same.... I dont know why its so hard to understand that. If you (and other "R"pundits) started to open your eyes; Rammell WOULD win, Velvet rows would Part, the sky would turn green, Roses and lollipops would abound, and we could actually accomplish some good in this country, like getting the Government out of my life.


    .....or you could vote for your party, a lot like them Obama-maniacs.

    oh,......'cept "this guy is a 'change', he's different".

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Kaneohe Bay, HI USA
    Posts
    293

    Post imported post

    Everyone here does realize that Larroco received a better rating on gun rights from the GOA than Risch did right?

    I am refusing to vote today on principle, but if i was going to vote, it would be for Larroco

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •