Can't OC at McKenna rally

sudden valley gunner · Jul 1, 2012

Metalhead47 said:
So you're going to vote for inslee whos going to do the same X5?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why do I have to vote for anyone?

I will not vote for "the lesser of two evils" it is still evil.

gogodawgs said:
There is another candidate running as a Republican, Sharam Hadian. He is also pro gun.

I think I met him somewhere. I'll have to find out more about his view points on other individual/fundamental rights before endorsing him. Many claim to be supportive our our right to be armed but then fall into the fallacy of thinking we need "leaders" or to be regulated in other means.

rapgood · Jul 2, 2012

sudden valley gunner said:
Why do I have to vote for anyone?

I will not vote for "the lesser of two evils" it is still evil.

I think I met him somewhere. I'll have to find out more about his view points on other individual/fundamental rights before endorsing him. Many claim to be supportive our our right to be armed but then fall into the fallacy of thinking we need "leaders" or to be regulated in other means.

I say we all write in Dave Workman and see how many votes he gets! Might surprise some...

Lovenox · Jul 5, 2012

Metalhead47 said:
C'mon guys look what was ACTUALLY said in the message to the OP:

McKenna's NOT the host, a supporter is hosting the event on his behalf, probably as a fundraiser. The host is a private entity or individual and can do anything he/they bloody want regardless of McKenna's own policies and beliefs up to and including excluding Mr. McKenna himself! I know it may come as a shock to some, but many on the right/conservative/republican side, even tho they identify as pro-gun, are not pro-gun to the same level as most folks around here. I think some times y'all need to step back & take a reality check and realize just how radical "our" beliefs are on here, and that's most than just gun rights. I'm not saying that's a bad thing in the slightest. But we need to be aware of that.

There are plenty of folks on the non-liberal side who still think carrying a gun around is "weird," and are under the perception that they have to restrict such as public gatherings, either as a matter of law, perceived liability, or to keep happy others who think it's "weird."

ALL OF WHICH HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ROB MCKENNA, HIS IDEALS AND POLICES, OR HIS CAMPAIGN!

<facepalm>

Do you believe McKenna knows about this?

Metalhead47 · Jul 5, 2012

Lovenox said:
Do you believe McKenna knows about this?

I doubt it, unless someone has gone out of their way to specifically bring it to his attention. Like any politician, he's probably not aware of the details of campaign functions. That's what he's got a staff for.

BigDave · Jul 5, 2012

Lovenox said:
Do you believe McKenna knows about this?

Metalhead47 said:
I doubt it, unless someone has gone out of their way to specifically bring it to his attention. Like any politician, he's probably not aware of the details of campaign functions. That's what he's got a staff for.

This thread is something else, McKenna will need more then Gun Supporters to get into office, I really doubt this was instituted by him.
I feel he is a good choice and has my vote, if you choose not to vote then it is a vote to maintain status quo.

He is not in my view fitting into the category of "better of the two evils", ridiculous.

sudden valley gunner · Jul 5, 2012

BigDave said:
This thread is something else, McKenna will need more then Gun Supporters to get into office, I really doubt this was instituted by him.
I feel he is a good choice and has my vote, if you choose not to vote then it is a vote to maintain status quo.

He is not in my view fitting into the category of "better of the two evils", ridiculous.

Ridiculous argument that not voting is voting for status quo, sounds like status quo propaganda to me.

How is he not the lesser of two evils when he still wants to toss individual liberty and freedom out the window?

The doltish are always led by the boorish in supporting the authoritarian

Unknown

Metalhead47 · Jul 6, 2012

sudden valley gunner said:
Ridiculous argument that not voting is voting for status quo, sounds like status quo propaganda to me.

How is he not the lesser of two evils when he still wants to toss individual liberty and freedom out the window?

Unknown

Do you have a cite for his stance on "tossing liberty & freedom out the window?"

Not voting IS voting for status quo, cuz you're certainly not effecting change one way or the other.

DCKilla · Jul 6, 2012

Metalhead47 said:
Do you have a cite for his stance on "tossing liberty & freedom out the window?"

Not voting IS voting for status quo, cuz you're certainly not effecting change one way or the other.

Would it be different if I voted for myself? According to your opinion, I would not be voting for the status quo.

Tacitus42 · Jul 6, 2012

Would never vote for a Cougar. Sure they would Coug it up.
Seriously though, did anyone go to the rally in question?

sudden valley gunner · Jul 6, 2012

Metalhead47 said:
Do you have a cite for his stance on "tossing liberty & freedom out the window?"

Not voting IS voting for status quo, cuz you're certainly not effecting change one way or the other.

Hear about his stance on 4 Loco (sp?) I never drank the stuff had no desire but apparently will now not have the liberty or freedom too.

Hear about his liability reform? ( let's cap what the state has to pay when it breaks the law, not stop the state from breaking the law)

How about is proposed bill to ban internet tobacco sales?

Or his stance on tougher driver license laws?

He wants to grow the funding for public education including Universities. (Big governement)

His support for unconstitutional, anti-trust mergers?

How about more RICO laws? These laws restrict you more than it does gangs. Besides who is the government to tell me who I can associate with or not, anti-gang laws are a joke when the R's and D's are two of the biggest gangs ripping us off in this country. But yet again like most politicians they really miss the real underlying problem is the laws that restrict personal choices not the "gangs". HIs other proposed gang laws through due process right out the window.

Why would he illegally bar a press member of "The Stranger" from his public press conference?

Why would he deny someone to record him at a public meeting? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IkBhna_MUU , the cops were called too....interesting....

The status quo argument is just a way of trying to get others to partake in the status quo, the only way I'd be voting for status quo is voting for the status quo, whether it be a fascist with an R or a fascist with a D.

amlevin · Jul 6, 2012

DCKilla said:
Would it be different if I voted for myself? According to your opinion, I would not be voting for the status quo.

Like it or not, a vote cast for anyone other than the two main candidates won't contribute to any change. Those in power would just as soon see those against them vote for some minor candidate or a write-in. Their supporters aren't going to be dividing their vote among others, they're going to vote en bloc for their candidate. Once the primary is over with, the only course is to vote for one or the other. You essentially have to hold your nose and cast your vote if there isn't a candidate that shares all of your ideals. Best bet is to vote for the one that at least holds more of them than the other.

To think you're accomplishing anything by not voting is a pipe dream. Yes, you are contributing to the status quo.

BigDave · Jul 6, 2012

amlevin said:
"Once the primary is over with, the only course is to vote for one or the other. You essentially have to hold your nose and cast your vote if there isn't a candidate that shares all of your ideals. Best bet is to vote for the one that at least holds more of them than the other."

I agree with you amlevin...

This is a fact that we live with, if you choose not to vote for either then it will be an incomplete ballot null and void, like it or not a non vote is for the status quo.

Taking a position of one way or no way is thinking one person can be the one for all is unrealistic as it takes many with like beliefs to effect change and with everything good comes with some bad and everything bad comes with some good, it's life and we work with what we have knowing some compromising will happen.

END_THE_FED · Jul 6, 2012

sudden valley gunner said:
Hear about his stance on 4 Loco (sp?) I never drank the stuff had no desire but apparently will now not have the liberty or freedom too.

Hear about his liability reform? ( let's cap what the state has to pay when it breaks the law, not stop the state from breaking the law)

How about is proposed bill to ban internet tobacco sales?

Or his stance on tougher driver license laws?

He wants to grow the funding for public education including Universities. (Big governement)

His support for unconstitutional, anti-trust mergers?

How about more RICO laws? These laws restrict you more than it does gangs. Besides who is the government to tell me who I can associate with or not, anti-gang laws are a joke when the R's and D's are two of the biggest gangs ripping us off in this country. But yet again like most politicians they really miss the real underlying problem is the laws that restrict personal choices not the "gangs". HIs other proposed gang laws through due process right out the window.

Why would he illegally bar a press member of "The Stranger" from his public press conference?

Why would he deny someone to record him at a public meeting? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IkBhna_MUU , the cops were called too....interesting....

The status quo argument is just a way of trying to get others to partake in the status quo, the only way I'd be voting for status quo is voting for the status quo, whether it be a fascist with an R or a fascist with a D.

I share many of the same concerns about him as you do. His stance on alcoholic energy drinks really disappointed me. Not only did he support the ban in Washington state, but he actually came out in favor of a Federal ban.

I admire him for joining the health care lawsuit.

I am confused what you meant by this though...... "His support for unconstitutional, anti-trust mergers?" Are you saying he supports rules that restrict mergers, or that he wants to loosen the rules for mergers?

I do not see how government should be involved in mergers one way or the other. If two or more companies want to merge, then it is up to the owners/stockholders of those companies. The government should have no say on the matter.

END_THE_FED · Jul 6, 2012

BigDave said:
............This is a fact that we live with, if you choose not to vote for either then it will be an incomplete ballot null and void................

Am I understanding this statement correctly? Are you saying that if one decides to leave a portion of his ballot blank it makes the entire ballot void? I have never heard that before. Or am I just confused.

BigDave · Jul 6, 2012

END_THE_FED said:
Am I understanding this statement correctly? Are you saying that if one decides to leave a portion of his ballot blank it makes the entire ballot void? I have never heard that before. Or am I just confused.

I have tired to find a recent ballot or copy of but I do remember reading the instructions on the ballot that if not filled out completely it would not be accepted, well have to take a close look when we vote next.

gogodawgs · Jul 6, 2012

BigDave said:
I have tired to find a recent ballot or copy of but I do remember reading the instructions on the ballot that if not filled out completely it would not be accepted, well have to take a close look when we vote next.

Untrue.

Many people skip certain ballot choices, i.e. local judges, school board, because they have no clue who they are and the ballot is counted and perfectly legitimate.

BigDave · Jul 6, 2012

gogodawgs said:
Untrue.

Many people skip certain ballot choices, i.e. local judges, school board, because they have no clue who they are and the ballot is counted and perfectly legitimate.

You are assuming they are counted, as I said before we or I will take a closer look on the next ballot and take the guess work out of it.
I do remember hearing during one of the recounts as to disqualifying issues as not being completely filled out along with partially marked choices that someone else had to determine if that was their choice or not.

As to a follow up I sent off a request for information on this topic to my local auditors office for clarification.

gogodawgs · Jul 6, 2012

BigDave said:
You are assuming they are counted, as I said before we or I will take a closer look on the next ballot and take the guess work out of it.
I do remember hearing during one of the recounts as to disqualifying issues as not being completely filled out along with partially marked choices that someone else had to determine if that was their choice or not.

As to a follow up I sent off a request for information on this topic to my local auditors office for clarification.

I have been an election observer in the past. They are counted.

If there is a recount, then ballots are examined closer. A no mark/no vote ballot is still counted, at least the parts of the ballot that are marked.

BigDave · Jul 6, 2012

I just heard back from the auditors office and there reply was "If there is no selection made for a contest it is considered an “undervote” for that contest."

I am still of the position if you do not vote for one of the top 2 candidates in Washington one is voting for the status quo.

slapmonkay · Jul 6, 2012

BigDave said:
You are assuming they are counted, as I said before we or I will take a closer look on the next ballot and take the guess work out of it.

http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Depa...ions/Elections_Voting/Voting_Instructions.htm

It's OK to Leave Sections Blank
It is not necessary to vote in every race on your ballot. Your ballot is counted even if you leave some races blank (this is an under vote).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undervote

An undervote occurs when the number of choices selected by a voter in a contest is less than the maximum number allowed for that contest or when no selection is made for a single choice contest.[1]
In a contested election, an undervote can be construed as active voter disaffection - a voter engaged enough to cast a vote without the willingness to give the vote to any candidate.
An undervote can be intentional for purposes including protest votes, tactical voting or abstention. Alternately undervotes can be unintentional and caused by many factors including poor ballot design.
Undervotes combined with overvotes (known as residual votes) can be an academic indicator in evaluating the accuracy of a voting system when recording voter intent.[2]

Can't OC at McKenna rally

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Campaign Veteran

Opt-Out Members

Campaign Veteran

Opt-Out Members

Campaign Veteran