• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Ed Gilespie doesn't deserve your vote.

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
I don't think getting involved necessitates any such thing. Did Ron Paul stop being libertarian? Did Susan Collins stop being liberal? My goodness, what is the identity of the GOP at this point? It is really big tent. In my estimation, the Democrats require a much higher level of doctrinal purity especially on hot button issues like RKBA (anti). But maybe that is my partisan side not seeing the full truth there.

Um, yes. IF Paul were a libertarian he wouldn't be voting Republican, or running Republican.


I don't think one "stoops" to join a party. Rather, I think one has to rise up to the level of being willing to work with others who share some general views, but who do not agree with you much of the time. The payoff is being able to actually accomplish some really good things because we are working with others, we have the numbers to effect elections.

That's not what I think. But we have different brains, so that's not surprising. I'm not willing to sell my soul for the "payoff" if it means things I don't believe. But if you don't vote (and speak) in lockstep, you don't get the Party money.

And I'm not so sure the system is "rigged" nearly so much as it is natural for great questions to devolve into two camps. Yes, the national debates for presidency are rigged. But my ability to effect national races, even as a party member, is rather minimal. I can have a lot more effect on local and legislative races. Notably, that is where most of the progress on RKBA has come the last 25 years: At the State level.


Disagree again. System is rigged against 3rd parties. Questions can devolve, but if it were natural to groups of people to devolve into two camps, I'd agree, but what we have now are two Parties and (according to some polls) a majority of citizens -- according to other polls, only a plurality of 40-50% -- who do not identify with either of those two.
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
If Hyra does not have a fully throated endorsement of gun rights, I will probably vote for Gail the Rail (is she running this time around? - She used to be the Green Party candidate and has a lot of crazy positions, but at least she is not afraid to say that she is pro gun)

Thundar


Gotta laugh>

Gail for Rail stopped at my door during one of her Senate campaigns. When I asked her why she was running for that office (my usual first question to any candidate), she told me "to extend Rail down Route 1".

Like that's the Senate's role.

She had no other position on any other issue, as I recall, when this happened. Granted, it was probably 6-8 years ago.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Um, yes. IF Paul were a libertarian he wouldn't be voting Republican, or running Republican.

Did you actually follow Ron Paul's voting record? Hardly in lock step with the national GOP.



I'm not willing to sell my soul for the "payoff" if it means things I don't believe.

I don't consider it "selling my soul" to work with others who do not agree with me 100% of the time. Nor do I have any obligation to support or vote for any particular nominee whose positions are truly offensive to me. But I am in a position to help select nominees who are acceptable to me. Not perfect, but acceptable.



according to other polls, only a plurality of 40-50% -- who do not identify with either of those two.

So why are these disaffected voters not voting to elect who they want? Or does the fact that 2 parties win constitute evidence that the 2 parties have the system rigged? Kind of the same circular logic that says if 50% of all doctors/engineers/CEOs are not women that is proof the system is rigged against women?

A Google engineer writes a paper disputing that assumption and offering alternatives. Google fires him over it and the usual lefties go nuts at the suggestion that disparity in gender representation in certain fields might be explained by factors other than rank discrimination.

My State has very easy ballot access laws. We typically have half a dozen different parties represented on presidential ballots. I almost always vote 3rd party for president knowing that my fellow Utahns are overwhelmingly going to vote GOP and so our electoral votes will go there; no chance for spoiler effect. Everyone else in this State should know that as well. But we continue to vote overwhelmingly for the GOP nominee for POTUS. Either most of my fellow Utahns are too stupid to be voting in the first place, OR (and more likely), they identify more closely with the GOP platform than they do the Libertarian, IAP, Constitution, Socialist, Green, or Democrat party platforms.

I have to note that some folks claim parties require 100% lockstep allegiance. Yet it is so often these very same people who themselves talk about working with others who might disagree with them on a couple of issues as "selling their souls." I think almost all success on RKBA the last 20 years has come from persuading State legislators, governors, and congressmen to do a little bit of something in the right direction even though we disagree with so much of what they do in other areas and even though what we got in any single bill was rather small and imperfect. But building over time, we've made tremendous progress in a couple of decades.

I'm obviously not going to persuade to change your outlook on politics. I hope I've given you and others a bit to think about.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
If you have to vote for ed, write in his name

Two dozen posts into this thread and not one positive post for ed, putting him behind Gail the Rail! Quite telling. Like the title of this thread says, ed doesn't deserve your vote.

For those gun owners still convinced that they have to vote for ed, I would suggest that you write his name in. That would be a way to register your displeasure and still vote for the SOB.

Live free or die,
Thundar
 
Last edited:

The Wolfhound

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
728
Location
Henrico, Virginia, USA
Disagree again. System is rigged against 3rd parties. Questions can devolve, but if it were natural to groups of people to devolve into two camps, I'd agree, but what we have now are two Parties and (according to some polls) a majority of citizens -- according to other polls, only a plurality of 40-50% -- who do not identify with either of those two.

Complete agreement. Part of all parties in power plan for the future is maintaining that power. The work of the party is all for the party and not for the people at large. That is where it devolves into a largely 2 party system. Protecting their power is always part of their legislative agenda. Colluding with the other major party to prevent third or fourth parties IS part of that agenda.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Complete agreement. Part of all parties in power plan for the future is maintaining that power. The work of the party is all for the party and not for the people at large. That is where it devolves into a largely 2 party system. Protecting their power is always part of their legislative agenda. Colluding with the other major party to prevent third or fourth parties IS part of that agenda.

Old math forumula - One plus one equals none.
 

bbMurphy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2013
Messages
82
Location
Hardy, VA
Gilespie may not deserve my vote but hell if I'll vote for Northam. While there are third party candidates, none of them stand a snowball's chance in 1 step below purgatory. This is appearing to be a similar election to the presidential one. Trump is an a-hole and has many, many things against him but I'd rather cut off my arm than vote for Clinton. Again, no viable alternate with a chance of winning.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Gilespie may not deserve my vote but hell if I'll vote for Northam. While there are third party candidates, none of them stand a snowball's chance in 1 step below purgatory. This is appearing to be a similar election to the presidential one. Trump is an a-hole and has many, many things against him but I'd rather cut off my arm than vote for Clinton. Again, no viable alternate with a chance of winning.

So you agree, Ed doesn't deserve your vote?
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
NO ONE else can say who "deserves" another's vote.

If one wants to make a case, point out (as has sortakinda been done here) a candidate's positions pro- or con- for a given issue. Or for a combination of issues.

To say someone doesn't "deserve" another's vote is to make the determination one is capable of completing the calculus that is another's experiences, beliefs, priorities, and preferences, and that the voter somehow should take your preference over his. Isn't that about as disrespectful as one can get?
 

67GT390FB

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2007
Messages
860
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
So you agree, Ed doesn't deserve your vote?

yes Gillespie deserves all gun owners votes if the 2nd amendment is your primary voting issue. If we don't vote him in we get 4 more years of Northam/McAwful. This means we gun owners get 4 more years of nothing out of the GA and 4 more years of potentially bad executive orders. I have said it before and I'll say it again get a libertarian elected to any public office and let him work his way through the system, then run for statewide office. just plopping some nobody on a statewide ticket is a waste of a candidate and a vote. groom a candidate over years before throwing him/her to the wolves. the great libertarian hero Ron Paul ran and was elected as what???? A Republican that's what. Work within the system otherwise freely go on these quad-annual rants about someone or other not being a good candidate.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Here is what Bob Sadtler, Chairman of VCDL PAC is said:
VCDL- Political Action Committee

June 14 ·


***A word from the Chairman***

... Ed Gillespie has failed on many levels to reach out to his base. Corey feels that to blindly hand your support over, just to avoid Ralph Northam is suicidal. If we do THAT, the Republican apparatus of Va will CONTINUE to be arrogant, abusive, and non-responsive. ...
You have four choices:
1. Vote Gillespie because the party says so, or you're terrified of Northam. As said, suicidal, and self-perpetuating.
2. Vote Libertarian. Does that automatically mean four years of being governed by a potted plant? Probably. The alternative is living with #1 for the rest of your life.
3. Write in Corey Stewart. Or Bryce Reeves, ... See #2. ....
4. Demand that Gillespie EARN YOUR VOTE! REFUSE to hand it to him by default. ....Tell the whole rotten stinking mess that you are DONE being ignored. Be willing to risk it all, by letting the Demos hold the office for another four years, ...

.... VCDL-PAC has always been non-partisan. As an Independent, it will always be while I'm in charge.....

Bob Sadtler
Chairman, VCDL-PAC

It has now been about a month since the OP posted this quote from VCDL.

I'm wondering if the OP has done anything material to communicate to Gillespie that Gillespie has to earn his vote? Or has the OP simply encouraged others not to vote for Gillespie? What might Gillespie do at this to "earn" the OP's vote?

I can certainly respect how others choose to vote. I'm just wondering whether the OP provided the above quote with any intent to follow the counsel given, or if it was just a rhetorical device to add credibility to his previously made voting decision .

All just curiosity on my part, of course, since I don't have a direct dog in this fight.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Oh come on Bagpiper!

It has now been about a month since the OP posted this quote from VCDL.

I'm wondering if the OP has done anything material to communicate to Gillespie that Gillespie has to earn his vote? Or has the OP simply encouraged others not to vote for Gillespie? What might Gillespie do at this to "earn" the OP's vote?

I can certainly respect how others choose to vote. I'm just wondering whether the OP provided the above quote with any intent to follow the counsel given, or if it was just a rhetorical device to add credibility to his previously made voting decision .

All just curiosity on my part, of course, since I don't have a direct dog in this fight.

Ummm Bagpiper, did you look at my Avatar?

I am a Libertarian. I did push hard for the Libertarian to post his 2A views, which he did. Now his issue platform shows that he is the only real pro gun candidate, and he deserves my vote. The council given was pick one of four options. I work hard supporting option 2, not option 4.

LFOD,
Thundar
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
yes Gillespie deserves all gun owners votes if the 2nd amendment is your primary voting issue. If we don't vote him in we get 4 more years of Northam/McAwful. This means we gun owners get 4 more years of nothing out of the GA and 4 more years of potentially bad executive orders. I have said it before and I'll say it again get a libertarian elected to any public office and let him work his way through the system, then run for statewide office. just plopping some nobody on a statewide ticket is a waste of a candidate and a vote. groom a candidate over years before throwing him/her to the wolves. the great libertarian hero Ron Paul ran and was elected as what???? A Republican that's what. Work within the system otherwise freely go on these quad-annual rants about someone or other not being a good candidate.

So, you are a confirmed option 1, yes?
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
NO ONE else can say who "deserves" another's vote.

If one wants to make a case, point out (as has sortakinda been done here) a candidate's positions pro- or con- for a given issue. Or for a combination of issues.

To say someone doesn't "deserve" another's vote is to make the determination one is capable of completing the calculus that is another's experiences, beliefs, priorities, and preferences, and that the voter somehow should take your preference over his. Isn't that about as disrespectful as one can get?

Tess,

I have been very careful to not tell anybody else what to do, or to take my preference for option 2. I have merely pointed out that Ed has taken gun owners for granted, and provided the opinion of Bob Sadtler, the leader of VCDL PAC. bbMurphy started his post by saying "Gilespie may not deserve my vote, but..." I was trying to confirm what he meant by "may not deserve". I read this as bbMurphy saying Gilespie does not deserve my vote, but I am going to vote for him anyways.. but his opening line could also be read as I am not sure if Gilespie deserves my vote, but I am going to vote for him anyways.

LFOD,
Thundar
 

sidestreet

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
673
Location
, ,
Once again…,

I will be voting in an effort to keep someone FROM becoming Governor.

sidestreet

Jeremiah 29:11-13

Philippians 1:3

we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.
 
Top