McCain Website on 2nd Amendment

[Orygunner]

imported post

Election day is not the time to try and get a Libertarian elected. There needs to be enough support before the election, or there's no point in trying.

We need to start at a smaller scale and work up from there. Get more Libertarians in local government. Then State governments. Then Congress. No matter how much we might want it, it's going to be some years before we have a Libertarian president.

Sure, it makes sense that if you're pretty sure your state is already wrapped up, then more votes for a third party just may make the news and start people thinking. But if there's a chance my vote could really count, I'm not going to waste it on a candidate that doesn't have a chance of actually winning THIS election.

Maybe we could get a nice Republican president with Libertarian leanings to switch parties after elected ...

...Orygunner...

 

[Panos1296]

imported post

Exactly my point. The responses were all the same. "He has no chance!....etc, etc..." Local or national, the excuses are the same.

So, go on and vote for a big govt Republican (all the Repubs arebig govt now, other than Ron Paul) and watch your moneyand freedoms dwindle and dwindle under the monster govtthis has become.

Also, my other point was who will win in your state? If it is pretty much cut and dry, then why not send a message and vote for a 3rd party choice? Take NY or CA for instance. Obama will win both states so vote for a 3rd party choice. In ID, Alaska, Montana, McCain will win easy, so send a message.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

Prophet wrote:

Panos1296 wrote:

This kind of talk is the very reason a Libertarian will not be elected. Everyone votes for the Repub or Dem because they are convinced a Libertarian cant win. Well, no wonder the Libertarian cant win! It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. DUH!

Thats just not true though it is often the excuse that third party true believers cling to. Theoretically it makes sense but the truth of the matter is a Libertarian can't win because no libertarian has been a governor (or a senator). There are no libertarian governors because a libertarian hasn't been a mayor of a major city. No major city has had a libertarian mayor because a libertarian hasn't won a seat on the council to springboard a mayoral run. A libertarian hasn't been elected to a major city council because people have their heads in the ground on the local level and don't think that a libertarian can win the few thousand votes they need to get the council spot.

Now, don't tell me that the 200+million people who are going to vote in the election have to have a kumbayah moment together and decide to vote for Bob Barr when they aren't willing to vote for a candidate who can actually win in their city with a few thousand votes. It's a crawl walk run model and it needs to be adhered too. The only exception is a self made multi billionaire Libertarian who has the financial backing, business savvy and the street cred in order to make people suspend reality and believe he can win...a Ross Perot type whose less crazy.

Until one of those two things happen your just having a pipe dream. And that has nothing to do with a defeatist attitude towards things never changing. Quite the contrary, it's the realistic approach to have the change happen.

Sssssh, don't wake them.

What is this talk of reality? We are talking about protest here. If enough people cast there votes in the well, the water may rise over the top and "they" will notice and care.

We each have our ways of expressing our frustration/rage. One way is not necessarily the only way or the right way. Just do not insult each other and contribute to the infighting.

Yata hey

 

[Phoenixphire]

imported post

Prophet wrote:

(SNIP)

That's just not true though it is often the excuse that third party true believers cling to. Theoretically it makes sense but the truth of the matter is a Libertarian can't win because no libertarian has been a governor (or a senator). There are no libertarian governors because a libertarian hasn't been a mayor of a major city. No major city has had a libertarian mayor because a libertarian hasn't won a seat on the council to springboard a mayoral run. A libertarian hasn't been elected to a major city council because people have their heads in the ground on the local level and don't think that a libertarian can win the few thousand votes they need to get the council spot.

Now, don't tell me that the 200+million people who are going to vote in the election have to have a kumbayah moment together and decide to vote for Bob Barr when they aren't willing to vote for a candidate who can actually win in their city with a few thousand votes. It's a crawl walk run model and it needs to be adhered too. The only exception is a self made multi billionaire Libertarian who has the financial backing, business savvy and the street cred in order to make people suspend reality and believe he can win...a Ross Perot type whose less crazy.

Until one of those two things happen your just having a pipe dream. And that has nothing to do with a defeatist attitude towards things never changing. Quite the contrary, it's the realistic approach to have the change happen.

Hmm...

A logical and convincing argument?

Very rare, indeed.

A re-examination of position may be called for here.

Let me get back to you.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

To Prophet and others:

There you went and did it.

You woke somebody up and now they're thinking. I warned you.

Yata hey

 

[asforme]

imported post

Mack 12ga. wrote:

So go ahead vote your principles and see how far that will get you, just remember if Oboma git's in office then you will have no one to blame but your self.

I'd rather blame myself for Obama in office against my vote than have to blame myself for helping to put McCain there. So many of you are so scared of Obama, with their lack of any real fundamental differences I don't see how you think McCain would be less scary.

 

[Panos1296]

imported post

asforme:

Exactly right. McCain is a scary SOB, and I would never vote for him regardless of his opponent. Of all the potential GOP candidates, McCain was the worst. He is not small govt and and in military and foreign terms, govt will grow exponentially. More of my hard labor and profits will go to govts around the world, most of them completely despicable. I fear the man that would throw me in a cage if I refuse to send my property to another govt. (It is bad enough giving it to this govt.)

 

[longwatch]

imported post

I'm first and foremost a RKBA voter and McCain wasn't my first choice. Ron Paul was, but we tried and failed, maybe next time we will get a better candidate. Before the Palin pick I was voting for McCain to mitigate the damage to RKBA that Obama would cause. After Palin I'm begining to think that McCain wants my vote and has picked someone closer to my POV on RKBA. I'm of the mind that McCain/Palin might even be able to shrink big government if we as voters do our part after the election and hold their feet to the fire.

 

[like_the_roman]

imported post

With respect to RKBA, the best any of us can hope for in this election is damage control. McCain/Palin will follow the same middling path as GWB - neither will help us by urging the repeal of GCA/NFA regulations, but they won't hinder us from trying to remove restrictions at the state level. The worst McCain/Palin might do is make private sales at gun shows subject to NICS checks.

Obama/Biden, on the other hand, are quite hostile to firearms ownership, and while Obama asserts that he won't try to take our guns outright, there is little doubt that the dastardly duo will do anything to prevent their purchase, sale, use, and methods of carry.

I will probably ending up voting for the GOP ticket not because I have any like of McCain, but because I can't stand Barack Obama.

 

[longwatch]

imported post

Well the thought does cross my mind that in the event of a McCain/Palin victory, a presumed Palin succession could be very good for RKBA.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

longwatch wrote:

Well the thought does cross my mind that in the event of a McCain/Palin victory, a presumed Palin succession could be very good for RKBA.

Delete the word "presumed." I am willing to bet that Sarah Palin could kick some serious butt as POTUS. Might be wrong but I imagine her as a sort of female Truman - and that before her hormones trigger.

Oh please, please let me live to see her outshine Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir combined.

Yata hey