Because some of us don't want the President to be an egotistical loudmouth with no policy suggestions? How statist of us, eh?Well folks look no further than this thread on why gun owners are have been getting their asses handed to them.
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Because some of us don't want the President to be an egotistical loudmouth with no policy suggestions? How statist of us, eh?Well folks look no further than this thread on why gun owners are have been getting their asses handed to them.
Another +1. I usually respect folks who vote their conscience even if that means throwing away a vote on a third party candidate with zero chance of even being a blip on the electoral radar. But not this time, the stakes are too high, Hitlery must be kept out of the WH at all costs. I don't care if it's Genghis Kahn or Kahn from Star Trek running against her, I will vote for whomever has the best shot at defeating her, she is that evil. I know, I know, in deep blue MA Hitlery will most likely win but what if it is close. What if it all comes down to a close race in MA but she wins by a single vote and it was your vote for third party candidate X or your non vote that gave her the WH. Ask yourself, do you want to live with that on your head? Is Trump really worse than her?
Well folks look no further than this thread on why gun owners are have been getting their asses handed to them.
voting third party is not going to magically make a third party viable
Viability is actually directly tied to Number of votes, but don't let that get in the way of your cognitive dissonance. This logic is truly alarming from GOP apologists. More votes doesn't mean more viable? Are you kidding me?
Depending upon Trump to save us from the gun grabbers is a fool's errand.
I'll take my chances running a fool's errand rather than guaranteeing that more progressives get nominated to SCOTUS by HRC, which is what your philosophy on voting will bring us.
Okay, Then vote third party and help split the vote, so that what you claim you don't want happens.
Don't vote at all which means that you don't value your vote. Or
You can come with the usual excuse of "My vote doesn't matter anyway", and not vote.
No matter which one you take you are assisting in enabling the Communists in taking over this country.
You might as well turn your guns in when you vote for Mr. "None of the Above" at the polling booth because Mr. "None of the Above" will not be appointing anyone to SCOTUS.
Okay, Then vote third party and help split the vote, so that what you claim you don't want happens.
Don't vote at all which means that you don't value your vote. Or
You can come with the usual excuse of "My vote doesn't matter anyway", and not vote.
No matter which one you take you are assisting in enabling the Communists in taking over this country.
You guys have fun pretending that Dump is a half-decent candidate just because he's not quite as horrible as the other choice. I've done that before but I won't do it again. Vote for someone who believes in freedom (third party) or someone who doesn't (dem or rep) - there's really no in-between right now. This is especially true in MA where we all know Killary will win by a landslide.
Because some of us don't want the President to be an egotistical loudmouth with no policy suggestions? How statist of us, eh?
No surprise at all. If I end up voting for Trump (doubtful), it will be a vote against Killary and not for Trump.
You mean that you'd actually vote for Hillary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And if you took a gander at the numbers I posted you'd see that it doesn't matter which candidate I choose at the polling booth, the state is overwhelmingly voting D. Unless you can convince ~350,000 people to switch parties this state will remain Blue.
Using the 2012 election as an example, had I voted "None of the Above" Obucko would have won 1,900,000 to 1,179,999 (Mittens) to 30,000 (Johnson) to 20,000 (Stein) to 1 (None of the Above).
After voting for someone I hated less than his opponent in 2012 I swore I'd vote my conscience in future elections. No matter what it's the same as turning in a blank ballot in this state.
None of the above. If these were doable, Obama would have included them in his last round of Executive Actions.Obviously the SCOTUS pick(s) are the key 2A issue at stake in electing Hillary, but I'm curious which of these changes mentioned above she can actually accomplish via Executive Order/Action?
* extending the instant background checks indefinitely by changing the amount of time the FBI has on extended checks,
* placing more regulations on sales at gun shows and guns sold online,
* allowing crime victims to sue gun manufacturers and gun sellers,
* expanding the definition of domestic violence to include dating relationships–then using that expanded definition to ban individuals from owning guns.
* Also, on October 16 Clinton said the Australian gun ban was “worth looking at” for gun policy in the U.S.
Obviously the SCOTUS pick(s) are the key 2A issue at stake in electing Hillary, but I'm curious which of these changes mentioned above she can actually accomplish via Executive Order/Action?
That's kinda what I was thinking. If he could have done more, he would have done more. Not that Hillary won't try to nibble around the edges, but the edges of executive power are pretty much reached at this point. All the important decisions will be made in the courts (district, appellate, and SCOTUS... good point, Whut).None of the above. If these were doable, Obama would have included them in his last round of Executive Actions.