The only viable option to reversing the power grab by the federal government is state and local nullification......just ignore their mandates.
The only viable option to reversing the power grab by the federal government is state and local nullification......just ignore their mandates.
Beware the man who would rule you for your own good. He will never cease. He will regulate every aspect of your life, destroy your liberty and enslave you, and sleep well convinced that he has made the world a better place.
Agreed! It takes *very* willing Republicans on the state level to buy into that though, and there aren't too many of those. There will never be enough of those kinds of Republicans if people keep voting for *any* kind of Republican with an (R) next to their name.Originally Posted by FaninAma
Are you the new Sooner8th, with an insistence on always having the last comment in a thread?
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
I didn't realize the thread or the conversation had 'ended' and that all comments were to cease.
Ummm, just a small point here, in 2000 the Indies voted for W 48%
vs 46% for Gore. That % was reversed in 2004 but W got there twice..
In 08, Indies were 52% for Obama and 44% for McCaian, in '12 Indies
went 50% for Romney and 45% for Obama and Obama got there twice
so not sure about your argument.....
2000 had the raving leftist lunatic Green Party candidate, Ralph Nader, who stole votes from algore. That helped W. In the 92 and 96 elections, the hand grenade with a bad haircut Ross Perot stole votes from Bush senior and Dole, respectively, to throw the election to Der Schlickmeister.
If a third party candidate is perceived conservative, he or she splits the conservative vote with the republican. On the rare occasion when the third party candidate is perceived whacko liberal, such as when Nader ran, he or she takes votes from the democrat. Complicated it's not.
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
Heh, "hand grenade with a bad haircut"
As a Precinct Chairman what actions are you taking to get good candidates, I.E. "product" on the ballots for people to vote for?
Additionally, once you have them on the ballot how are you ensuring that it's known a particular candidate is bringing something to the political process that is moving the Republican party the right direction?
I have still yet to figure out if you are a Republican or even just conservative how it is of any benefit to vote for the "typical" Democratic candidate as opposed to even a moderate RINO type, assuming there aren't any glaring character flaws or criminal indictments etc.
Well, I myself ran so there's that.
A good example are the candidate interviews we used to conduct for a non-partisan conservative organization I was a member of and worked for when I lived in Texas for ten years. That's the benefit of being a conservative first and foremost and a Republican last. When you spend time vetting candidates and conducting private interviews, you get a better sense of an individual. That's not to say we were always right, but when misled it's important to primary them out when possible or simply pull support entirely and let the chips fall where they may.Additionally, once you have them on the ballot how are you ensuring that it's known a particular candidate is bringing something to the political process that is moving the Republican party the right direction?
It's of no benefit at all, and I've never once argued that a person should vote Democrat over a Republican unless that Democrat is demonstrably more conservative than the Republican. What I have argued until I'm blue in the face is not voting for a Republican simply because they are a Republican -- if they don't demonstrably make an effort to expand individual/civil liberties while reducing the size and scope of government then you shouldn't vote for them. That means abstaining or voting third party, but I've never argued voting Democratic.
Last edited by SicEmBaylor; 3/5/2015 at 03:30 PM.
As a practical matter it would be pretty rare where of your two choices the Democrat would be more conservative than the Republican candidate. In this case doing nothing (abstaining) is, in and of itself doing something, as the Democratic candidate would be the net benefactor of inaction. Same with a third party throw-away vote.
Well, that view is idiotic and borderline insulting but continue to do as you please. Its been working out incredibly well thus far.
I think the local and state level GOP organizations are doing a much better job of presenting a marketable product to the voters. Hence the total annihlationof the democrats at those levels in the last election.
Beware the man who would rule you for your own good. He will never cease. He will regulate every aspect of your life, destroy your liberty and enslave you, and sleep well convinced that he has made the world a better place.
.... and your logic is absurd. I hope nobody takes you seriously. It seems like you find it more important to make a statement as some ruggedly individualistic ideologue than you do to make an effort to elect the more conservative candidate, even if they are only marginally conservative or maybe not conservative at all.
A casual but certainly not exhaustive check shows that in the US Senate not one (1) Democrat received a higher conservative ranking than a Republican. Not one. In the House some but not many. Of those Democrats that did I would be willing to bet the vast majority beat an even more conservative Republican.
But hey, if it makes you feel more philosophically pure that's what's important, right?
I give my vote only to candidates that, by and large, share my same values. If you want to call that absurd then had at it.
I've spent the last 15 years working to elect conservatives. I'm not interested in simply electing Republicans for the sake of electing Republicans nor am I certain why I should be expected to break my back every cycle to elect "marginally conservative" candidates. If they aren't conservative at all then my question is, why the hell would you want them to be elected or why it would then make a difference who was elected?I hope nobody takes you seriously. It seems like you find it more important to make a statement as some ruggedly individualistic ideologue than you do to make an effort to elect the more conservative candidate, even if they are only marginally conservative or maybe not conservative at all.
Not sure what your point is since I never suggested anything to the contrary. However, I actually worked on TX legislative ratings for three sessions. You have to keep in mind that only a dozen or so votes are used to tabulate ratings, and the *reasoning* behind a vote is not considered. For example, a Democrat who voted against the Medicare Prescription Drug program because it wasn't expansive enough would be given credit for a 'conservative' vote even though they voted that way because the program didn't go far enough. You have to take ratings with a grain of salt.A casual but certainly not exhaustive check shows that in the US Senate not one (1) Democrat received a higher conservative ranking *rating* than a Republican. Not one. In the House some but not many. Of those Democrats that did I would be willing to bet the vast majority beat an even more conservative Republican.
I'm not trying to be ideologically pure in any way. I've never agreed with a candidate 100% of the time. What I expect out of someone who wants my vote is very simple. It isn't a hard standard to meet, and so long as *all* Republicans fail to demand the same thing as I do, the more we're going to be stuck with the McCains, Peter Kings, Bush families, and Romneys of the world. What I expect is that, generally speaking, they make legitimate efforts and strides to expand individual/civil liberties while reducing the size and scope of government (not just a reduced rate of growth).But hey, if it makes you feel more philosophically pure that's what's important, right?
More freedom-less government is what the Republican Party purports to stand for. Before voting for an incumbent, find out what they have done to accomplish either of those goals. If their record is thin or non-existent then they shouldn't have earned your vote. You may call me ideologically 'pure' all you want, but expect little and get little.
My point is that having an (R) beside your name is the best predictor of a more conservative voting record. It's really not disputable. Even the most moderate Republicans have more conservative voting records than their Democratic peers. Knowing that why would you not vote Republican? Always. If you are conservative, in the general election, even abstaining is like giving the Democratic candidate half of a vote. Same with throwing away a vote on third party non-contenders.
An example. Take Joe Manchin (D) and Olympia Snowe (R). Left to their own devices I would go so far as to say Machin might philosophically be more conservative than Snowe who isn't conservative at all. But simply because Snowe has the (R) by her name she will be shepherded into casting more conservative votes by Senate leadership. In the end what matters is how you vote when you get to DC.
https://votesmart.org/interest-group...7#.VPjdNC5QCKU
Posting Permissions
