Trump "doesn't like" silencers

[easy rider]

I thought Ross would pull it off. We know where that went.

Without winning any electoral votes, he never had a chance.

 

[birddog]

I am familiar with the taste of a lot of different beers but don't know what piss tastes like so can't make a valid comparison.

That’s some funny shit right there

 

[avvidclif]

Sorry, still wrong.

Voting for a nonviable third party candidate who is worse than the party candidate is doing my country a disservice. My choice is to do what is best for my country.

Answer this question (which you conveniently ignored):
When was the last time that there was a third party candidate worth voting for?

Ross Perot

 

[Younggun]

I always like Ron Paul’s minimalist government stance. He was running before I was old enough to vote though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[satx78247]

I thought Ross would pull it off. We know where that went.

birddog,

YES & Perot running gave us 8 years of SLICK WILLIE. - Does anyone think that that was a GOOD thing??

yours, satx

 

[candcallen]

A 3rd party candidate will never be a viable option for president. They only insure the worst possible option wins with an obscenely small percentage of the vote. i.e. only 30 something of the voters will be happy which is probably 25 percent of the country.

People over think presidential elections thinking the president has any real power, especially in divided government and Congress like we so often have. Even when one party controls both houses and the oval office it takes all their political Capital and time in power to push thru any big sweeping bills. Even then to get those things done they are watered down to the point that judicial challenges could go either way. As such Congres has basicly abdicated their responsibility to the judiciary making judges and justices the reason you vote for president.

It's not full proof but you vote for president based on ensuring that the judges and justices you dont want will never see a nomination meaning you never vote for a 3rd party candidate if that will ensure the worst option will win.

Jaded? Cynical? Maybe. Pragmatic? Absolutely. Foolproof? No, you always have the chance of getting a solid strict constructionist who will suprise you like the Obamacare is a tax bullsheit Robert's pulled out of his ars. That said I guaran-frickin-tee you that your not going to like a federal judiciary and supream court packed full of Ginsburgs and Sotomayor types. Just look at the last 20 years of the 9th circus court. Which by the way Trump has nearly fixed by busily pushing thru nominations that has made that circut now 50 50 conservative/liberal with his choices.

When a 3rd party candidate runs it turns my stomach cause they usually guarantee they lose and the party they align with loses. Ross Perot is the poster child of phucking your country cause of your ego. There would be no Clinton anything with out Ross. Mr read my lips would still have won and Perot could actually had a large roll in shaping the policys important to him if he would have made a deal.

 

[avvidclif]

The telling words of your entire post are the last 3. Made a Deal. He knew how the swamp worked and wanted to be beholden to no-one. He was running on his beliefs and refused to compromise any of them. Nuff said.

 

[oldag]

Sorry, still right. What's best for the country is voting for worthy candidates. Knowing voting for the lesser of two evils when you know they aren't the best person for the job IS harming this country. You may not want to admit that, but it's the truth.

I ignored it because is was irrelevant, for numerous reasons. First off, do you know every single third party candidate that has run since TR and all of their positions? I don't, and I doubt you or anyone else here knows either. Do you know how many good candidates haven't run as a third party in the past because they feel it's a waste of time because of people with your mindset?

There are surely plenty of good people who have run in the past, or who chose not to run because of that mindset. That's in the past though and I see no benefit of wasting my time learning about them. I'm not concerned with the past in this case, only the present and future. Can you say with certainty that a great candidate won't run as a third party in the near future?

I said it once, and I'll say it again. The mindset that you only have two choices in an election and are doomed to choose between the lesser of two evils is cancerous and will slowly but surely be the death of this country. I refuse to be a part of that.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

This conversation has been around presidents. Stick to the point and quit throwing dust in the air.

Can you name one third party presidential candidate (make it easy, since 1960) who was better than the party candidates?

If they don't run, I can't vote for them. Regardless of their reason for not running. That was a rather worthless statement to make (e.g., they didn't run because they didn't think I would vote for them).

If a third party presidential candidate runs who is the best choice and is viable, I will vote for them. But that has not happened in my lifetime.

I will never vote for a third party candidate who is not the best candidate. Nor will I vote for a third party candidate who stands no chance of winning, as this would put the worst candidate in the White House.

You are being idealistic to the point of naivety. We aren't gonna agree on this, no matter how many times you state your position.

 

[oldag]

Ross Perot

Personally, I did not think Perot was the best candidate for president. He certainly was not viable, as the results showed. Not trying to start an argument on that front, that was just my opinion.

 

[zincwarrior]

Sorry, still wrong.

Voting for a nonviable third party candidate who is worse than the party candidate is doing my country a disservice. My choice is to do what is best for my country.

Answer this question (which you conveniently ignored):
When was the last time that there was a third party candidate worth voting for?

2016.

 

[candcallen]

The telling words of your entire post are the last 3. Made a Deal. He knew how the swamp worked and wanted to be beholden to no-one. He was running on his beliefs and refused to compromise any of them. Nuff said.

You missed the point. But you probably knew that and what I was talking about before you tried to play gotcha and took something out of context. i.e. the context of the entire post regarding why 3rd party candidates dont do anything except get the worst possible person elected with such a small number of votes that they have no mandate or agenda support from the people.

If he wasnt an egotistical phuktard, and actually cared enuff about those principles, he could have acted like every other loser and been apart of crafting the party's platform and probably secured a position in the administration where he could have actually forwarded his agenda. That's the "deal" that many candidates make when they pull out of the race and support the party's candidate.

If his principles really mattered he would have taken the best route to push them forward.

Suggesting that making a deal to have a large voice in the process is somehow selling out is disingenuous at best.

Imho ofcourse.

 

[oldag]

2016.

What country?

 

[easy rider]

I'll take an egotistical Trump with no support from congress over parasitic Hillary with all the support from congress any day.

 

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

E.R. is exactly right with just a few words.

M44, You spent a lot of time researching my old posts, - OCD?

 

[benenglish]

About bump stocks -

Yes, people waste ammo and spray bullets all over the range when using them. They do the same with "normal" firearms.

OTOH, if you actually owned one and practiced with it, they were not just toys. I had one on a 9mm PCC and it was a simple way to put three-round bursts on a man-sized target at 15 yards. IOW, it was, with practice, a useful firearm accessory for home defense scenarios. I think the fact that I practiced with mine and got fairly good with it is the reason I really got fired up about the re-definition/ban.

About 3rd party candidates, specifically in 2016 in Texas -

I voted for a 3rd party candidate. Trump was going to win Texas so I had the luxury of doing so. So I voted for Evan McMullin. McMullin was running mostly in Utah. The results of that election were:

• Trump - 515K votes
• Clinton - 310K votes
• McMullin - 243K votes
• Johnson - 39K votes

So McMullin did far better than any any 3rd party candidate has ever done in that state besides Perot (who did much better, coming in 2nd with 27% of the total vote). He actually had a chance to win in Utah. I think if the "a 3rd party vote is wasted" mindset didn't exist, he would have won. He was more than a little impressive to everyone who listened to him.

So why did I write him in on my Texas ballot? There was a 1 in 10,000 chance (according to an obviously-unreliable-but-I'll-take-it report I read on London betting odds) that Trump and Clinton would perfectly split the electoral college. If that had happened and if McMullin had won in Utah, the House of Representatives would have had 3 candidates to choose from. It was theoretically possible that the republicans would be so repulsed by Trump that they would have split. If, on the first vote, Hillary didn't get a majority but Trump proved vulnerable, then in subsequent ballots McMullin would have had a real chance to become president.

So while I understand the practicality of "A 3rd party vote is always wasted" when voting for president, I know that's not perfectly true in every case over all time. We'd still be voting for Whigs if that was the case.

As an aside, the real utility of 3rd parties is in very local elections where Independents, Libertarians, Greens, and others actually do get elected. For a 3rd party candidate to be viable on the national stage, we really need to elect a lot more of them locally to get people used to the idea that they are "real" candidates, undermining the whole "A 3rd party vote is always wasted" mindset.

 

[Younggun]

Trump was a third party candidate. He did what all the other viable third party candidates do, ran on one of the major party tickets.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Younggun]

2016.

Yep, and he won on the Republican ticket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[oldag]

Trump was a third party candidate. He did what all the other viable third party candidates do, ran on one of the major party tickets.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some merit to that statement.

 

[easy rider]

Some merit to that statement.

Well, Bernie is also third party you could say.

 

[oldag]

Well, Bernie is also third party you could say.

He is now only one of many socialists in the Dem party, though...