A vision of things to come.
- Thread starter The Famous Grouse
- Start date
I just can't get too worked up over who I will support until I find out who is actually running.
the dems have been a disaster for this country & need to be booted. While they haven't been able to go after our guns at the federal level, they damned sure have at the state level, so anyone who thinks their gun rights are safe in any way with the dems really needs to take a look around the country at just what that party has been up to.
But I'm not going to get all warm & fuzzy over a gop gun banner at this time just bc some perceive him as having a chance to win. I'm not convinced that he does. I do think that the media would like to see him win the primaries but only so they can then turn on him & chew him up like a wood chipper.
My prediction is that whom ever wins both primaries are likely to be people who are either barely on the radar or maybe even not on it at all right now.
the dems have been a disaster for this country & need to be booted. While they haven't been able to go after our guns at the federal level, they damned sure have at the state level, so anyone who thinks their gun rights are safe in any way with the dems really needs to take a look around the country at just what that party has been up to.
But I'm not going to get all warm & fuzzy over a gop gun banner at this time just bc some perceive him as having a chance to win. I'm not convinced that he does. I do think that the media would like to see him win the primaries but only so they can then turn on him & chew him up like a wood chipper.
My prediction is that whom ever wins both primaries are likely to be people who are either barely on the radar or maybe even not on it at all right now.
The Famous Grouse
New member
Originally Posted By: DesertRamHe may not defend those rights, but there's no doubt that he'd be a far less aggressive gun grabber than the 'beast. Like Grouse says, she will be gunning for us, pun intended. We've got to put someone out there who will get the votes required to win, and a hard-core conservative (I can't believe I'm about to say this...) isn't going to do that. [Original post shortened]
Between the takers, their enablers, and their sympathizers, we don't stand a chance unless we front someone with broad-based appeal - and that ain't Rand Paul or another TEA Partier. I wish it wasn't so, but it is. Stamping our feet and refusing to vote for someone like Romney will only be shooting ourselves in the proverbial foot, again, pun intended.
This is exactly the pragmatic reality that we need to get used to. There are ideals and then there are best interests. We aren't going to get "ideal" because "ideal" is NOT electable.
IMO, it's a fool that ignores the things that are in his best interest to blindly stick to his ideals. Our #1 best interest is keeping Hillary out of the White House. All other interests have to keep that in mind.
Look, let's name names here instead of talking in coded vagary.
Rand Paul: Non-starter. Not going to happen. Ever. Paul is to the Republicans what Nader was to the Democrats. I admire both Pauls, Rand and Ron for having a well-thought-out political philosophy, but a Capital L Libertarian is NOT going to win a general election in the US in this century. A certain loser.
Tea Party Candidates: It isn't going to happen. See above.
Huckabee: Maybe, but the question is this: Is he branded a "loser" because of the last run? Granted Hillary is a loser as well, but the question will remain.
Christie: He has a long way to go to convince the GOP Intelligencia that he's the man. He's not conservative enough, Christian enough, and he makes deals to get things done, which to some labels him a "compromiser". The bridge scandal hit him hard in the polls.
Ryan: It's very tough to overcome a policy wonk image. He has the smarts and the resume, but he's young and he's from the Midwest, so southern Evangelicals aren't going to climb on board very willingly. Is he tainted by losing on the RoboCandidate Romney ticket? A dark horse to say the least.
Rubio, Jindal, and the other 10 "often mentioned" - We'll see. Anyone could pull an Obama and ambush the better established candidates, but the Republicans tend to be very slow to put support behind a come-from-behind horse.
We can't get suckered into thinking Hillary isn't going to run. She's flying below the radar for as long as possible because she knows that once she's a declared candidate, she'll be the one and only target for EVERYTHING the Republicans can throw at her.
Grouse
Between the takers, their enablers, and their sympathizers, we don't stand a chance unless we front someone with broad-based appeal - and that ain't Rand Paul or another TEA Partier. I wish it wasn't so, but it is. Stamping our feet and refusing to vote for someone like Romney will only be shooting ourselves in the proverbial foot, again, pun intended.
This is exactly the pragmatic reality that we need to get used to. There are ideals and then there are best interests. We aren't going to get "ideal" because "ideal" is NOT electable.
IMO, it's a fool that ignores the things that are in his best interest to blindly stick to his ideals. Our #1 best interest is keeping Hillary out of the White House. All other interests have to keep that in mind.
Look, let's name names here instead of talking in coded vagary.
Rand Paul: Non-starter. Not going to happen. Ever. Paul is to the Republicans what Nader was to the Democrats. I admire both Pauls, Rand and Ron for having a well-thought-out political philosophy, but a Capital L Libertarian is NOT going to win a general election in the US in this century. A certain loser.
Tea Party Candidates: It isn't going to happen. See above.
Huckabee: Maybe, but the question is this: Is he branded a "loser" because of the last run? Granted Hillary is a loser as well, but the question will remain.
Christie: He has a long way to go to convince the GOP Intelligencia that he's the man. He's not conservative enough, Christian enough, and he makes deals to get things done, which to some labels him a "compromiser". The bridge scandal hit him hard in the polls.
Ryan: It's very tough to overcome a policy wonk image. He has the smarts and the resume, but he's young and he's from the Midwest, so southern Evangelicals aren't going to climb on board very willingly. Is he tainted by losing on the RoboCandidate Romney ticket? A dark horse to say the least.
Rubio, Jindal, and the other 10 "often mentioned" - We'll see. Anyone could pull an Obama and ambush the better established candidates, but the Republicans tend to be very slow to put support behind a come-from-behind horse.
We can't get suckered into thinking Hillary isn't going to run. She's flying below the radar for as long as possible because she knows that once she's a declared candidate, she'll be the one and only target for EVERYTHING the Republicans can throw at her.
Grouse
OldTurtle
Moderator - Deceased
Quote:a lot of people are talking up Rand Paul for the next election, but that won't happen...Before he gets totally discarded, there are a lot of the younger voters with which he is hitting a positive note, as well as some of the seniors that are starting to realize how much interference the government is actually applying to their welfare, ObamaCare is just the tip of the iceberg and Paul's opposition to it and other areas is starting to build a ground swell...Many are also against our resources going to foreign countries for no reason than trying to build some good will...That may have been popular in the '60s and 70s, but the 'Baby Boomers' are much more savvy and much more concerned about our fiscal security...
tnshootist
New member
I think a true ( as can be found) conservative does have a good chance. Not a way far right isolationist, but a conservative. I am hoping the right man for the job is just keeping his mouth shut till it's time, as he should be, and all this stuff floating around now is just fodder. I think many more would make their way to the polls if there was a clear choice. Everyone is tired of warm water. As far as Christie, he lost the election for himself and Romney when he played lap dog to oboma like he would not get any federal help with the storm unless he kissed up. JMO
I would like to see Ben Carson run, as a republican, not some 3rd party.
I make no predictions as to how he might do in the primaries, just saying that I would like to see him in the race.
I make no predictions as to how he might do in the primaries, just saying that I would like to see him in the race.
The Famous Grouse
New member
Originally Posted By: OldTurtleBefore he gets totally discarded, there are a lot of the younger voters with which he is hitting a positive note, as well as some of the seniors that are starting to realize how much interference the government is actually applying to their welfare, ObamaCare is just the tip of the iceberg and Paul's opposition to it and other areas is starting to build a ground swell...Many are also against our resources going to foreign countries for no reason than trying to build some good will...That may have been popular in the '60s and 70s, but the 'Baby Boomers' are much more savvy and much more concerned about our fiscal security...
I agree about younger voters being increasingly concerned and active, but Baby Boomers? Seriously? The Baby Boomers CAUSED the problem. The only reason they're now "concerned" about fiscal security is because they are all addicted to the welfare programs that THEY spent the last 50 years creating and failing to fund and they desperately want to stay on the gravy train that's running out of money.
It wasn't the under-30s that ran up the deficit over the last 50 years.
Sure, there are and always have been Baby Boomers that get it. But the Great (Welfare) Society that we are now stuck with was CAUSED by idealistic Baby Boomers buying into the myth of the EuroWelfare State. And not that they have it, they don't want to let it go and are perfectly happy to saddle future generations with the bill.
I paid more taxes in my first 10 years of working than both of my parents paid in their entire working lives. The Baby Boomers built the over-promised / under-funded America we are now stuck with. It's up to younger generations and a very small number of older conservatives to get us out of this mess.
The Republicans need to tap into this fact and get the younger swing voters on our side by telling the truth: The welfare state is unsustainable and it won't be Baby Boomers cleaning up the mess.
Grouse
I agree about younger voters being increasingly concerned and active, but Baby Boomers? Seriously? The Baby Boomers CAUSED the problem. The only reason they're now "concerned" about fiscal security is because they are all addicted to the welfare programs that THEY spent the last 50 years creating and failing to fund and they desperately want to stay on the gravy train that's running out of money.
It wasn't the under-30s that ran up the deficit over the last 50 years.
Sure, there are and always have been Baby Boomers that get it. But the Great (Welfare) Society that we are now stuck with was CAUSED by idealistic Baby Boomers buying into the myth of the EuroWelfare State. And not that they have it, they don't want to let it go and are perfectly happy to saddle future generations with the bill.
I paid more taxes in my first 10 years of working than both of my parents paid in their entire working lives. The Baby Boomers built the over-promised / under-funded America we are now stuck with. It's up to younger generations and a very small number of older conservatives to get us out of this mess.
The Republicans need to tap into this fact and get the younger swing voters on our side by telling the truth: The welfare state is unsustainable and it won't be Baby Boomers cleaning up the mess.
Grouse
The NJ legislature just passed a bill banning magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
Christie refuses to say if he will sign it or not.
He has 45 days to sign or veto it. i think if he fails to do either, it becomes law by default but I'm not sure of that.
In any case, in less than 2 months you're going to see what he's really willing to do.
Christie refuses to say if he will sign it or not.
He has 45 days to sign or veto it. i think if he fails to do either, it becomes law by default but I'm not sure of that.
In any case, in less than 2 months you're going to see what he's really willing to do.
tnshootist
New member
Grouse,us baby boomers are dyeing off as fast as we can. What we need is more moderate Presidents, the go along to get along type that can get elected. Same thing with congress. We need to compromise, that would have kept the debt down. I worked for everything I have as have most Boomers. I wish we could take it all back. You could drive on dirt roads, and drink out of the creek. We should have never built those reservoirs and hydro dams. I regret my generation never built anything and just sat around waiting on our social security. We are living high on that I tell you. Do you know what the debt was before oboma took office? Us old boomers don't care one wit about our children or grand children. You are absolutely right, it's all our fault. I have every confidence the next generation will do much better. As you point out, you have already paid more tax than your parents, does that mean your parents fed and educated you so you could do better than they did? . Now that's progress right there. I wish I could be around to see the great and wondrous things to come. Meanwhile I am enjoying that gravy train. The debt is appalling, but it ain't the working mans fault, except for one big thing. We pampered our kids. And let electable moderates educate them to place blame when most can't even name the branches of government.You preach that we must win elections with liberal/moderates. Thats whats wrong now. I think I will take my big old social check and party the rest of the night. They did not take 36% of every dime I made for the last 50 years for nothing. I sure wish I had just told them not to do that.
OldTurtle
Moderator - Deceased
Quote: The only reason they're now "concerned" about fiscal security is because they are all addicted to the welfare programs that THEY spent the last 50 years creating and failing to fund and they desperately want to stay on the gravy train that's running out of money. ...Grouse,,Go back and check your history facts...Our elected officials raided the Social Security fund back in the '70s for a lot of funds to apply elsewhere and left not even as much as an IOU for the trouble...There has certainly never been any effort to pay it back, nor is it discussed in those circles...
Over the period of my paying into your so called Welfare, I was working two and three jobs from age 15 to make ends meet, paying taxes on every penny of income and that continued until I was in my 60's and health started slowing me down physically, so classing me in the "Leach" category is somewhat of a personal insult, as well as many others of my generation..
There has only been one period of three weeks during that time when I was even drawing unemployment as I could always find work doing something productive...During the time I was in law enforcement, I not only paid into Social Security, but paid an additional 10% of gross into my police pension fund...What I draw is money that I feel that I'm due for my 'investment' and that is pretty meager when you consider that the standards for measuring the Cost of Living have been changing over the years and are no longer very representative of reality..There have been several years where no cost of living was adjusted, but prices have steadily gone out of reach where decisions have to be made between eating properly and paying for needed medication...
Over the period of my paying into your so called Welfare, I was working two and three jobs from age 15 to make ends meet, paying taxes on every penny of income and that continued until I was in my 60's and health started slowing me down physically, so classing me in the "Leach" category is somewhat of a personal insult, as well as many others of my generation..
There has only been one period of three weeks during that time when I was even drawing unemployment as I could always find work doing something productive...During the time I was in law enforcement, I not only paid into Social Security, but paid an additional 10% of gross into my police pension fund...What I draw is money that I feel that I'm due for my 'investment' and that is pretty meager when you consider that the standards for measuring the Cost of Living have been changing over the years and are no longer very representative of reality..There have been several years where no cost of living was adjusted, but prices have steadily gone out of reach where decisions have to be made between eating properly and paying for needed medication...
The Famous Grouse
New member
Originally Posted By: OldTurtle Grouse,,Go back and check your history facts...Our elected officials raided the Social Security fund back in the '70s for a lot of funds to apply elsewhere and left not even as much as an IOU for the trouble...There has certainly never been any effort to pay it back, nor is it discussed in those circles...
Of course, OT. And WHO was it that was electing those Social Security raiding politicians back in the 1970s? And then kept re-electing them through the 80s and 90s? Baby Boomers, that's who.
Obviously, as I said, there ARE Baby Boomers that get it and are real conservatives. But everybody claims what you claim, that they paid their own way and now they deserve to "get back what they paid in". First, if that were true, than where did the massive deficit come from? As much as we'd all like to blame Obama, the roots go back WAY farther than that.
Secondly, government isn't a bank. There is no accont sitting there with your name on it, all the "paying in" all of us do is a tax. The US government has over-promised and under-funded programs for DECADES. Not just welfare programs, but all programs. Government is made up of more than just social welfare programs like Social Security and Medicare and Baby Boomers as a generation consistently under-funded them all to produce the current situation.
Sorry, while YOU obviously get it, the massive majority of the Baby Boomer generation does NOT. They created this EuroWelfare state we now live in and it's future generations that are stuck paying for it.
Grose
Of course, OT. And WHO was it that was electing those Social Security raiding politicians back in the 1970s? And then kept re-electing them through the 80s and 90s? Baby Boomers, that's who.
Obviously, as I said, there ARE Baby Boomers that get it and are real conservatives. But everybody claims what you claim, that they paid their own way and now they deserve to "get back what they paid in". First, if that were true, than where did the massive deficit come from? As much as we'd all like to blame Obama, the roots go back WAY farther than that.
Secondly, government isn't a bank. There is no accont sitting there with your name on it, all the "paying in" all of us do is a tax. The US government has over-promised and under-funded programs for DECADES. Not just welfare programs, but all programs. Government is made up of more than just social welfare programs like Social Security and Medicare and Baby Boomers as a generation consistently under-funded them all to produce the current situation.
Sorry, while YOU obviously get it, the massive majority of the Baby Boomer generation does NOT. They created this EuroWelfare state we now live in and it's future generations that are stuck paying for it.
Grose
tnshootist
New member
How far back do the roots go? To the New Deal? To the Great Society? How many here voted for any of this stuff. . Why are you singling out Social Security? At least we paid something in. How much do the other "welfare recipients" pay in? Old people on Social security ain't the problem. Get your bunch together and outvote the hood. We can't help it that the South lost the war, we did the best we could to keep you Northerners from creating a welfare state. Now there is the truth and what got us where we are today, as unpopular as it may be.
I'm going to change my position to now have a prediction as to how ben might do in the primaries. Not very well:
Ben Carson on Gun Control
Semi-automatic weapons ok in countryside, but not cities
Appearing on Glenn Beck's radio show this past week, Carson took a vastly different stance from most conservatives on the issue of gun control, claiming you shouldn't be able to own semi-automatic weapons in large cities.
Asked by Beck for his thoughts on the Second Amendment, Carson gave the popular pro-gun argument: "There's a reason for the Second Amendment; people do have the right to have weapons."
But when asked whether people should be allowed to own "semi-automatic weapons," the doctor replied: "It depends on where you live. I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I'm afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it," Carson elaborated. However, if you live "out in the country somewhere by yourself" and want to own a semi-automatic weapon, he added, "I've no problem with that."
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Ben_Carson_Gun_Control.htm
Ben Carson on Gun Control
Semi-automatic weapons ok in countryside, but not cities
Appearing on Glenn Beck's radio show this past week, Carson took a vastly different stance from most conservatives on the issue of gun control, claiming you shouldn't be able to own semi-automatic weapons in large cities.
Asked by Beck for his thoughts on the Second Amendment, Carson gave the popular pro-gun argument: "There's a reason for the Second Amendment; people do have the right to have weapons."
But when asked whether people should be allowed to own "semi-automatic weapons," the doctor replied: "It depends on where you live. I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I'm afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it," Carson elaborated. However, if you live "out in the country somewhere by yourself" and want to own a semi-automatic weapon, he added, "I've no problem with that."
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Ben_Carson_Gun_Control.htm