TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

rbwhatever1 wrote:The GOP abandoned me long ago and I imagine the other silent majority trying to usher in a Trump Landslide despite the trenched in Grand Old Party Establishments non-support from the start. I would like to believe that those DNC voters will rise up against their corrupted party as well and we shall see. Bernie Sanders voters should be massing with pitchforks to reject being the "good little subjects" of the DNC. Maybe I missed a memo on this one.

This is a peaceful Revolution from many of the huddled masses. Win or lose the GOP establishment is no more for me.

Believe me, I do hear you. I have not been a member of the GOP since 2012, probably for the same reasons as you. But I didn't vote for Trump, or against Clinton. I voted for SCOTUS appointments that will continue to preserve the 2nd Amendment for the next 30 years, rather than SCOTUS appointments that will ensure its termination forever as a real, exercisable right in the next 4-8 years. I don't want to see my fellow citizens have to resort to the 2nd Amendment in order to preserve the gov't. I'd rather that possibility be put off as long as we can.

It took me a long time to come to that conclusion. I looked at 3rd party possibilities, but I couldn't support any of their candidates. Then I looked at whom I might write in. I was seriously thinking of writing in my pastor's older brother. From the beginning, I have always said that Trump would not be even close to my kind of candidate, but he was not Hillary Clinton. If there were a viable alternative to Trump or Clinton, I might have probably taken it. But in the end, for me, it boiled down to what will happen to the 2nd Amendment over the next 4-8 years. That's my defining issue this time around. I am not just voting against Hillary Clinton, I am voting for the preservation of the 2nd Amendment.

If Trump turns out to be a pretty good president, that's all gravy. If he doesn't, but he does appoint good justices, then we're no worse off than we are now, except that we'll have a SCOTUS that will have our backs. And if he turns out to be a bad president, and he doesn't appoint good justices, then we're no worse off than we'd be if Clinton got elected. Then maybe it becomes time to use the 2nd Amendment in the defense of the rest of the Constitution.

So that was my rationale. I understand that it might not work for you or others, and that's OK. We have to vote our consciences. That was my conscience.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I have to admit that I haven't been following this thread and I now regret it. I'm shocked at some of the personal attacks against members who say they are voting for Hillary. That's a direct violation of our rules. We are not an echo chamber as are some forums.

Stop now.
Chas.

Alf wrote:Can anyone can explain why it was acceptable for Gore to challenge the 2000 election results, and take it to court when he didn't like the results, but it's deplorable for Trump to reserve the possibility of doing likewise?

Pawpaw wrote:

Syntyr wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Polls, Polls, Polls...

Dont know what to make of them but I do like video.

Raw video from Trump's rally in Cincinnati yesterday. Wow the crowds...

And Hitlery has trouble filling a high school gymnasium.

parabelum wrote:

mojo84 wrote:While we are arguing and fighting among ourselves, the progressives are united and working toward getting their candidate elected. There's no chance a republican will win the white house with the horsepower and united front the progressives have.

Check this out. Notice some of the names mentioned and then realize this one organization has over a 100 billionaires and multi-millionaires that are members of Soros organization, Democracy Alliance. So much for the republican party being the party of the rich. Reading the entire article will give you a better idea of who's involved and how powerful they are in politics.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2010

Summary: Stephen M. Silberstein, a member of George Soros’s far-left Democracy Alliance, sheds light on the extent of Soros’s socialist agenda for America. Silberstein’s foundation backs a panoply of leftist groups that fight for higher taxes on the rich, wealth redistribution schemes, single-payer socialized medicine, burdensome regulation of energy markets, judicial activism designed to advance a radically egalitarian agenda, and the replacement of the linchpin of federalism, the Electoral College, with a national popular vote. George Soros’s secretive donor consortium, the Democracy Alliance, has been making news lately in the wake of a new plan set forth at its four-day conference entitled “A New Progressive Era?” which took place in Chicago at the end of April 2014. According to the Washington Post, “The plan, being crafted in private by a group of about 100 donors that includes billionaire hedge fund manager George Soros and San Francisco venture capitalist Rob McKay, seeks to give Democrats a stronger hand in the redrawing of district lines for state legislatures and the U.S. House.” More specifically, the newspaper reports that “keeping Democratic control of the Senate” was of paramount concern to the donors. “There’s a lot of anxiety about the midterms,” admitted McKay, the outgoing chairman, “who said substantial investment this year will go to local and state minimum-wage campaigns that can help drive turnout for federal races.” The new plan would shift significant resources away from the Alliance’s typical focus on donating to left-wing media outlets and think tanks, such as Media Matters for America and the John Podesta-founded Center for American Progress. Assuming the reported shift occurs, the Alliance will try to engage in ground-level political campaigning by in effect acting as a bundling super PAC—an über super PAC—in order to prevent the expected GOP takeover of the Senate.

Interpol should arrest that demon Soros. He is that money changer in the Temple Jesus warned us about.

infoman wrote:Wow, I've been a member of this forum for many years & probably know as much or more about gun laws & General CHL/LTC than most on this forum yet I get called a "troll" & bashed for saying I'm voting a certain way. In regards to gun control, I know that neither candidate will ban owning guns, neither will "do away" with the 2nd amendment & there will most definitely be a TEXAS LTC 4 years from now. I'm also not for constitutional carry. I'm glad Texas has eligibility requirements for those wanting LTC's. I'm glad that we do thorough background checks & I'm proud to have & know others who have an LTC knowing they are law abiding citizens. Again, no one will ban the owning/carrying of handguns in Texas- no way no how. It's a state thing, the Texas legislature would have to make that call.

G26ster wrote:Let's face it. Most voters (unfortunately) vote for what they believe is in THEIR best interests, not the country's. Hispanics vote for those that are for open borders, path to citizenship. African-Americans vote for supporters of BLM, and women vote for those that are perceived strong on "women's issues," and women make up the majority of voters. Students 18 and older vote for free college and/or to get out of their loan obligation they so willingly signed on to, and who the political philosophy they have been indoctrinated in (Socialism) tells them to. The age of "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" died a long time ago.

I, like many others here on this forum and across this nation, put my life on the line for this country in Korea (post war) and in Viet Nam, while a huge percentage of the country has done nothing, nada, squat! All they want to know from politicians is what's in it for their "special" group. The heck with what's good for the country in their "social media" mind. And most importantly, above all else, they want to know when the next iPhone is coming out! End of rant.

2farnorth wrote:The 2 that voted for Hillary didn't bother to justify their votes.