Republican Convention: Cruz supporters planning trouble?

Topics that do not fit anywhere else. Absolutely NO discussions of religion, race, or immigration!

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Locked
User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 25506
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Republican Convention: Cruz supporters planning trouble?

#76

Post by The Annoyed Man » Tue Jul 19, 2016 7:17 pm

JALLEN wrote:Many of us in a certain age group will probably be faced with accepting the idea that our cherished values are likely now shared by a shrinking, permanent minority.

You will not find candidates on ballots you can accept, who reflect your priorities, share your values, believe in many of your beliefs.
I can actually accept some things just fine. For instance, while I'm an unapologetic evangelical Christian, I could support an agnostic or even an atheist president, so long as they were not toxically intolerant with regard to religion. My single highest political value is individual liberty, and I think that the best means of preserving it is a strict adherence to the Constitution. So as long as the candidate takes a more or less original intent interpretation of the Constitution - and not just by lip service, but by record also - then I can support that candidate.......even if he does not share my faith.

But I do think you're right in that, increasingly, it is difficult to find candidates for office that are that committed to the Constitution. So yes, my options get reduced.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy
My dream is to have lived my life so well that future generations of leftists will demand my name be removed from buildings.


williamkevin
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 544
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:10 pm
Location: EL29LM

Re: Republican Convention: Cruz supporters planning trouble?

#77

Post by williamkevin » Tue Jul 19, 2016 7:21 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:My vote for Trump isn't a vote for the Republican Party or the Republican candidate. It's a vote against the person who will complete the destruction of America, not merely the Second Amendment. I do not vote with blinders on, nor out of any naive loyalty to the Republican Party. There are two people running and I'm voting for the best last chance to save the country.

Chas.
Charles, I'm not in the business of suggesting to people how they should vote anymore, so I did not mean to suggest that you or anyone else here is voting blindly. But I have a question, IF there were either an acceptable 3rd party candidate or acceptable independent candidate alternative who had a reasonable chance (meaning "not entirely out of the range of possibility) of splitting off enough democrat, republican, and independent voters to have a shot at winning......and he/she had a pretty decent platform and wasn't a complete tool, would you be willing to consider that option? Or, do you think it is important that the nominee be a republican for other reasons......like which party controls Congress, for instance?

In fact, I'd ask all of you who are supporting more or less grudgingly supporting Trump the same question. And I'm not asking it to make a point. I'm just curious to know — given the peculiar dynamics of this election cycle and the dysfunction of the republican party — how much of the support for Trump is enthusiastic, and how much is simply a vote against Clinton. But again, I'm not going to presume to suggest that y'alls picks are wrong.......just not necessarily the same as mine.
If the U.S. had a viable 3rd party that wins state and federal elections and I supported its platform and candidate, then I would consider voting for their candidate. I would do so only if that candidate had a reasonable chance of winning.

It is highly unlikely that a viable 3rd party will ever exist in the U.S. We have a far better chance of rebuilding the Republican Party than creating a viable 3rd Party. The establishment Republicans are running scared. McCain is in the fight of his political life and Ryan could be defeated.
Chas.
The bold red type above is where I believe party change begins. Change does not begin in one national election, it begins with school board, county and statewide elections, and does not happen overnight. If we seek real change, we need to replace the career bafoons from the bottom up, not the top down.


gljjt
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Republican Convention: Cruz supporters planning trouble?

#78

Post by gljjt » Tue Jul 19, 2016 7:24 pm

parabelum wrote:All Trump bashers, why can't you go to one of Bernie/Hillary/BLM sites and join the bash/smear club over there, and just leave the rest of us who are not living in the alternate universe alone.

You are doing Hillary's bidding and damaging 2A blindly.

What are you out to accomplish if you're not working for the other side? If you're just venting I get it. But it's always the same folks which make me think you know... :totap:


Hillary must be stopped and you're impeding our efforts.

^^^ This


gljjt
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Republican Convention: Cruz supporters planning trouble?

#79

Post by gljjt » Tue Jul 19, 2016 7:28 pm

Jim Beaux wrote:...I will now vote my conscience.
And my conscience says Hillary must not be president.

User avatar

JALLEN
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 3081
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 4:11 pm
Location: Comal County

Re: Republican Convention: Cruz supporters planning trouble?

#80

Post by JALLEN » Tue Jul 19, 2016 7:34 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote:
JALLEN wrote:Many of us in a certain age group will probably be faced with accepting the idea that our cherished values are likely now shared by a shrinking, permanent minority.

You will not find candidates on ballots you can accept, who reflect your priorities, share your values, believe in many of your beliefs.
I can actually accept some things just fine. For instance, while I'm an unapologetic evangelical Christian, I could support an agnostic or even an atheist president, so long as they were not toxically intolerant with regard to religion. My single highest political value is individual liberty, and I think that the best means of preserving it is a strict adherence to the Constitution. So as long as the candidate takes a more or less original intent interpretation of the Constitution - and not just by lip service, but by record also - then I can support that candidate.......even if he does not share my faith.

But I do think you're right in that, increasingly, it is difficult to find candidates for office that are that committed to the Constitution. So yes, my options get reduced.
Not only are options reduced but the chances of stitching together a majority of voters are exceeding low. Those candidates will be spared the burden of holding office.
Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.


gljjt
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Republican Convention: Cruz supporters planning trouble?

#81

Post by gljjt » Tue Jul 19, 2016 7:41 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Jim Beaux wrote:Instead of denigrating those of us who will no longer run with the herd & support an unprincipled candidate & a corrupt system, maybe you should consider the future for your children & grandchildren. If we lose our constitution it will not be because of a president, but a malignant system.

I will not look at my sons and tell them that everything I taught them was morally right, I went against.
I am thinking of my grandchildren when I do the best I can in a bad, no critical situation. You can teach your sons to "sit this one out" because you don't like the choices, but I'll tell mine to suit up and fight the best they can fight. Doing nothing is not an option.

Chas.
And again.... "Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." ~ Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Hillary is evil.


gljjt
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Republican Convention: Cruz supporters planning trouble?

#82

Post by gljjt » Tue Jul 19, 2016 7:48 pm

Jim Beaux wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Jim Beaux wrote:Instead of denigrating those of us who will no longer run with the herd & support an unprincipled candidate & a corrupt system, maybe you should consider the future for your children & grandchildren. If we lose our constitution it will not be because of a president, but a malignant system.

I will not look at my sons and tell them that everything I taught them was morally right, I went against.
I am thinking of my grandchildren when I do the best I can in a bad, no critical situation. You can teach your sons to "sit this one out" because you don't like the choices, but I'll tell mine to suit up and fight the best they can fight. Doing nothing is not an option.

Chas.
Ive made my choice & will be voting for the candidate who best represents my values.
And in my opinion, in this election, that will destroy our great nation. It may be a feel good move to "stick it to the man", but the ultimate cost we cannot afford.


gljjt
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Republican Convention: Cruz supporters planning trouble?

#83

Post by gljjt » Tue Jul 19, 2016 7:51 pm

mojo84 wrote:
Let's keep in mind, Supreme Court appointees must be confirmed by the Senate.
And that prevented Sotomayor and Kagan from being confirmed?


LTUME1978
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Alvin, TX

Re: Republican Convention: Cruz supporters planning trouble?

#84

Post by LTUME1978 » Tue Jul 19, 2016 8:03 pm

I continue to see posts that if Hillary gets elected we loose our second amendment rights (and everything else after that). Our Founding Fathers fought (and many died) over similar tyranny. If she does get elected an does what some are suggesting, what is to prevent us from taking the same action that our Founding Fathers took?

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 11
Posts: 9004
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Republican Convention: Cruz supporters planning trouble?

#85

Post by mojo84 » Tue Jul 19, 2016 8:16 pm

gljjt wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
Let's keep in mind, Supreme Court appointees must be confirmed by the Senate.
And that prevented Sotomayor and Kagan from being confirmed?
I can't remember, who had the majority in the Senate at the time they were confirmed?

However, nothing is 100%.

Also, are we adversaries or on the same team?
Last edited by mojo84 on Tue Jul 19, 2016 8:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 25506
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Republican Convention: Cruz supporters planning trouble?

#86

Post by The Annoyed Man » Tue Jul 19, 2016 8:19 pm

gljjt wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Jim Beaux wrote:Instead of denigrating those of us who will no longer run with the herd & support an unprincipled candidate & a corrupt system, maybe you should consider the future for your children & grandchildren. If we lose our constitution it will not be because of a president, but a malignant system.

I will not look at my sons and tell them that everything I taught them was morally right, I went against.
I am thinking of my grandchildren when I do the best I can in a bad, no critical situation. You can teach your sons to "sit this one out" because you don't like the choices, but I'll tell mine to suit up and fight the best they can fight. Doing nothing is not an option.

Chas.
And again.... "Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." ~ Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Hillary is evil.
Yes she is, and no, I am not being silent.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy
My dream is to have lived my life so well that future generations of leftists will demand my name be removed from buildings.


gljjt
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Republican Convention: Cruz supporters planning trouble?

#87

Post by gljjt » Tue Jul 19, 2016 8:27 pm

mojo84 wrote:
gljjt wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
Let's keep in mind, Supreme Court appointees must be confirmed by the Senate.
And that prevented Sotomayor and Kagan from being confirmed?
I can't remember, who had the majority in the Senate at the time they were confirmed?

Also, are we adversaries or on the same team?
We are on the same team. I see now how my comment came across. My apologies. It was not directed at you. My intent was to say, as you did, nothing is 100%. Sotomayor garnered 9 Republican votes and Kagan got 5. Neither would have been confirmed without Republican help. The Dems had the majority in the Senate for both, but not Dem enough votes to confirm.

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 11
Posts: 9004
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Republican Convention: Cruz supporters planning trouble?

#88

Post by mojo84 » Tue Jul 19, 2016 8:32 pm

gljjt wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
gljjt wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
Let's keep in mind, Supreme Court appointees must be confirmed by the Senate.
And that prevented Sotomayor and Kagan from being confirmed?
I can't remember, who had the majority in the Senate at the time they were confirmed?

Also, are we adversaries or on the same team?
We are on the same team. I see now how my comment came across. My apologies. It was not directed at you. My intent was to say, as you did, nothing is 100%. Sotomayor garnered 9 Republican votes and Kagan got 5. Neither would have been confirmed without Republican help. The Dems had the majority in the Senate for both, but not Dem enough votes to confirm.
Accepted and appreciated. I am only trying to find hope where ever I can under the sun.

Hopefully, we can shore up the down ticket positions and that will sustain us until a truly strong conservative leader can be elected.

By the way, I am watching a Boenhoffer movie at this very moment. He is an admirable person. We need more like him.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.

User avatar

der Teufel
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:31 pm
Location: In the vicinity of Austin

Re: Republican Convention: Cruz supporters planning trouble?

#89

Post by der Teufel » Tue Jul 19, 2016 8:58 pm

LTUME1978 wrote:I continue to see posts that if Hillary gets elected we loose our second amendment rights (and everything else after that). Our Founding Fathers fought (and many died) over similar tyranny. If she does get elected an does what some are suggesting, what is to prevent us from taking the same action that our Founding Fathers took?

Probably the main obstacle to overcome would be the US Army. I think it would take quite a bit to get the military to turn against the government, which is as it should be.
A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition. — Rudyard Kipling
NRA Endowment Member
TSRA Life Member


pushpullpete
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 351
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 3:44 pm

Re: Republican Convention: Cruz supporters planning trouble?

#90

Post by pushpullpete » Tue Jul 19, 2016 9:48 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote: I can actually accept some things just fine. For instance, while I'm an unapologetic evangelical Christian, I could support an agnostic or even an atheist president, so long as they were not toxically intolerant with regard to religion. My single highest political value is individual liberty, and I think that the best means of preserving it is a strict adherence to the Constitution. So as long as the candidate takes a more or less original intent interpretation of the Constitution - and not just by lip service, but by record also - then I can support that candidate.......even if he does not share my faith.

But I do think you're right in that, increasingly, it is difficult to find candidates for office that are that committed to the Constitution. So yes, my options get reduced.
:iagree: Wholeheartedly. I admit to being that person, some days an Atheist, other days an Agnostic. However, personal beliefs aside, individual liberties are at the top of the list here. Silence has never been an option for me, but I believe the process works after a time. Part of the problem is that time is limited and sitting back & waiting for someone else to make the decisions for you without your input flat does not work.

Locked

Return to “Off-Topic”