TexasCHLforum.com

psijac wrote:Can Obama put a recess appointment to the supreme court?

No. Unless he wants to learn what it's like to be impeached.

OldCannon wrote:

psijac wrote:Can Obama put a recess appointment to the supreme court?

No. Unless he wants to learn what it's like to be impeached.

That doesn't seemed to have slowed down Bill Clinton...

sjfcontrol wrote:

OldCannon wrote:

psijac wrote:Can Obama put a recess appointment to the supreme court?

No. Unless he wants to learn what it's like to be impeached.

That doesn't seemed to have slowed down Bill Clinton...

Yes.

To be impeached is to be tried, it is not a conviction.

Oldgringo wrote:

unhappycamper wrote:The whole problem can be avoided if the Republicans nominate a conservative for the first time in the 21st century. The voters will have a clear choice and nobody threatens to stay home because the candidates are identical except for skin colour.

There is one flaw in my idea. It assumes the Republicans want to win.

My sentiments exactly!

The Repubs apparently didn't want to win in '08 and they ain't doin' a whole lot better in '12...so far.

Six months later and they're not doing any better. Maybe worse. I don't think even the magic Etch A Sketch can save the RNC now.

Guys, guys! We still have almost seven months to go. It's way too early to count either side out. It get interesting now!

I think many of the republicans on here believe that if someone is against obama they should be for their candidate. You need to understand that many independents believe your guy is just as bad as obama.

Some of us don't vote for the letter behind a candidates name, we vote for the candidate. If I were to become a single issue voter that issue would be freedom, neither major party supports that.

I will be very upset if Romney wins and institutes another Brady style AWB in the name of "reasonable gun control" but I will also take that opportunity to laugh at the republicans who voted for him out of fear of obama taking away guns.

tallmike wrote:I think many of the republicans on here believe that if someone is against obama they should be for their candidate. You need to understand that many independents believe your guy is just as bad as obama.

Some of us don't vote for the letter behind a candidates name, we vote for the candidate. If I were to become a single issue voter that issue would be freedom, neither major party supports that.

I will be very upset if Romney wins and institutes another Brady style AWB in the name of "reasonable gun control" but I will also take that opportunity to laugh at the republicans who voted for him out of fear of obama taking away guns.

If we can keep the House in Republican hands and give them control of the Senate, then none of us will have to worry about any "AWB" bills going to Romney...and he can focus on more important matters...

tallmike wrote:I think many of the republicans on here believe that if someone is against obama they should be for their candidate. You need to understand that many independents believe your guy is just as bad as obama.

Some of us don't vote for the letter behind a candidates name, we vote for the candidate. If I were to become a single issue voter that issue would be freedom, neither major party supports that.

I will be very upset if Romney wins and institutes another Brady style AWB in the name of "reasonable gun control" but I will also take that opportunity to laugh at the republicans who voted for him out of fear of obama taking away guns.

Well, it is very difficult to argue against insanity. And I would submit that anybody that can't see the difference between Obama and whoever the republican is going to be, qualifies. I CAN say that if Obama wins a second term, and the recent 5-4 SCOTUS decisions are reversed thanks to obama's selection of extreme leftist judges -- I, for one, will NOT be laughing.

And of course that says nothing about his "finishing" the job of destroying this nation he started in 2008. No humor there either.

tallmike wrote: I will be very upset if Romney wins and institutes another Brady style AWB in the name of "reasonable gun control" but I will also take that opportunity to laugh at the republicans who voted for him out of fear of obama taking away guns.

While I am concerned about Romney's record on guns, I'm even more concerned about the current POTUS working "under the radar" and his demonstrated willingness to circumvent congress through executive order. I don't see Romney being an idealog who will do whatever he can to drive forth an agenda, he's just the oposite, a politician who only acts when it's in his political interest to do so. As long as pro 2A congressmen can keep legislation from reaching his desk, I fell like our RKBA is safe with him.

Maybe I'm wearing a tinfoil hat, but I honestly believe that this administration not only knew about Fast and Furious, but orchestrated it to make the case for tighter gun control. As evidence, the reporting requirements for border states to keep guns from being sold to the Cartels, the only evidense of drug cartels getting guns from border states was at the direction of the BATFE. I am fearfull of what this president will do after his last election when he has "more flexibility".

boba wrote:

RCP wrote:Romney will never get my vote either, not in the Primary or in the General. I sincerely believe that nothing would change under Romney (at least not for the better).

I'm voting for a pro gun fiscal conservative in November 2012. If the Republican ticket has someone like that, I will vote for the Republican candidate. If not, they don't want my vote, and I can vote for a third party candidate with a clear conscience.

When someone decides to vote 3rd party, they are accepting (whether or not they want to) a hardcore reality: that their guy will never win. Not ever. That means a few things more than just the principle of voting for what they believe in. I'm not saying it's the best system possible, but we have a reality that there exist two major parties, and a handful of smaller parties which are statistically relevant only in whose major party candicacy they will hurt worse or benefit more.

I am perfectly willing to concede that the republican party—once the bulwark of fiscal sanity in this country—lost its way over the past couple of decades and moved away from its base toward the center/center-left. I absolutely admit that, and I'm not particularly happy about it either. BUT....the fact remains that anyone who calls themselves a conservative and votes for a third party candidate is someone who took a vote away from a republican and gave it instead to a politically irrelevant candidate. Similarly, anyone who votes for say...the Green Party candidate...is probably taking a vote away from a democrat. Statistically, registered democrats outnumber registered republicans, but historically, republicans always turned out in greater percentages than democrats. The result is that actual votes cast by democrats and republicans tend to be pretty near even. Therefore, Independents decide elections.

Surveys show that independents are more likely to self-identify as conservative-leaning than as liberal-leaning. But, independents, despite their vaunted reputation for being free-thinkers who self-identify as conservatives, voted in a very large majority for Obama in 2008—the absolutely stupidest political decision they'll ever make, likely in their entire lifetimes. The last poll I saw, which was admittedly a year ago or so, showed that something like 75% of those independents polled who had voted for Obama in 2008 said would vote for any republican challenger in 2012. Who knows what it is now? As it turns out, and based on the 2008 results, Independents are a fickle bunch with no real standards. While I concede their political importance, their vote for Obama clearly demonstrates that they are not free thinkers, and whatever respect I had for them is long gone.

The minor parties are camping places for people who want to stake out absolutist positions. In one sense, I cannot blame them. I consider myself a constitutional absolutist for instance, and much of what the republican party has done over the last two decades is constitutionally troubling. But, the republican insults to the Constitution are not nearly as egregious in the aggregate as are the sum total shredding of the Constitution by the democrats. So, they are NOT the same, and it really IS a case of voting for the lesser of two evils. The fact of the matter is that the next president is going to be a democrat or a republican. He's NOT going to be a Libertarian, or a Green, or any other third party member. So, if you are a third party voter who leans toward the conservative, your vote FOR the candidate of your party, having no real chance of electing your candidate, can really only has the effect the election outcome by helping or hurting either of the two major party candidates, the effect depending which of the two major party candidates is more liberal, and which is more conservative.

So, with that in mind, you have to look at the two major party candidates in that light. Is Romney REALLY Obama-lite? Not unless you are shallow enough to believe sound-bites. People who examine a fact of history outside of its historical context do not have an accurate representation of the history they are examining. Case in point: Were the "Crusades" a defense of Europe which pushed back Muslim invaders out of Europe and then took the war to the enemy; or were they the attack of an aggressive church upon a peaceful middle east? The first is correct. The second is the revisionist theory.

So when you examine Romney's record in Massachusetts, do the due diligence, and have the intellectual integrity to process that record through this filter: a republican governor in a state with an overwhelmingly democrat legislature—a legislature with more than enough democrat votes to easily override an gubernatorial veto. I would submit that, whether or not he is conservative enough for the purist ideologue, it took courage for Romney to run for that office, knowing that every day of all four years of his term would be an uphill battle against an opposition majority legislature. Then consider what you would have done in similar circumstances. Your only real choices are:

1. Cave in on everything and rubber stamp all bills that come to your desk.
2. Resist everything by veto, and have your vetos universally overridden by legislative vote.
3. Quit.
4. Stay, and try to attenuate the toxicity of leftist legislation by wheeling and dealing and negotiating, and getting a few concessions here and there from the commies.

Here is what each choice would say about you, if you were in that boat:

1. You lack character.
2. You lack wisdom.
3. You lack courage.
4. You have character, wisdom, and courage....propped up with a good deal of patience.

When it comes to gun rights and the Massachusetts AWB, and Romney's signing the bill if it contained concessions on behalf of Massachusetts CCW permit holders was about the best thing he could hope to accomplish in the environment he faced. He didn't cave in. He didn't resist without purpose, and won some concessions as a result. He didn't quit.

Before gaining the Oval Office, Obama had no real world experience outside community activism and the cloistered halls of Academia. Where are his college records? Sealed. Why? Even the allegedly dumb Bush didn't hide his academic credentials. Where is Obama's Harvard Law Review editorial record? It doesn't exist....and never has. We're talking about a man who wrote two autobiographies before he was in his mid-40s. For what possible reason would he think that his life was so significant that the world was dying to know about him.......other than to satisfy his massively narcissistic ego. Why are his ties to known terrorist bombers who kill Americans, and to radical agitators and self-confessed communites being buried in these hagiographies, if he is so avante guard? How is he getting away with the lie of being called a "Professor of Constitutional Law," when HE WAS NO SUCH THING! He was a minor lecturer on the law, some of which was con-law. My parents were both full professors at Caltech. Being a professor is a career, and it takes YEARS to accomplish that. They are jealous of the title, and justly so. Go check out his Wiki page. He was NEVER a professor of anything. He was a "Lecturer," a lower title with less meaning. How is it that HE allows the lie to be perpetuated instead of stepping up and saying "Look, this "professor" thing is a bit overblown. Yes, I did lecture on the law, and sometimes I lectured on Con-law, but I want the record to accurately reflect who I am."

I just barely scratching the surface here of how many ways Obama is evil. Not just wrong, but deliberately evil and deceitful. And yet, either he, or Romney is going to be the president. Not the Libertarian candidate. Not the Green candidate. Not the American Communist Party candidate.....although there is little difference between Obama and whomever that is. There is just no way on God's green earth that Romney is Obama-lite.

Is he less conservative than I would prefer? Yes he is. Am I troubled by his gun stance? Yes I am. But in truth, George Bush, the same guy who signed CHL into law here in Texas, said in 2004 that he would sign an AWB into law if Congress passed it. So Bush is Obama light? Give me a break. Yes, he was disappointing on some things, but there is no way in hades that he was/is Obama-lite. That's the problem with aboslutism.....it makes no allowances for reality. And it is the REAL world which is going to rear up and bite us on the butt if we don't take sometimes unpleasant steps to make sure that the greater of two evils doesn't get elected. And that is what this all boils down to.

People who vote with an absolutist's conscience—in this day and age, right here and now—are people who are willing to endure another four years of the greater of two evils so as to avoid having to hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. That's what it all really boils down to, because that IS what is going to happen if they can't hold their noses and vote for the republican nominee, as ideologically imperfect as he might be. You want a cure from cancer without the radiation and chemo. We can all dream for that, but if faced with cancer, you're either going to take the treatment, or you're going to be all noble and stuff.....and die.

Honestly, if you're that far removed from caring about the outcome of your vote, then this country is done for and we're just waiting around for the death rattle. I think we've bled out and we're just waiting for the heart to stop beating.

sjfcontrol wrote:

tallmike wrote:I think many of the republicans on here believe that if someone is against obama they should be for their candidate. You need to understand that many independents believe your guy is just as bad as obama.

Some of us don't vote for the letter behind a candidates name, we vote for the candidate. If I were to become a single issue voter that issue would be freedom, neither major party supports that.

I will be very upset if Romney wins and institutes another Brady style AWB in the name of "reasonable gun control" but I will also take that opportunity to laugh at the republicans who voted for him out of fear of obama taking away guns.

Well, it is very difficult to argue against insanity.

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results this time.

Over and over the Republicans have refused to nominate a PotUS canddate who is fiscally conservative. Over and over conservatives have voted for the Republican because we fall for the lies. Over and over the United States debt grows no matter if D or R wins. Over and over our liberty is assaulted by D and R administrations, like the Patriot [sic] Act. Over and over D and R Presdents send American boys to die without a Constitutional declaration of war from Congress. Over and over the American people get screwed by D and R alike.

It's time to stop the insanity and save America if it isn't already too late.

I fail to see the logic in calling reelecting Obama, "Saving America"

Well, it is very difficult to argue against insanity. [/quote]
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results this time.

Over and over the Republicans have refused to nominate a PotUS canddate who is fiscally conservative. Over and over conservatives have voted for the Republican because we fall for the lies. Over and over the United States debt grows no matter if D or R wins. Over and over our liberty is assaulted by D and R administrations, like the Patriot [sic] Act. Over and over D and R Presdents send American boys to die without a Constitutional declaration of war from Congress. Over and over the American people get screwed by D and R alike.

It's time to stop the insanity and save America if it isn't already too late.[/quote]

Ron Paul's thoughts exactly.

The Annoyed Man wrote: When someone decides to vote 3rd party, they are accepting (whether or not they want to) a hardcore reality: that their guy will never win. Not ever.

This can go on and on, but there's two fundamentally disturbing things going on here, from my perspective:
1) The world is not static. Political parties change over time, some go away, another takes its place. We are currently dominated by a two-party system, but the reality is that we are not mandated to have a two-party-only system. This type of us-or-them thinking has put us in a difficult position, because our decision making could very well be paralyzed by simply choosing the lesser of two evils, which only results in more "evil." For instance, I'm disinclined to think that the GOP is genuinely committed to putting a rein on the budget in a meaningful way, because the only way to do that (genuinely) is that it will hurt _all_ voters financially (probably not literally, but pain would be felt broadly). The notion that the Libertarian party, for instance, suddenly launching to prosperity as the GOP craters in delusional gerrymandering is just as possible as the Democratic party self-destructing from too many group hugs and being replaced by the "Social Justice Party" (or whatever palatable-to-American-tastes name you can find for "socialists").
2) I think that we debase ourselves by railing against the character of people that would choose to not to vote for the Romney ticket. The reality is that people on the OTHER side are saying the same thing to people that say, "I'm considering voting for somebody else." (probably moreso, in fact) I've made no secret about the fact that I like Gary Johnson _more_ than Romney. He's certainly a LOT more friendly to 2A rights than Romney (very true story). Does that mean I'm going to vote Libertarian in the general election? I dunno, Libertarian's seem to have difficulty with concepts like "borders" or "foreign policy", and those are important issues to me as well. But IF I did vote for him, I know if I did I would _never_ think I was throwing my vote away, nor would I take pleasure in somebody accusing me of the same. Like any voter, I can and will vote my informed conscience, and shame on the people that don't. It may very well be, in the course of the next 7 months, that I am content with what Romney does. I don't know, but I'm keeping an open mind. 7 months is a VERY long time in election politics, however.

I'm not trying to play Rodney "Cant We All Just Get Along?" King here, this is politics, and we all have passions about who we want as a leader (or more accurately: Who we DON'T want as a leader ). I think we make ourselves better people by speaking passionately about what convinces us to choose a certain person, rather than investing words and emotions into why we think somebody else is making a "foolish" choice.

The Annoyed Man wrote:So when you examine Romney's record in Massachusetts, do the due diligence, and have the intellectual integrity to process that record through this filter: a republican governor in a state with an overwhelmingly democrat legislature—a legislature with more than enough democrat votes to easily override an gubernatorial veto. I would submit that, whether or not he is conservative enough for the purist ideologue, it took courage for Romney to run for that office, knowing that every day of all four years of his term would be an uphill battle against an opposition majority legislature.

Every day of his term wasn't an uphill battle. He pushed for Romneycare, it wasn't something foisted upon him by the Democratic legislature. It was his signature achievement as Governor and he was proud of it and telling the world that it's a good model for the whole country until that became politically inexpedient. Remember, back then Willard called himself a "progressive" Republican. Now he calls himself "severely" conservative. Awkward choice of words aside, he was either lying back then or he's lying now (or maybe both). Either way, he's a liar and a prevaricator. He has no detectable core exept pure, blind ambition and will say anything to get elected. Voters sense this phoniness, especially when it comes in such large amounts and on so many issues. Americans will reject Willard, and the Republican party will have to go back to the drawing board. My crystal ball and I both think that Willard will go down in flames and be remembered as one of the worst nominees that Republicans have put forward in modern history. Had anybody else been the nominee, Obamacare would have been a 2-ton albatross around Obama's neck. Now, the whole issue is off the table. Willard can try to pull his "state level" vs. "federal level" mumbo-jumbo, but that just comes across as insincere and desperate. He's toast. BTW, Willard will still carry TX, so I wouldn't worry too much about the protest votes of members of this forum (I assume mostly Texans?). It's the 10-12 states that decide elections where protest votes and staying home matters, and I predict that a big chunk of evangelicals will stay home (because of the M-word, aparently taboo here) and a Republican just cannot win without evangelicals turning out. All of that is a long way of saying: "How much longer 'till 2016?"