Why the GOP Does Not Merit My (or Your) Vote or Support

Status
Not open for further replies.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Westtexas:
Evidence of a vote for anyone else=a vote for Gore:

In the 1992 Presidential election, Ross Perot cut heavily into Republican support for George Bush. Democratic voters did not support Perot,[/quote]

A falsehood. Perot did indeed attract votes from some Democrats -- I know some of them. But he did attract more votes from Republicans.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>and the 3rd party candidate handed Slick Willie a win with less than a majority of the vote.[/quote]

Darn. Imagine that. And here I'd been thinking that the people who voted for Clinton had something to do with his election.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I think people who tell me that voting for the Libs doesn't hurt Bush aren't telling the truth.[/quote]

Of course voting for anyone except Bush hurts Bush. But what you said is that voting for anyone but Bush is voting for Gore. Dennis has explained in detail how and why that claim is a deliberate falsehood, and I won't repeat his post. By the way, I still eagerly await your explanation of how voting for Nader helps Gore, which you have somehow forgotten to provide.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
AND, I think I just made my argument perfectly clear :)[/quote]

What you've made clear is that the Republicans can count on your support as long as they spit on the Constitution only half as often as the Democrats.

[This message has been edited by David Roberson (edited July 11, 2000).]
 
I see that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

No arguments FOR Bush, just a bunch AGAINST Gore. I guess that's what happens when you don't have much to work with.

For the couple of you who wondered about it, no, I was not one of the people who got taken apart by the party apparatus. In fact, if I so desired I would still be the local chairman today.

And I, by refusing to give my vote unless the GOP offers up a strict constructionist for me to vote for, have a MUCH greater chance of influencing them than those of you who will support whomever the GOP presents you regardless of that person's positions. I remain amazed that people who are apparently somewhat intelligent cannot grasp that.

Vote for Bush. Die slowly. You'll still die.
 
Mr. Locke makes evident that the Republican party is no longer a threat to the liberal/socialist axis: confront the left and get reamed.

This is why Alan Keyes is a non-person to the mainstream media and is considered an embarrassment to the GOP.

Does anyone seriously believe our country can survive if the only opposition to thinly disguised treason we can offer is no opposition whatsoever, let alone a full scale assault?



[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited July 12, 2000).]
 
I take exception to the comments about the Supreme court. There is no easy way to control that group. They have ruled outside of strictly constitutional issues for decades. They now decide questions of culture and politics. I think it very important as to whom appoints these men.

Article III, SEC, 1 of the constitution leaves it to the discretion of Congress whether to create any courts below the supreme. It is usually thought that congressional discretion to create or not create inferior courts means that Congress could deprive those courts of all jurisdiction, or of jurisdictioon over particular classes of cases. That would solve nothing, however, sisnce such cases would continue to reach the Supreme court on appeal from state courts. The argurment then turns to SEC 2 that, as to most types of cases, the Supreme Court”shall have appellate Jurisdiction”…with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress can deprive the Court of Jurisdiction over cases involving abortion, or flag desecration or whatever else Congress deems necessary to rein in a runaway judicial branch.
The matter is not that easy. The power to make “Exceptions” is probably a housekeeping power, a power to control the appellate jurisdicion in the interest of efficiency and conveience as circumstances change. It was certainly not a power to assert democratic supremacy over the judiciary. That can be seen from the results that would follow from making exceptions to the Suprme Court’s jurisdiction. If congress deprived the Court of jurisdiciton over abortion cases, for example those cases would simply be decided by state courts, and neither Congress nor the state legislatures could remove that jurisdiction.
Article VI states:”This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which sall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Teaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of he Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constittution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Two things follow. Article VI thus lodges jurisdiction to decide federal constitutional issues in state courts, and there is no power in any legislature to make exceptions. The framers almost certainly did not intend that the exceptions power be used to control The superme court. If they had so intended, they would not have devised a scheme that, instead of restoring democratic authority, merely shifted final disposition of issues to another set of judges. It is not at all certain, therefore, that the Court would acquiesce in the removal of its jurisdiction. If it ruled the statute making an exception to its jurisdiction unconstitutuional, that would be the end of the matter.


[This message has been edited by oberkommando (edited July 12, 2000).]
 
From Alan Keys Website http://www.keyes2000.org/

"But above all, the Founders added the 2nd Amendment so that when, after a long train of abuses, a government evinces a methodical design upon our natural rights, we will have the means to protect and recover our rights. That is why the right to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights."

"Advocates of banning guns substitute things for people, but this approach won't wash. It is the human moral will that saves us from violence, not the presence or absence of weapons. We should reject utterly the absurd theory that weapons are the cause of violence."

------------------
Qui tacit consentire.
 
I'm copying this post (slightly edited) from another thread, which has been locked up. This was my response to a poster who chastised me for calling folks who disagree with me unintelligent. Probably now this thread also will be locked up. At least the administrators had the grace thus far not to delete my post.


Cindy - Our struggle to keep the RKBA is much too serious for us to be distracted by perceived insults. To clarify, when I say someone is not voting intelligently, I'm not saying the person is not intelligent, but that the person is not acting intelligently in this instance. If it makes you feel any better, I will say right here and now that there are plenty of times when I act like an idiot. Yet, I do not consider myself an idiot. But if you want to call me one, or call me an insensitive boor for speaking passionately about an issue I consider to be of life-and-death importance, be my guest.
My main concern in this debate, if that's what it is, is with the sense of purer-than-thou that comes thru from people who evidently think that voting their conscience is the superior way, no matter what the consequences for others. While you may feel insulted at my describing something you say as lacking intelligence, I am offended by the implication that I am morally inferior because I'm willing to vote pragmatically in the interest of achieving a goal I assume most who post here share.

But I care so much about the progress of this war in which we are engaged, that I am willing to endure the condescension, so long as I have the opportunity to reach people here whose minds may yet be open on the issue.

To remind anyone who may innocently believe this board is primarily a recruiting forum for the Libertarian Party, we are engaged in a war to preserve our legal right to own, keep and bear firearms. We are at a stage in this war that I will compare with the trench warfare of WWI--we are slugging it out in the political trenches, city by city, state by state and congressional district by congressional district. We are slugging it out in the courts and in the media. Believe it or not, we've made some gains as well as suffered some losses. To say that we are on a slippery slope to full confiscation is not supportable by our recent history.

I'm not certain of specific dates, or years (don't have handy my copy of David B. Kopel's "Guns: Who Should Have Them?"), but our defeats with passage of the Brady Bill and the "assault weapons" ban, were followed by Republicans taking control of Congress. Clinton publicly credited reaction by gun nuts to the bill banning "assault weapons" for the defeat of enuf Democratic congressmen to give the GOP a majority. This after his pollster had assured him the ban would have no effect on the congressional elections.

OK, you might say, so more Republicans got elected, so there's a GOP majority, so what? Republicans are hardly better than Democrats, yada yada yada.... Of course, that's true. I will not quarrel with you on that. The fertile political fields have proven of late to be those in the center, thus leftwingers who want to be elected sidle to the right and rightwingers wanting likewise sidle to the left. This takes compromise. Excuse me, gentle moral highgrounders, compromise is a dirty word, I know, but it's as much a part of politics as kissing babies and eating rubber chicken. Remember, it's our war we're concerned with here, not our quest to find politicians who wear capes and tights and fight valiantly for truth, justice and the American way. Except perhaps for Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," those types, admirable as they may be, never get elected. And if they don't get elected, they can't help us win our war.

So, getting back to the new Republican milquetoast Congress, how did these might-as-well-be-Democrats beating the real Democrats help our cause? It sent a message to the politicians who work the center, the ones who stand a chance of getting elected, no matter what their stripe. The message was, "Oh, pshaw, the NRA is still in the fight. The gun nuts haven't rolled over and died. We'd be advised to tread more carefully, hadn't we? We'd best mush up what we say a tad more. Oh, gee willikers, what if Bush gets elected and doesn't get lost on his way to the White House? We dast not mess with guns for at least four more years. Oh, not because Bush is a valiant defender of the average citizen's right to protect himself or herself with a gun, but because Bush will have no political reason to assault that right. He will have no constituency expecting him to. He will let it slide for at least four years."

OK, so why is Gore sticking his neck out if Clinton has already admitted that gun nuts tipped the congressional balance of power in, I believe, 1994? Heckarootie, I don't know. Gore is a piece of pucky. He perchance suspects that Clinton said that about the bubbas to inspire fury toward the NRA. And it may well have, a little. But, hey, girls, the NRA's recruiting effort is going like gangbusters, ain't it now? Vote for Bush? I don't want to vote for Bush, as some here say of those of us who argue that a vote for Bush is a vote against Gore. I know that I have to vote for Bush, because if I vote for anyone else, and Gore wins, my conscience will hurt. It will really, really hurt.

And now, the good news: the "assault weapons" ban was passed with a lifespan of 10 years. That means it automatically expires in a two or three more years, unless Gore happens to be president.

[OK, admstr, lock 'er up]


[This message has been edited by Clark Kent (edited July 12, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Clark Kent (edited July 12, 2000).]
 
Guys, I think that most people here agreed that we were going to engage in a voluntary, temporary moratorium on third party/Repub/wasted vote, etc. threads until we get near election time (say, October 1), then have at it.
 
Clark - in this thread. If you choose to continue your campaign, that's your call, of course. I am required to read all the threads, even the ones I've seen twice a week for the last year and a half with exactly the same text, damn near word-for-word, every time. You're not.

For g-d's sake, people, LEAVE IT ALONE!


[This message has been edited by Coinneach (edited July 12, 2000).]
 
Coinneach - My campaign? It's a campaign to question the Libertarian Party Line that appears here ad nauseam? That's an interesting twist. Maybe I wouldn't feel so compelled to put in my 2¢ now and then if the Libertarian Party apologists could offer more to us RKBA folks than self-righteousness, if, for example they could suggest tactically how voting the Libertarian ticket could even remotely help us keep from losing our gun rights. That, too, would be an interesting twist.

[This message has been edited by Clark Kent (edited July 12, 2000).]
 
Yes, Clark, your campaign to impugn Libertarians. Don't worry, someone always takes up the banner, just as someone always takes up the other side's banner as well.

I'll not go into the arguments for voting Libertarian; you've already heard them all and, based on your posts, apparently discount them out of hand.

To sum up my points in my last LP vs GOP thread:

No one is convinced to change sides unless he wants to be convinced. Therefore, continual hammering on those of us who vote by principle rather than pragmatism is about as annoying and counterproductive as JWs knocking on doors at 0700 every Saturday.

For the last freakin' time, everyone back the hell off. EVERYONE.
 
105K.

Closed.

For the information of those here, threads are locked on TFL usually due to size, not content. It just takes too long to load a thread longer than about 100K on the typical home computer.

A part 2 is usually welcome when the first thread is filled. Though in this case...


------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4 Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top