And just like that, the last few elections that were "too important" for principle bears fruit......

[SPM]

.

Will you be able to look them in the eye and tell them how you did not help keep the communists from taking over when you had the chance?

The main victory this past election cycle was in getting someone who will appoint people to the SC who may actually want to uphold the Constitution. That makes most of the other stuff that is going on seem somewhat trivial in the long run.

You think your vote is what keeps the communists at bay? And should the ballot box fail us, then you're going to blame men of principle because they didn't vote for the petty collectivist tyrant that told the lies you liked best?

It was the "small government" GOP that gave us the USA PATRIOT Act, the Department of Homeland Security, the EPA, secret courts, and sexual assualts in airports through warrantless searches and groping.

It's the "fiscally responsible" GOP that has yet to pass a balanced budget, ran up the debt, and kicked the can further down the road in getting federal spending under control.

It's the "Constitutionalist" GOP that affirmed Obamacare (and it not repealing government run healthcare, but trying to make it its own), has been in total control for 10 months and drug its feet on any pro-2A legislation just long enough to get us to the next gun crisis to shelve it indefinitely because the "timing" just isn't right (they'll use it to campaign later, with no intention of actually moving forward with it). In fact, the GOP is about to pass gun control legislation instead....I guess the timing is right for that.

Less freedom, more debt.

Functionally no different than the "what if" party in your imagination.

Obamacare is still law, we're still dicking around in the quagmire that is Syria, the debt ceiling needs to be raised again, the government is still funded by temporary spending gap bills rather than a budget, no pro-2A legislation has even made it to the floor for a vote....and anti-2A legislation is on the fast track to get there.

Policies and political parties should not be judged by their intentions or words, but from the actual results of their governance.

Should I ever find myself looking my children or grandchildren in the eye and explaining how the second and third Boxes of Liberty failed and necessitated the fourth, I can tell them with a clear conscience I tried everything possible to turn the ship via Electoral and judicial means, before the Republic entered a more dynamic stage in its history.

And I will likewise warn them that the dilution of those principles and sentiments upon which the Republic is founded in favor of the schemes of ambitious men - who beseech them for power to rule only to betray the Public Liberty - will lead to ruin.

You seem content with Progressive Lite, which is your prerogative.

I am not.

 

[noway2]

And to think roughly a year ago many were saying that Trump is part of the last ditch effort to send a message about changing ways in the hopes of avoiding the need to use that fourth box. Unfortunately, it looks like it's time to stock up.

 

[Charlie]

Functionally no different than the "what if" party in your imagination.

Policies and political parties should not be judged by their intentions or words, but from the actual results of their governance.

Should I ever find myself looking my children or grandchildren in the eye and explaining how the second and third Boxes of Liberty failed and necessitated the fourth, I can tell them with a clear conscience I tried everything possible to turn the ship via Electoral and judicial means, before the Republic entered a more dynamic stage in its history.

And I will likewise warn them that the dilution of those principles and sentiments upon which the Republic is founded in favor of the schemes of ambitious men - who beseech them for power to rule only to betray the Public Liberty - will lead to ruin.

.

We all do the "what if" analysis before elections so we can determine who we want to support. To do otherwise is folly.

Everything possible? Right. Like voting for someone you know for sure is not going to win and having the commie maggot who actually got elected laugh at you for cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I agree about the leading to ruin bit. That is why I said we citizens need to do a better job picking candidates who will uphold the Constitution. That is a state and local problem into which we all can have significant input if we so choose. It took a long time sliding down the slope as far as we have come and it will take a long time getting back to the top of the hill if that is even possible. It will take many small steps up. We got ourselves into this mess and we are the only ones who can get ourselves out of it. What are you doing to stop the slide besides voting in a national election?

 

[Majicmike]

I wish real R' would have the fight in them like the D's do

 

[gc70]

Now if we're talking primaries, I am 100% on board with that. And the ground anti-establishment conservatives have made in Congress in the last few election cycles have ALL been via the GOP ticket. NOT ONE SINGLE third party conservative has won so much as a Congressional seat. Even Trump with all his money, fame and uncanny ability to dominate the spotlight, opted to run on a GOP ticket.

I should have been clearer that I think the real change comes from primaries and not searching for a unicorn "third party" to cast a protest vote for in the general election.

While they are not listed separately on the ballot, we effectively have four major political groups at this moment: progressives, establishment Democrats, establishment Republicans, and conservatives. We need to elect good candidates in the primaries. I can't adequately express my disgust for the hucksters who keep pushing the idea that we shouldn't vote for good "unknown" or "unproven" primary candidates because they might not run as successfully in the general election as establishment candidates. What they are really saying is don't vote for conservatives because they might not appeal to as many left-leaning voters as the liberal-lite candidates from either branch of the political establishment. And I am beyond the point of worrying about taking that chance because the establishment choices are nearly all wretched.

 

[SPST]

Well, I suppose you will be real happy when Pilosi and Schumer get back into power. I hope you enjoyed Bill Clinton and his group that was put in because a lot of people voted for that little fellow with the funny haircut or BHO and his group because Romney was not quite conservative enough and lots of people stayed home. Bad history often repeats itself because many people think reminders of past mistakes are asinine and continue to make the same mistakes over and over again. No more, no less.

Maybe the R's that didn't vote for the little man with the funny haircut we're the problem?

 

[doose]

It has been my experience that principles are for getting you in trouble one day. Not for getting you out of it.

it is quite the opposite... A man without principals is a ship without a rudder.

 

[doose]

.

Will you be able to look them in the eye and tell them how you did not help keep the communists from taking over when you had the chance? MALE BOVINE EXCREMENT.

The main victory this past election cycle was in getting someone who will appoint people to the SC who may actually want to uphold the Constitution. That makes most of the other stuff that is going on seem somewhat trivial in the long run.

.

 

[doose]

You think your vote is what keeps the communists at bay? And should the ballot box fail us, then you're going to blame men of principle because they didn't vote for the petty collectivist tyrant that told the lies you liked best?

It was the "small government" GOP that gave us the USA PATRIOT Act, the Department of Homeland Security, the EPA, secret courts, and sexual assualts in airports through warrantless searches and groping.

It's the "fiscally responsible" GOP that has yet to pass a balanced budget, ran up the debt, and kicked the can further down the road in getting federal spending under control.

It's the "Constitutionalist" GOP that affirmed Obamacare (and it not repealing government run healthcare, but trying to make it its own), has been in total control for 10 months and drug its feet on any pro-2A legislation just long enough to get us to the next gun crisis to shelve it indefinitely because the "timing" just isn't right (they'll use it to campaign later, with no intention of actually moving forward with it). In fact, the GOP is about to pass gun control legislation instead....I guess the timing is right for that.

Less freedom, more debt.

Functionally no different than the "what if" party in your imagination.

Obamacare is still law, we're still dicking around in the quagmire that is Syria, the debt ceiling needs to be raised again, the government is still funded by temporary spending gap bills rather than a budget, no pro-2A legislation has even made it to the floor for a vote....and anti-2A legislation is on the fast track to get there.

Policies and political parties should not be judged by their intentions or words, but from the actual results of their governance.

Should I ever find myself looking my children or grandchildren in the eye and explaining how the second and third Boxes of Liberty failed and necessitated the fourth, I can tell them with a clear conscience I tried everything possible to turn the ship via Electoral and judicial means, before the Republic entered a more dynamic stage in its history.

And I will likewise warn them that the dilution of those principles and sentiments upon which the Republic is founded in favor of the schemes of ambitious men - who beseech them for power to rule only to betray the Public Liberty - will lead to ruin.

You seem content with Progressive Lite, which is your prerogative.

I am not.

 

[HMP]

You think your vote is what keeps the communists at bay? And should the ballot box fail us, then you're going to blame men of principle because they didn't vote for the petty collectivist tyrant that told the lies you liked best?

It was the "small government" GOP that gave us the USA PATRIOT Act, the Department of Homeland Security, the EPA, secret courts, and sexual assualts in airports through warrantless searches and groping.

It's the "fiscally responsible" GOP that has yet to pass a balanced budget, ran up the debt, and kicked the can further down the road in getting federal spending under control.

It's the "Constitutionalist" GOP that affirmed Obamacare (and it not repealing government run healthcare, but trying to make it its own), has been in total control for 10 months and drug its feet on any pro-2A legislation just long enough to get us to the next gun crisis to shelve it indefinitely because the "timing" just isn't right (they'll use it to campaign later, with no intention of actually moving forward with it). In fact, the GOP is about to pass gun control legislation instead....I guess the timing is right for that.

Less freedom, more debt.

Functionally no different than the "what if" party in your imagination.

Obamacare is still law, we're still dicking around in the quagmire that is Syria, the debt ceiling needs to be raised again, the government is still funded by temporary spending gap bills rather than a budget, no pro-2A legislation has even made it to the floor for a vote....and anti-2A legislation is on the fast track to get there.

Policies and political parties should not be judged by their intentions or words, but from the actual results of their governance.

Should I ever find myself looking my children or grandchildren in the eye and explaining how the second and third Boxes of Liberty failed and necessitated the fourth, I can tell them with a clear conscience I tried everything possible to turn the ship via Electoral and judicial means, before the Republic entered a more dynamic stage in its history.

And I will likewise warn them that the dilution of those principles and sentiments upon which the Republic is founded in favor of the schemes of ambitious men - who beseech them for power to rule only to betray the Public Liberty - will lead to ruin.

You seem content with Progressive Lite, which is your prerogative.

I am not.

PREACH.

 

[smithnwesley]

I wish real R' would have the fight in them like the D's do

I dont think the D's have that much fight in them its just a whole lot of "whining and crying"

 

[MostWanted]

At some point, you have to blame the electorate. The party that has the most registered voters would have nominated a Socialist if the game hadn't been rigged against him. Our parents didn't let us play with kids whose parents were Socialists.

Ask the average 30 year old today whether Government should pass laws to stop "hate speech", or "gun violence", or use their police powers to ensure all workers get a "fair" wage, and way too many of them would blankly go along with it. They think it's good that agents of the government can order you to bake a cake or perform services for someone else over your religious objection. And if you don't, men with guns will come into your home and confiscate your property and take your freedom. They do not see the horror in this.

Freedom as our parents knew it, and our grandparents fought for it, is gone. It's going to take a reboot to fix this. But with a twenty trillion dollar debt and the world situation as it is, we probably won't need to wait long.

 

[bigfutz]

In some ways, the answer looks so obvious and simple. Break the country up. That way the Dims can have everything they want and they have no influence on anyone else. Forget negotiating, forget cramming anything down their throats. Let's just go our own way, seoerate from them. They're happy, we're happy,

But then what would be your immigration policy between the two? That's the problem today - you can't keep the bad guys from infiltrating the good guys' team.

 

[drypowder]

But then what would be your immigration policy between the two? That's the problem today - you can't keep the bad guys from infiltrating the good guys' team.

Value-based, minimum IQ, no welfare, English proficiency, understanding of individual rights/limited government/Constitution. Apply those filters and you will keep out those who will tend to sink the country.

 

[MostWanted]

But then what would be your immigration policy between the two? That's the problem today - you can't keep the bad guys from infiltrating the good guys' team.

Minimum proficiency score with an AR-15.

 

[SPST]

Value-based, minimum IQ, no welfare, English proficiency, understanding of individual rights/limited government/Constitution. Apply those filters and you will keep out those who will tend to sink the country.

So you are going to make a family that has a mentally disabled kid move to the"left" side? Plus, who will be making the decisions about who is and who's not meeting your filters? Doesn't sound like a "free" place to live to me.

 

[noway2]

So you are going to make a family that has a mentally disabled kid move to the"left" side? Plus, who will be making the decisions about who is and who's not meeting your filters? Doesn't sound like a "free" place to live to me.

Well this free for all place we have today is working so well. Some filters sound like a great idea to me.

 

[SPST]

Everyone likes filters and limitations as long as it's something they agree with.

 

[HMP]

slippery slope.

 

[doose]

So you are going to make a family that has a mentally disabled kid move to the"left" side? Plus, who will be making the decisions about who is and who's not meeting your filters? Doesn't sound like a "free" place to live to me.

You bring up a valid point here. How do you handle who gets to live in this balkanized country or that balkanized part? Do you tell certain segments of society to GTFO of our new country?

What if someone from the new Republic of California or the Northeastern Socialist States of America wants to move to the Southern Christian Coalition of States? Should they be required to adhere to a certain political philosophy to be allowed to move? We South Carolinians gripe all the time about the number of people from Ohio and New Jersey that move here and bring their northeastern liberal political views with them, voting for more liberal candidates and philosophies, claiming "This is how its done where we are from."

Even if the nation ends up being balkanized, which I think is the ultimate outcome, that will not be a be all end all for our problems. The solution is complex, and I dont have much in the way of answers right now.

 

[IrishCannon]

I think what @drypowder is essentially saying here...is we are not under any obligation to allow anyone to immigrate. The purpose of immigration is to improve the country,not drag it down the Sir Harrington.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[SPM]

You bring up a valid point here. How do you handle who gets to live in this balkanized country or that balkanized part? Do you tell certain segments of society to GTFO of our new country?

Not saying I necessarily like the idea of filtering people out, but that's precisely what happened to about 60,000 Loyalists at the end of the Revolution. This was only about 10-11% or so of the estimated total population of Loyalists, but the 90% that stayed were effectively no different than 90% of people today - no real interest either way.

What if someone from the new Republic of California or the Northeastern Socialist States of America wants to move to the Southern Christian Coalition of States? Should they be required to adhere to a certain political philosophy to be allowed to move?

That would depend upon the appetite of the newly independent countries for immigration, and I would imagine it would be worked out between the State Departments of the same.

 

[doose]

Not saying I necessarily like the idea of filtering people out, but that's precisely what happened to about 60,000 Loyalists at the end of the Revolution. This was only about 10-11% or so of the estimated total population of Loyalists, but the 90% that stayed were effectively no different than 90% of people today - no real interest either way.




That would depend upon the appetite of the newly independent countries for immigration, and I would imagine it would be worked out between the State Departments of the same.

you addressed this in the first part of your response. I am not necessarily talking exclusively about immigration, but also to the natives that dont hold the same philosophy of a newly formed government.

I dont have an answer, so my questions are sincere. Suffice it to say.... it is complicated...

 

[MostWanted]

Untold millions of people died in the 20th century due to wars, starvation, and political unrest caused by the collectivists. The human misery even today in Cuba, China, NK is unimaginable. And yet we have people here who are pushing to bring it here. They are not just stupid as dirt, they are dangerous, and we have to keep them away.

Once people in Commie Zones get to experience what happens every time Communism is tried, they will be literally dying to get out. Maybe we'll have to build a Berlin Wall, only this time to keep them out of Free America.

 

[bigfutz]

So maybe we are suggesting we filter people out, just let them all live in their happy place. You want to be a socialist? Move to California. You want to shoot your gun off in your back yard, live in SC.

 

[TheWallrus]

So maybe we are suggesting we filter people out, just let them all live in their happy place. You want to be a socialist? Move to California. You want to shoot your gun off in your back yard, live in SC.

We are going to need a bigger state.

 

[noway2]

you addressed this in the first part of your response. I am not necessarily talking exclusively about immigration, but also to the natives that dont hold the same philosophy of a newly formed government.

I dont have an answer, so my questions are sincere. Suffice it to say.... it is complicated...

I think a large part of them, at least the ones for whom those issues are serious, would ultimately move to an area where the services desired or culture are more acceptable to them. Once independence is achieved, there would no longer be bounds such as declaring that everyone gets a vote. The constitution would go bye bye along with all the DC constipation. At first the several states would declare their constitutions, but I could see a ripple effect there too. Quite simply it would become an unattractive place for certain types to be. Nothing says these regions would all be "free" societies. In fact I suspect that there would undoubtedly be some reversion before things get better, but such would be the natural rubber band effect from having govco artificially try to dictate for so long. Example, look at some of Eastern Europe that refused to allow the muzzie migrants regardless of the EU mandate to do so.

Ultimately, given the ability to do so, people will Balkanize into groups that would form natural nations.

 

[MostWanted]

It will be a rural/urban Balkanization, and the old state lines will be gone. Look at NY state, or Illinois, even California. Most counties in those states are relatively conservative Norman Rockwell places. Illinois has about 11 million people, but the six million around Chicago are able to outvote the others, so you have draconian gun laws statewide. After the "reorganization", that will not be the case. Look at North Carolina on that map--red everywhere except for the Triangle, Triad, Charlotte, Asheville, and a few northeastern "drainer" counties that will become the new Mogadishu.

 

[pirate]

Translation. Only vote for who will win, long as they are on your side. Policy doesn't matter, history, character of the individual. None of it is as important as keeping the status quo.

That's American two party politics in a nut shell. The system is broken, long broken and cannot be fixed.

 

[IrishCannon]

That's American two party politics in a nut shell. The system is broken, long broken and cannot be fixed.

Not sure I agree. Anti establishment candidates have been losing to populist candidates all over the place.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[RedneckFur]

We're having the "If you vote for a third party you're helping the people I don't like win" conversation already? Its not an election year.

For a 3rd party vote to be "taking away" votes from someone else, you have to assume that the votes belonged to a candidate, and not to the individual citizen who may use it as they see fit.

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, most of the anti-gun laws in this country were passed by republican presidents with majority-republican govts. I guess a lot of the Rhino's only get upset when its "the other guy" that does it.

 

[IrishCannon]

We're having the "If you vote for a third party you're helping the people I don't like win" conversation already? Its not an election year.

For a 3rd party vote to be "taking away" votes from someone else, you have to assume that the votes belonged to a candidate, and not to the individual citizen who may use it as they see fit.

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, most of the anti-gun laws in this country were passed by republican presidents with majority-republican govts. I guess a lot of the Rhino's only get upset when its "the other guy" that does it.

3rd party is not synonymous with anti-establishment.

Nor is voting Republican synonymous WITH establishment.

Anti-establishment, Republican candidates have been winning races all over. Whether it will make a difference will yet to be seen, but many out there seem happy about it.

Conservatives are fractured on this. I don't see many people saying you shouldn't be able to use your vote how you see fit, but when it comes to the reality of it, you have to draw that line and realize you're helping one group and hurting another.

Perhaps those of you that refused to vote Trump had it right, and with HRC would have ushered in a quicker collapse of the establishment via bloodshed...or some other means. IDK. I'm content with my vote, you're content with yours, or the lack of yours. Whatever. I'm past it...I think. We're on the same side.

Yet keep in mind:

"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

Not voting is a vote. Make sure your heart is in the right place.

 

[SPM]

Yet keep in mind:

"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

.

And voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

 

[noway2]

And voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

And that is where it becomes such a damning choice. I voted for Trump in part because I wanted him to break things in DC and saw him as bring our current best shot to do it. I also desperately didn't want Clinton to win and be able to stack the courts with more Regressives. Was ideal? Hell no. As I've said the problem with a political solution is that it's predicated on having the "correct" people run and win, which I think is an illusive and unobtainable goal. We need a different paradigm.

 

[gc70]

It will be a rural/urban Balkanization, and the old state lines will be gone. Look at NY state, or Illinois, even California. Most counties in those states are relatively conservative Norman Rockwell places. Illinois has about 11 million people, but the six million around Chicago are able to outvote the others, so you have draconian gun laws statewide. After the "reorganization", that will not be the case. Look at North Carolina on that map--red everywhere except for the Triangle, Triad, Charlotte, Asheville, and a few northeastern "drainer" counties that will become the new Mogadishu.

Create city-states like Europe used to have. Let the urban areas be as urban as they care to be ... inside their own boundaries. And rural areas could be as rural as they wish.

However, the truth is that people relish having power over other people too much for that to ever happen.

 

[IrishCannon]

And voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

But is he evil?...or just not ideal?

I think where we draw the line is just different. I could understand not voting for a Paul Ryan after what we've seen from him, but I still don't agree with refusing to vote for Trump.


I see globalists as the enemy. They were, and still are, shitting themselves over Trump, going as far to possibly invoke the 25th amendment...I just don't see him as the enemy, nor do I see him as an evil. He's a guy who isn't a perfect choice, but he is certainly causing waves and division and fracturing things that, frankly speaking, need fracturing.

I see Hollywood collapsing.
I see the NFL collapsing.
People are cutting cable because they are waking up to the propaganda machine.
I see establishment candidates losing everywhere.

This is good.


Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[noway2]

Create city-states like Europe used to have. Let the urban areas be as urban as they care to be ... inside their own boundaries. And rural areas could be as rural as they wish.

However, the truth is that people relish having power over other people too much for that to ever happen.

That's just the thing. Saying it will not happen is predicated on the notion that you need someone's permission to not be part of that group, when in fact the opposite is true. The people in those rural areas need to declare their independence and then act accordingly. Do not take direction or directive from the urban center. Refuse services from said urban centers too until and unless formal agreements are made. As eith most things, they'll try to clobber the first few who try such a tactic but I'll bet that it will bring a hell of a lot of bad light on the idea and others just may join in quickly enough.

 

[SPM]

But is he evil?...or just not ideal?

I think where we draw the line is just different. I could understand not voting for a Paul Ryan after what we've seen from him, but I still don't agree with refusing to vote for Trump.


I see globalists as the enemy. They were, and still are, shitting themselves over Trump, going as far to possibly invoke the 25th amendment...I just don't see him as the enemy, nor do I see him as an evil. He's a guy who isn't a perfect choice, but he is certainly causing waves and division and fracturing things that, frankly speaking, need fracturing.

I see Hollywood collapsing.
I see the NFL collapsing.
People are cutting cable because they are waking up to the propaganda machine.
I see establishment candidates losing everywhere.

This is good.


Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

He financed globalists for years. Wined and dined with them. Played golf with them.

I'm not certain he's the outsider everyone thinks he is, nor am I certain he's not just playing his part as the "outsider" in the attempt to calm the growing anger and resentment in these United States.

For me, the line is Liberty. If one believes Almighty God created us and endowed us with Life, Liberty, and the Free will to pursue our own happiness- then this is the only moral standard by which all would be rulers may be judged.

Anyone who doesn't hold a worldview where the Rights of the individual is respected, and the State is restrained against violating those Rights is, in my view, evil - for it is their opinion that they are better suited to rule your Life than you, and are willing to take that which God has given you away "for your own good."

Time will tell - but Trump's still a big central government guy. Just one that's big in areas those on the Right find more palatable.

 

[shadowsbane]

He financed globalists for years. Wined and dined with them. Played golf with them.

I'm not certain he's the outsider everyone thinks he is, nor am I certain he's not just playing his part as the "outsider" in the attempt to calm the growing anger and resentment in these United States.

For me, the line is Liberty. If one believes Almighty God created us and endowed us with Life, Liberty, and the Free will to pursue our own happiness- then this is the only moral standard by which all would be rulers may be judged.

Anyone who doesn't hold a worldview where the Rights of the individual is respected, and the State is restrained against violating those Rights is, in my view, evil - for it is their opinion that they are better suited to rule your Life than you, and are willing to take that which God has given you away "for your own good."

Time will tell - but Trump's still a big central government guy. Just one that's big in areas those on the Right find more palatable.

Real big on civil forfeiture, no knock warrants and increasing the scope of the "war on drugs" for starters. Including the militarization of police forces

 

[IrishCannon]

Real big on civil forfeiture, no knock warrants and increasing the scope of the "war on drugs" for starters. Including the militarization of police forces

And I would assume most of us knew this. He wasn't shy about his support of a hardened police force. This could roll into a whole conversation about directives, police expectations under Obama vs Trump vs HRC, etc...the question I'm asking is where exactly do you draw the line? Even the Founding Fathers who went on to be presidents did their share of flexing the Constitution outside its boundaries.

We all know nobody is perfect, so I guess it's just up to each of us to determine where that line is.

I can respect those that didn't support him for policy issues, but hell, you've got guys that didn't vote for him and their main complaint is that he made some unbecoming comments. (Cough SASSE cough)

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk