Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
373,887
Messages
4,039,403
Members
109,154
Latest member
Bearded_Ty

How about our great President!!!

Jean-Luc Picard

Well-known member
Premium Member
Aug 25, 2017
938
787
93
Blackfoot, Idaho
www.bennyfifeaudio.com
I agree with your point, but one must realize to take that stance is indeed a "wasted" vote.
We lost a good man today when Ross Perot died. I voted for him because he made more sense than Dole or Clinton. However, his candidacy likely handed the election to Clinton.

Bottom line, when voting, we must take very seriously what the unintended ramifications may be.
The simple fact is that as long as the system remains how it is, HOWEVER I choose to vote, If I live in Idaho, my vote is converted to a vote for the republican candidate for president that carries more weight than a voter in California, or New York. The current system is designed to keep the 2 parties in power & not allow a 3rd, or more.

To me it is not a "Wasted" vote. Its a Protest vote. If the 3-5% of the population that voted for someone other than one of the 2 major party candidates were to grow to something like 20% to 30%, some real change may take place, including restructuring of the 2 major parties.
 

Mafesto

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
9,825
5,591
113
Northeast SD
The simple fact is that as long as the system remains how it is, HOWEVER I choose to vote, If I live in Idaho, my vote is converted to a vote for the republican candidate for president that carries more weight than a voter in California, or New York. The current system is designed to keep the 2 parties in power & not allow a 3rd, or more.

To me it is not a "Wasted" vote. Its a Protest vote. If the 3-5% of the population that voted for someone other than one of the 2 major party candidates were to grow to something like 20% to 30%, some real change may take place, including restructuring of the 2 major parties.


Yes, and if my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle. Meaning that you're making an assumption that 20-30% of the voters feel the same as you.
I see your point & it has merit, but as of now I still trust the judgement of our founding fathers far more than any current political player.
I am afraid of the unforeseen & unintended consequences of your proposal.
 

Jean-Luc Picard

Well-known member
Premium Member
Aug 25, 2017
938
787
93
Blackfoot, Idaho
www.bennyfifeaudio.com
Yes, and if my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle. Meaning that you're making an assumption that 20-30% of the voters feel the same as you.
I see your point & it has merit, but as of now I still trust the judgement of our founding fathers far more than any current political player.
I am afraid of the unforeseen & unintended consequences of your proposal.
The founding fathers warned against political parties in general.
 

summ8rmk

Too handsome
Lifetime Membership
Feb 16, 2008
10,819
4,275
113
yakima, wa.
Exonerate.........
One word, put on the report by anti Trump person(s).
The only word that has kept this investigation in the spotlight. The one word the Anti Trumpers are hanging onto.


"Exoneration refers to a court order that discharges a person from liability. In criminal context the term exonerate refers to a state where a person convicted of a crime is later proved to be innocent."*

Mueller doesn't have the Authority to exonerate, all he gets say is whether or not there is evidence to prosecute.

Judge or jury get to choose"guilty" or "innocent". "Not guilty" is equal to "innocent", just a play on words....

Polaris
 

Jean-Luc Picard

Well-known member
Premium Member
Aug 25, 2017
938
787
93
Blackfoot, Idaho
www.bennyfifeaudio.com
I'm Obviously not a Trump supporter, but gee I'd wish they'd get on with whatever else comes next. 7 hours of "read the report." How much salary was paid for the seven hours to everyone involved in the stupid thing. Do I think Trump obstructed justice? Yes. Will he be charged while he's President? No? Might the dems in the house Impeach him? Possibly, but it would be nothing more than to impeach him on principle, because it's not going to go anywhere from there until at least 2021.
Exonerate Shmexonerate.

Move on.

Period.
 

James T Kirk

Well-known member
Jan 16, 2010
783
610
93
Hey mafesto, did ya miss me? I was just wondering how any beer drinkin gun toting freedom lovin ‘Murican patriot can support a “president” that “hereby orders” businesses how to run their companies? Didn’t you guys fight a revolution over that kinda stuff? Communists and dictators order their people how to run their businesses, not free market capitalists. C’mon, nobody orders a proud ‘Murican around. If ya still support him after that ya might as well kneel down next to melania and find out what a Cheeto tastes like.
 

kanedog

Undefeated mountain clutching champ of the world.
Lifetime Membership
Oct 14, 2008
1,762
1,408
113
55
I hereby order you to start looking at other brands.
 

bholmlate

Well-known member
Premium Member
Dec 3, 2009
1,267
665
113
Reno, Nevada
Doesn't this go against the republican priciples of a smaller federal government and giving the power back to the states.
Just curious???
 

Mafesto

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
9,825
5,591
113
Northeast SD
Doesn't this go against the republican priciples of a smaller federal government and giving the power back to the states.
Just curious???
Why should one state have the power to mandate what is available for purchase in other states?
 

bholmlate

Well-known member
Premium Member
Dec 3, 2009
1,267
665
113
Reno, Nevada
Point out in the measure where it is mandating what is available in other states Please. I would really like to know for future reference. I still believe we live in a free capitalist country and Auto Makers are free to sell whatever they want where ever they want. All California is saying is that if they The Auto Makers want to sell cars in the state, they need to abide by California's rules. Again How is this mandating what they are selling in other states. And furthermore how is this going against giving states back their power and shrinking the Federal government when the FG is saying the State of California doesn't have the power to make their own regulations?