TexasCHLforum.com

G26ster wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

G26ster wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: It's a shame too, because all that the elites would have to do is say "OK, we'll try it once your way" to the party's conservatives.

TAM, I think they did in '64 when Barry Goldwater lost the 1964 presidential election to Lyndon Johnson by "one of the largest landslides in history." And back then, the country was far more conservative than it is now.

I still would like to know where the conservatives were in the latest election for Speaker. Only 25 votes against? If conservatives wanted a change, they had a great chance. Seems to me almost everyone was protecting - themselves. The opportunity to send a strong message was lost.

They didn't want to lose their positions of power. Power means everything in DC.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." - Lord Acton

However, there are a heck of a lot more conservatives in congress who are not in positions of power. Where were their votes? And what does that say about the people whose views we agree with now when they are not in power, when we elect them to positions of power?

It tells you everything you need to know about their character. Principle is less important than other considerations for them. Vote accordingly.

When you think about what our forefathers put on the line for freedom, the current crop of politicians doesn't compare very well. They may claim they believe in the Constitution. They may even believe in the Constitution. But they lack the courage of their convictions to put everything on the line for it. Only 6% of the House members had the courage to vote for the change that voters obviously demanded in the last election. Depending on who you ask, the Tea Party Caucus has 40 to 60 members. They needed 39 votes to force at least a second vote. 25 voted against Boehner. So perhaps half or even more of the Tea Party Caucus didn't have the courage to vote for a new Speaker, even though Congress was deluged with phone calls and faxes asking them to do just that. Many of them claimed a fear of retribution. Now they are (and even Boehner is) waving their conservative credentials as if it actually means anything after they failed their first test. Boehner just claimed he was the anti-establishment Speaker. How laughable is that?

Seems to me a lot of people are more than willing to throw the baby out with the bath water.

jmra wrote:Seems to me a lot of people are more than willing to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Isn't it unfortunate that GOP leadership can't figure that out?

baldeagle wrote:

jmra wrote:Seems to me a lot of people are more than willing to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Isn't it unfortunate that GOP leadership can't figure that out?

I wasn't referring to the GOP leadership. But thanks for making my point.

baldeagle wrote:

jmra wrote:Seems to me a lot of people are more than willing to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Isn't it unfortunate that GOP leadership can't figure that out?

I'm not sure who the "baby" jrma is referring to, but it works both ways. The establishment Republicans dumping the conservatives or vice versa. Either way is a shame IMHO.

A democrats best friend is another democrat. A democrats second best friend is a conservative who doesn't vote.

Voting for 'party' is much like the old definition of insanity ; doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results . New faces need to be seen in our government , what we have now is killing our country . We are no longer spiraling downward , we are in free fall . The two party's are totally corrupt and led by the lunatic fringe . A patriot would not be involved in simply trying to 'maintain' what now exists . I will vote independent .

A democrats third best friend is a conservative who votes for a third party candidate that can't possibly be elected.

jmra wrote:A democrats third best friend is a conservative who votes for a third party candidate that can't possibly be elected.

With so many people that share your view maybe not . That is the reason we have the situation we are in now . I'll no longer be a sucker for the Republicans .

chuck j wrote:

jmra wrote:A democrats third best friend is a conservative who votes for a third party candidate that can't possibly be elected.

With so many people that share your view maybe not . That is the reason we have the situation we are in now . I'll no longer be a sucker for the Republicans .

And the democrats rejoiced.

jmra wrote:

chuck j wrote:

jmra wrote:A democrats third best friend is a conservative who votes for a third party candidate that can't possibly be elected.

With so many people that share your view maybe not . That is the reason we have the situation we are in now . I'll no longer be a sucker for the Republicans .

And the democrats rejoiced.

The reason it makes no difference who we vote for is because all of them are the same. Reference my sig line.

anygunanywhere wrote:

jmra wrote:

chuck j wrote:

jmra wrote:A democrats third best friend is a conservative who votes for a third party candidate that can't possibly be elected.

With so many people that share your view maybe not . That is the reason we have the situation we are in now . I'll no longer be a sucker for the Republicans .

And the democrats rejoiced.

The reason it makes no difference who we vote for is because all of them are the same. Reference my sig line.

We will have to agree to disagree on your opinion.

Here comes the last GOP loser. Insanity. Obamacare lite architect.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

jmra wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

jmra wrote:

chuck j wrote:

jmra wrote:A democrats third best friend is a conservative who votes for a third party candidate that can't possibly be elected.

With so many people that share your view maybe not . That is the reason we have the situation we are in now . I'll no longer be a sucker for the Republicans .

And the democrats rejoiced.

The reason it makes no difference who we vote for is because all of them are the same. Reference my sig line.

We will have to agree to disagree on your opinion.

Not a problem !

jmra wrote:A democrats third best friend is a conservative who votes for a third party candidate that can't possibly be elected.

But the only other option is to not vote or to vote for the lesser of the two evils. And a vote for the lesser of the two is still a vote for evil. I believe that many people share your opinion. They also share the opinion that both parties are the same now. They cannot bring themselves to vote for evil and they cannot bring themselves to "waste" their vote. So we get less than 60% turnout for the biggest election we have, and as low as 2 or 3% for lower level local elections.

But I disagree with the basic premise. There is no such thing as a candidate that can't possibly be elected. Considering how many people have been elected or reelected after felony convictions, admitted lying, changing parties or positions, etc. anyone can be elected. It is harder for some than others, and minor parties are only slightly easier than true independents, but they can be elected. If I support someone other than the two main parties' candidates, I need to be much more active and work much harder to convince people to vote for my candidate. As evidence, I will point out that a few libertarians do get elected each year, as do a few minor party from the left.

I will also disagree with the premise that a vote for a third party does anything for any other party (in Texas, other states, other rules may apply). Since our law requires the winner to get a majority of the votes cast, a vote for a third party is actually better than not voting. It makes one more vote that the major party must get to win.