Once Again, I Ask: Why Vote Republican?

[jpsb]

You missed the point.  If our liberties and the running of government hinges on whatever party/ideology controls the courts - then the Republic is officially over.  We are a Socialist Mobocracy.

Here is a clue, we have a government that runs the country.

If you want that government to run it by the rules, then elect people that believe in the rules.
With the GOP that's a 50/50 thing. With the rats that's a 1 in 50 thing. I like 50/50 way better
then 1/50.

The time to get rid of RINOs is in the primaries. In the general always vote R. 

[roamer_1]

Here is a clue, we have a government that runs the country.

If you want that government to run it by the rules, then elect people that believe in the rules.
With the GOP that's a 50/50 thing. With the rats that's a 1 in 50 thing. I like 50/50 way better
then 1/50.

The time to get rid of RINOs is in the primaries. In the general always vote R.

Nope. Never again. Ever. Conservatives get my vote, and only Conservatives. (and it ain't no where near a 50/50 thing).

[jpsb]

meh.

By what method, considering this current day, do you propose to guarantee that Republicans are appointing, or ever will appoint, Conservative judges? Their so called principles are for sale in every other thing, so by what measure do you see them being true in this?

As best I can tell Trump is appointing conservative judges, but to the larger point. I can't, but I do
know a Marxist president will never appoint a conservative judge but a Republican president might.
I'll take might over no freaking way any day.

[jpsb]

Nope. Never again. Ever. Conservatives get my vote, and only Conservatives. (and it ain't no where near a 50/50 thing).

50/50 might be stretching it but there are some good (R) people in Congress. And even a couple of
good Ds.

[roamer_1]

As best I can tell Trump is appointing conservative judges, but to the larger point. I can't, but I do
know a Marxist president will never appoint a conservative judge but a Republican president might.
I'll take might over no freaking way any day.

Since that great paragon of constructionist thought, Chief Justice Roberts, your theory has been left wanting. Republicans have naught to do with Conservatism, and have not moved the Conservative agenda a single point in nearly forty years. Their game is globalism, and they will appoint globalist judges. What few that might be Conservative will be more of a fluke than any norm.

 

[EasyAce]

@Victoria33, what do you think of closed primaries?  I'm a delegate to the state convention and plan on supporting this.

@Sanguine
I've objected to open primaries for a very long time and have seen no reason to change my position. Regardless of which party you belong to,
it should be thought of as the essense of fatuous nonsense to allow anyone but those registered as members of your party to have a
hand in choosing your party's candidate(s). Why should a Republican wish for anyone but fellow Republicans to pick Republican candidates?
Why should a Democrat wish for anyone but fellow Democrats to pick Democratic candidates? Why, for that matter, in states where they
are a ballot presence, should any third party member wish for anyone but the members of his or her party to pick that party's
candidates?

Oho, I can hear someone pondering, but what about independents and non-affiliated voters, should their voting rights be abrogated on
behalf of closing the primaries? To which the proper answer is, really, their voting rights are not abrogated, because they chose not
to affiliate with any known political party and thus they chose to have nothing to do with voting until the general election. To parties seeking the
votes of independents, there are two sensible answers: 1) Convince them that your party is the proper place for them when considering their
political thinking; or, failing that, 2) Court the living brains out of them during the general campaign. But don't expect under properly closed primaries
to get the votes of anyone but members of your own party if you're that bent on becoming part and parcel of the nation's largest organised crime
family.

[Sanguine]

@Sanguine
I've objected to open primaries for a very long time and have seen no reason to change my position.
Regardless of which party you belong to, it should be thought of as the essense of fatuous nonsense to allow anyone but those registered as members of your party to have a hand in choosing your party's candidate(s). Why should a Republican wish for anyone but fellow Republicans to pick Republican candidates?

Why should a Democrat wish for anyone but fellow Democrats to pick Democratic candidates? Why, for that matter, in states where they are a ballot presence, should any third party member wish for anyone but the members of his or her party to pick that party's candidates?

Oho, I can hear someone pondering, but what about independents and non-affiliated voters, should their voting rights be abrogated on behalf of closing the primaries? To which the proper answer is, really, their voting rights are not abrogated, because they chose not to affiliate with any known political party and thus they chose to have nothing to do with voting until the general election. To parties seeking the votes of independents, there are two sensible answers: 1) Convince them that your party is the proper place for them when considering their political thinking; or, failing that, 2) Court the living brains out of them during the general campaign. But don't expect under properly closed primaries to get the votes of anyone but members of your own party if you're that bent on becoming part and parcel of the nation's largest organised crime family.

Great rant!  Love the "fatuous nonsense".

[INVAR]

Here is a clue, we have a government that runs the country.

Okay, if you want to think that.

The fruits to me illustrate an oligarchy runs the country.

If you want that government to run it by the rules, then elect people that believe in the rules.

I'm trying to figure out how anyone can actually believe that you can get the lawless to abide by the law that they have of themselves circumvented.   But that said - I thought the Trump folks said that was why they put Trump in there.

With the GOP that's a 50/50 thing. With the rats that's a 1 in 50 thing. I like 50/50 way better
then 1/50.

I don't subscribe to the belief that a Republic is a Craps table.  I know the vast majority see politics as simply another game or sporting event.

I'm not one of those.

The time to get rid of RINOs is in the primaries. In the general always vote R.

I'm done practicing insanity, but you are certainly welcome to continue to do so.

[EasyAce]

Great rant!  Love the "fatuous nonsense".

@Sanguine
Thanks! But it would be even nicer if we did away with the fatuous nonsense of open primaries and a few dozen other items of political and governmental mischief. I'd rather
expend my phrasemaking on un-fatuous sense.

[Bigun]

@Victoria33, what do you think of closed primaries?  I'm a delegate to the state convention and plan on supporting this.

@Sanguine

Me to!  Perhaps we will cross paths.

[Jazzhead]

@Sanguine
I've objected to open primaries for a very long time and have seen no reason to change my position. Regardless of which party you belong to,
it should be thought of as the essense of fatuous nonsense to allow anyone but those registered as members of your party to have a
hand in choosing your party's candidate(s). Why should a Republican wish for anyone but fellow Republicans to pick Republican candidates?
Why should a Democrat wish for anyone but fellow Democrats to pick Democratic candidates? Why, for that matter, in states where they
are a ballot presence, should any third party member wish for anyone but the members of his or her party to pick that party's
candidates?

Oho, I can hear someone pondering, but what about independents and non-affiliated voters, should their voting rights be abrogated on
behalf of closing the primaries? To which the proper answer is, really, their voting rights are not abrogated, because they chose not
to affiliate with any known political party and thus they chose to have nothing to do with voting until the general election. To parties seeking the
votes of independents, there are two sensible answers: 1) Convince them that your party is the proper place for them when considering their
political thinking; or, failing that, 2) Court the living brains out of them during the general campaign. But don't expect under properly closed primaries
to get the votes of anyone but members of your own party if you're that bent on becoming part and parcel of the nation's largest organised crime
family.

Makes sense to me.  No "conservative" who won't align himself with the GOP should have any voice in who the party selects as its nominee.   

This isn't about virtue-signaling; it's about solidarity. 

[Sanguine]

@Sanguine

Me to!  Perhaps we will cross paths.

Good deal.  My dad and I will be there. 

[Bigun]

Good deal.  My dad and I will be there.

What Senate District are you in?

I am in SD 5.

[jpsb]

Since that great paragon of constructionist thought, Chief Justice Roberts, your theory has been left wanting. Republicans have naught to do with Conservatism, and have not moved the Conservative agenda a single point in nearly forty years. Their game is globalism, and they will appoint globalist judges. What few that might be Conservative will be more of a fluke than any norm.

 

Trump did not appoint Chief Justice Roberts, that despicable empty suit W did. I tired to warn
everyone that W was a low IQ phony conservative. NO MORE BUSHES!

I get your point, Republicans can't be trusted either, but who would Al Gore or John Kerry put on
the bench?  When a republican screws up like Trump just did, beat the hell out of them so they
don't screw up again. 

[Sanguine]

What Senate District are you in?

I am in SD 5.

I'm also in 5.

[Bigun]

I'm also in 5.

Then we shall surely see each other IF I am able to attend.  I sent you a PM.

[EasyAce]

Trump did not appoint Chief Justice Roberts, that despicable empty suit W did. I tired to warn
everyone that W was a low IQ phony conservative. NO MORE BUSHES!

Many tried to warn just that. Depending upon the forums to whom you tendered the warnings, you were either heeded, ignored, or purged. Even when President Lips II
and his Republican't Congress turned out to provoke the thought, "With Republicans like these, we don't need Democrats!" And they had the nerve to tell us that
this time, oh, this time it would be so different, and it wasn't our fault, and we'll never, ever, ever do it again. Compared to Republicans like those, Charlie
Brown kicked a 75-yard field goal.

I get your point, Republicans can't be trusted either, but who would Al Gore or John Kerry put on
the bench?  When a republican screws up like Trump just did, beat the hell out of them so they
don't screw up again.

Those of us like thee and me who tried beating the hell out of President Lips II and his Republican't Congress discovered just how immune they were to screwing
up again. They were so immune to screwing up again that the Democrats rocked and rolled into control of both houses of Congress and a majority of statehouses and state
legislatures in November 2006.

[Smokin Joe]

Since everyone ignore my post all take that as meaning I was 100% correct. And I'll repeat myself

Why vote GOP? There is really only one reason given the sorry state of the GOP today,
Federal Judges.

How ever in 2018 you have another reason to vote R if you want to see the House and Senate
continue their investigation of corruption at DOJ/FBI/CIA/IRS/State and other feds agencies.

Continue? Indict before November, and prosecute. Why, that might get votes, too.

[Sighlass]

I will continue to draw a line in the sand, if the candidate does not cross that line, I will not vote for them. Three elections now I have wrote in someone other than what was the party pick. McCain wasn't worthy, Romney wasn't worthy, and Trump wasn't worthy. Keep throwing up RINOs and I may never get another vote, but I will one less thing on my conscious to keep me awake at night.

[roamer_1]

I will continue to draw a line in the sand, if the candidate does not cross that line, I will not vote for them. Three elections now I have wrote in someone other than what was the party pick. McCain wasn't worthy, Romney wasn't worthy, and Trump wasn't worthy. Keep throwing up RINOs and I may never get another vote, but I will one less thing on my conscious to keep me awake at night.

WELL SAID.

[Smokin Joe]

I will continue to draw a line in the sand, if the candidate does not cross that line, I will not vote for them. Three elections now I have wrote in someone other than what was the party pick. McCain wasn't worthy, Romney wasn't worthy, and Trump wasn't worthy. Keep throwing up RINOs and I may never get another vote, but I will one less thing on my conscious to keep me awake at night.

Yep. If Conservative, then the most Conservative. If not, I'll not vote for them.

[jpsb]

Continue? Indict before November, and prosecute. Why, that might get votes, too.

Good plan I hope sleepy Sessions makes it happen.

[jpsb]

McCain wasn't worthy, Romney wasn't worthy, and Trump wasn't worthy.

Amnesty McCain was to much for me too, I went 3rd party rather than vote McCain.

[aligncare]

Here is a clue, we have a government that runs the country.

If you want that government to run it by the rules, then elect people that believe in the rules.
With the GOP that's a 50/50 thing. With the rats that's a 1 in 50 thing. I like 50/50 way better
then 1/50.

The time to get rid of RINOs is in the primaries. In the general always vote R.

Wise suggestion. Unfortunately, too many lack wisdom when it comes to politics. Reasoning often gets pushed to the back burner while emotions and vanity are all cranked up out of proportion. I suppose it’s the nature of the beast, politics.

[TomSea]

Almost half, maybe said better as 40-50% of those who can vote, don't. That's problem #1... There really is no proper reason to get into a heated argument per those dissing the Republican party when their votes for parties like the Constitution party is well less than 1% of those who voted, now the Libertarian party has largely turned into a pro-liberal party.