Is it time to consider voting for the 3rd party candidate(s)?

[new tobie]

Obama's pick would have been better for republicans than Hillary's pick! 

[5GallonBucket]

I voted 3rd party in ' 08.  Possibly this year as well.  Whatever hurts Clinton's chances.  She s already proved herself as a non leader.  Trump is losing ground with me with some of his childish ways.

[Englebert]

4 minutes ago, new tobie said:

Obama's pick would have been better for republicans than Hillary's pick! 

Probably, but both will be damaging to America.

[LumRaiderFan]

1 minute ago, Englebert said:

Probably, but both will be damaging to America.

Absolutely...Obama's pick was no moderate.

[new tobie]

2 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Absolutely...Obama's pick was no moderate.

Hillary's pick if she were to win will not be a moderate

[LumRaiderFan]

1 minute ago, new tobie said:

Hillary's pick if she were to win will not be a moderate

And neither was Obama's...if she gets elected we have major problems anyway, have you bothered to look at her budget proposal?

[TxHoops]

7 minutes ago, 5GallonBucket said:

I voted 3rd party in ' 08.  Possibly this year as well.  Whatever hurts Clinton's chances.  She s already proved herself as a non leader.  Trump is losing ground with me with some of his childish ways.

You at least "get it."   It is a difficult concept to grasp, admittedly.  But the shame is it is why the third party may never have a chance, or even a voice in this country.  And that thinking, quite ironically, will help ensure HRC is our next president.  The good news is you guys will have at least four more years to get on this board and complain.  So you have that going for you, which is nice.  

[new tobie]

Hillary and Donald for president is not a good place to be in. The 3rd party choice will never have a chance unless people start leaving the D and R. The average person cares more about the D and R than the D and R cares about the average person.

[Englebert]

Just now, TxHoops said:

You at least "get it."   It is a difficult concept to grasp, admittedly.  But the shame is it is why the third party may never have a chance, or even a voice in this country.  And that thinking, quite ironically, will help ensure HRC is our next president.  The good news is you guys will have at least four more years to get on this board and complain.  So you have that going for you, which is nice.  

I'm going to get on this board and complain regardless of who occupies the office. Whichever gets in, I have no doubt I will be complaining about the size and scope of the federal government.

[TxHoops]

2 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I'm going to get on this board and complain regardless of who occupies the office. Whichever gets in, I have no doubt I will be complaining about the size and scope of the federal government.

Ha!  Fair enough!

(To modify my precious statement, you will have MORE to complain about  )

[Englebert]

Just now, new tobie said:

Hillary and Donald for president is not a good place to be in. The 3rd party choice will never have a chance unless people start leaving the D and R. The average person cares more about the D and R than the D and R cares about the average person.

This is true for many. But many vote for a D or R based on the fear of what the other party will do. "United we stand" against one party is just as pervasive as loyalty to a party.

[Englebert]

Just now, TxHoops said:

Ha!  Fair enough!

(To modify my precious statement, you will have MORE to complain about  )

Agreed.

[baddog]

40 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

You at least "get it."   It is a difficult concept to grasp, admittedly.  But the shame is it is why the third party may never have a chance, or even a voice in this country.  And that thinking, quite ironically, will help ensure HRC is our next president.  The good news is you guys will have at least four more years to get on this board and complain.  So you have that going for you, which is nice.  

Not if she comes for my guns......I will die.

[new tobie]

45 minutes ago, baddog said:

Not if she comes for my guns......I will die.

don't believe anyone is coming for your guns, if so i will purchase one and be on your side of the gun battle

[Englebert]

3 minutes ago, new tobie said:

don't believe anyone is coming for your guns, if so i will purchase one and be on your side of the gun battle

If you don't think Hillary is coming for your guns then you are woefully and willfully ignorant of the abundance of evidence showing otherwise. This is exactly why I vote Republican the majority of the time. Far too many Democrats willfully turn a blind eye to what their politicians say explicitly and implicitly. It is really scary. Although Hillary hasn't explicitly said she wants to confiscate guns, it is an easy conclusion to draw. She would love to say it, but she knows it would be political suicide.

[new tobie]

6 minutes ago, Englebert said:

If you don't think Hillary is coming for your guns then you are woefully and willfully ignorant of the abundance of evidence showing otherwise. This is exactly why I vote Republican the majority of the time. Far too many Democrats willfully turn a blind eye to what their politicians say explicitly and implicitly. It is really scary. Although Hillary hasn't explicitly said she wants to confiscate guns, it is an easy conclusion to draw. She would love to say it, but she knows it would be political suicide.

did obama take your guns, fear mongers have been preaching this for years

[LumRaiderFan]

12 minutes ago, new tobie said:

did obama take your guns, fear mongers have been preaching this for years

And democrats have been trying for years.

[Englebert]

29 minutes ago, new tobie said:

did obama take your guns, fear mongers have been preaching this for years

No, but if he could've he would've...without doubt. He knew the Supreme Court would overturn anything he tried.

I bet you are one of those who still deny Democrats are trying to get a single payer healthcare system. They denied it for years and years but now readily admit it. And the one's that opposed and exposed them were called fear mongers. Same old playbook.

Deniers have been lying to themselves for years.

[TxHoops]

1 hour ago, new tobie said:

did obama take your guns, fear mongers have been preaching this for years

Yes but it has intensified.  Now that "gays are marryin' each other," "they're gonna git ur guns" is the primary carrot being dangled.  Meanwhile, real threats that scientifically and empirically based are completely discounted or ignored.  Astounds me. 

Now I have two "I told you so's" I am storing.  One, Trump will ensure she wins.  And at the end of her term or terms, you will still have your guns.   And my third I told you so will be the inevitable and predictable response, "Well, she tried."

[baddog]

38 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Yes but it has intensified.  Now that "gays are marryin' each other," "they're gonna git ur guns" is the primary carrot being dangled.  Meanwhile, real threats that scientifically and empirically based are completely discounted or ignored.  Astounds me. 

Now I have two "I told you so's" I am storing.  One, Trump will ensure she wins.  And at the end of her term or terms, you will still have your guns.   And my third I told you so will be the inevitable and predictable response, "Well, she tried."

I hope the heck you are right. I have heard her say it myself that she would like to be like the Australians. 

Here is something I found. I don't know about anyone else, but I can read an article no matter the source, and pretty much tell if it is bogus. Of course anyone can be fooled but if it makes sense, I will give it a chance. It explores both sides so that's a plus.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[TxHoops]

16 minutes ago, baddog said:

I hope the heck you are right. I have heard her say it myself that she would like to be like the Australians. 

Here is something I found. I don't know about anyone else, but I can read an article no matter the source, and pretty much tell if it is bogus. Of course anyone can be fooled but if it makes sense, I will give it a chance. It explores both sides so that's a plus.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I think there will be some reforms that don't effect you or I and are probably needed (background checks, waiting periods, etc.).  But even these will take a huge battle to accomplish.  I am by no means a gun guy and don't have a lot of passion for the topic on either side.  I do appreciate the fervor of those that do and have a ton of friends and family to whom this is a huge issue.  

But  I would bet a huge amount of money there will never be a gun "ban" in this country in our lifetime.  Just not going to happen.  And it has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment...there is simply too much $$ in Washington from the gun folks.  The only way it could happen is if there was a large majority of citizens who wanted this to happen (and it IS their job to listen to their constituents).  And that is also not going to happen.  This is America and we love our guns.  

Oh and thanks for the article - I found it interesting as well. 

[TxHoops]

By the way, I spent some time in England a little over 20 years ago (shortly before the complete gun ban was enacted).  Much of that time I lived in London, and I marveled at how safe it felt compared to say a NYC or LA or Chicago.  And this was BEFORE the Firearms Acts that happened after Dunblans there. 

Our gun rate now is about 45 times the rate in England and over 10 times that in Australia.  I can't speak to Australia but my belief in the UK was then, and is now, that the overwhelming difference maker was public education.  They do a much better job of it from top to bottom there than we do here.  We probably surpass them at the top, but we fall greatly behind from the middle down.  Despite the aim of "no child left behind," fact is we leave many.  Not saying I have the fix, but I think that is much more the root of our problem than guns.  And the converse is a much bigger part of the success than the lack thereof with the Brits.  

Just my sometimes humble opinion of course...

[Englebert]

12 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

I think there will be some reforms that don't effect you or I and are probably needed (background checks, waiting periods, etc.).  But even these will take a huge battle to accomplish.  I am by no means a gun guy and don't have a lot of passion for the topic on either side.  I do appreciate the fervor of those that do and have a ton of friends and family to whom this is a huge issue.  

But  I would bet a huge amount of money there will never be a gun "ban" in this country in our lifetime.  Just not going to happen.  And it has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment...there is simply too much $$ in Washington from the gun folks.  The only way it could happen is if there was a large majority of citizens who wanted this to happen (and it IS their job to listen to their constituents).  And that is also not going to happen.  This is America and we love our guns.  

Oh and thanks for the article - I found it interesting as well. 

Although the gun issue might not be a big deal to you, it is to Hillary and a majority of the Democrats. We will have Chicago style gun laws enacted nationally if she wins, backed by a stacked Supreme Court. The baby step (leaps) laws will gradually get tougher and tougher until the average American cannot afford to own a gun. As far as background checks, this is the knife the Democrats will use to grind into the spine of legal gun owners. Cass Sunstein type people will be employed to write stricter and stricter rules on who can pass a background check. There is absolutely no doubt about this. We might not have total confiscation, but only the elites will be able to legally own a gun...in short order.

And I'm curious as to if you support strict background checks? If so, what would you think qualifies as adequate limitations on passing one...that is, what questions would you ask an applicant to determine if they are qualified to own a gun? I think I will start a new topic on this.

[Englebert]

36 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

By the way, I spent some time in England a little over 20 years ago (shortly before the complete gun ban was enacted).  Much of that time I lived in London, and I marveled at how safe it felt compared to say a NYC or LA or Chicago.  And this was BEFORE the Firearms Acts that happened after Dunblans there. 

Our gun rate now is about 45 times the rate in England and over 10 times that in Australia.  I can't speak to Australia but my belief in the UK was then, and is now, that the overwhelming difference maker was public education.  They do a much better job of it from top to bottom there than we do here.  We probably surpass them at the top, but we fall greatly behind from the middle down.  Despite the aim of "no child left behind," fact is we leave many.  Not saying I have the fix, but I think that is much more the root of our problem than guns.  And the converse is a much bigger part of the success than the lack thereof with the Brits.  

Just my sometimes humble opinion of course...

I'm curious as to why the gun murder rate is substantially higher in urban areas than in rural areas. Rural areas have a higher per capita gun ownership rate, but much lower murder rates. Can't be due to the prevalence of guns. What factors do you attribute to this phenomenon? (This is a question for any and all, not just TxHoops.)

[TxHoops]

23 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I'm curious as to why the gun murder rate is substantially higher in urban areas than in rural areas. Rural areas have a higher per capita gun ownership rate, but much lower murder rates. Can't be due to the prevalence of guns. What factors do you attribute to this phenomenon? (This is a question for any and all, not just TxHoops.)

Obviously I believe the answer lies, at least in part, in the post you quoted.  Your premise would only support my hypothesis.