[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ya gotta admit…Trump/Carson would be quite the “Fuck You” to The Establishment.
I’d rather see Carson/Fiorina or Fiorina/Carson ticket personally. [/quote]
Fiorina is McCain/Romney in a dress. She’s very liberal.[/quote]
That’s not the impression I’ve gotten. Will you explain why?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ya gotta admit…Trump/Carson would be quite the “Fuck You” to The Establishment.
I’d rather see Carson/Fiorina or Fiorina/Carson ticket personally. [/quote]
Fiorina is McCain/Romney in a dress. She’s very liberal.[/quote]
Trump isn’t remotely close to a conservative himself.
Any ticket with Trump or Carson on it is a threat to losing ground in the 2nd amendment arena. Because something like Sandy Hook happens with either of them (or Romney) as POTUS and we have an assault rifle ban and mag limits federally, if not confiscation of “Scary black rifles”. [/quote]
Carson has backtracked on his second amendment stance quite a bit. It is one area of concern for me though.
Carson on the 2nd
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’m curious that if it came down to these two candidates for President which would you pick?
If you want to give a reason go ahead but it’s not necessary.
Please Vote Trump or Hillary.[/quote]
The only person that could make me not cast an opposing vote to Hillary would be Jeb Bush, but you present a false choice.
Cruz and Trump are having joint rallies and meet and coordinate frequently.
It’s pretty obvious that Trump wanted to avoid a Jeb presidency, so he is acting at the stalking horse for Cruz, attacking Jeb, bringing attention, and causing Jeb to spend money (which he will soon do on massive attack ads against Trump).
Trump knows he will get mortally wounded by this, leaving Cruz as the elder statesman. It’s really brilliant.
It’s only fair as there are a number of never-gonna-win candidates in the race at the behest of Jeb to split the vote from the viable conservatives: Graham, Huckabie, Rubio, etc.
Basically Trump is giving the RINOs a taste of their own machinations.[/quote]
That is a very interesting read. But, you failed to take one very important matter into account, that is Donald Trump’s ego. I don’t think Trump does anyone’s bidding especially Ted Cruz, who is not nearly as viable as many other candidates. I also think Trump has his eye on the top spot. Maybe not when he first entered the race but most assuredly now. He looked around and found himself in the lead and thought “hey I can actually win and become President”. Okay…just a guess…
However, if I am wrong and he is destroying the Bush candidacy…well good!
[/quote]
Trump is no “doing anyone’s bidding” but his own. He is playing kingmaker.
And I respectfully think you have drunk the RINO whiskey re: Cruz not being electable. He’s brilliant, smart, has the money, and the machine. The RINOs said the same “not electable” things about him during his Senate race, and he crushed them.[/quote]
I have not been drinking RINO whiskey or even Jack Daniels. But, what you might be failing to see is the fact that Ted Cruz will be attacked ruthlessly by the mainstream liberal media and painted as a right wing kook. Granted you and I don’t think that’s the case. Personally, I think the man is brilliant. But I want a candidate who can actually win. If we don’t win things WILL get worse. So, again I will stick with the Kasich/Rubio ticket, or other variations that can defeat the democratic candidate.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ya gotta admit…Trump/Carson would be quite the “Fuck You” to The Establishment.
I’d rather see Carson/Fiorina or Fiorina/Carson ticket personally. [/quote]
Fiorina is McCain/Romney in a dress. She’s very liberal.[/quote]
Trump isn’t remotely close to a conservative himself.
Any ticket with Trump or Carson on it is a threat to losing ground in the 2nd amendment arena. Because something like Sandy Hook happens with either of them (or Romney) as POTUS and we have an assault rifle ban and mag limits federally, if not confiscation of “Scary black rifles”. [/quote]
Carson has backtracked on his second amendment stance quite a bit. It is one area of concern for me though. [/quote]
Yeah, I’m still nervous. A lot like Push, it’s the first and last thing I look at. If you suck there, it’s a safe assumption you suck elsewhere, and I’m not going to find enough to support you.
In 2012, I went against some of my convictions and convinced myself Romney was better than he was, and that I would be good supporting him. I regret that. I should have blanked the ticket.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Carson on the 2nd
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Ben_Carson_Gun_Control.htm
[/quote]
But when asked whether people should be allowed to own “semi-automatic weapons,” the doctor replied: “It depends on where you live. I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,” Carson elaborated. However, if you live “out in the country somewhere by yourself” and want to own a semi-automatic weapon, he added, “I’ve no problem with that.”
That hereby dismisses him without my approval. This shows he DOES. NOT. GET. IT.
Carson’s 2nd Amendment reads differently than the one I grew up with. His says:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed depending on where you live.”[/quote]
Ya, I don’t like that stance either. I don’t think anything gun related will be on Carson’s agenda. I can also at least understand why he would take such a stance knowing his backstory. It’s is a rather absurd stance though.
Also note, he didn’t say he thinks you should not be legal allowed to own a semi automatic weapon, he says he’d rather you not have it.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ya gotta admit…Trump/Carson would be quite the “Fuck You” to The Establishment.
I’d rather see Carson/Fiorina or Fiorina/Carson ticket personally. [/quote]
Fiorina is McCain/Romney in a dress. She’s very liberal.[/quote]
Trump isn’t remotely close to a conservative himself.
Any ticket with Trump or Carson on it is a threat to losing ground in the 2nd amendment arena. Because something like Sandy Hook happens with either of them (or Romney) as POTUS and we have an assault rifle ban and mag limits federally, if not confiscation of “Scary black rifles”. [/quote]
Carson has backtracked on his second amendment stance quite a bit. It is one area of concern for me though. [/quote]
Yeah, I’m still nervous. A lot like Push, it’s the first and last thing I look at. If you suck there, it’s a safe assumption you suck elsewhere, and I’m not going to find enough to support you.
In 2012, I went against some of my convictions and convinced myself Romney was better than he was, and that I would be good supporting him. I regret that. I should have blanked the ticket. [/quote]
Why? What has Romney done other than lose?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ya gotta admit…Trump/Carson would be quite the “Fuck You” to The Establishment.
I’d rather see Carson/Fiorina or Fiorina/Carson ticket personally. [/quote]
Fiorina is McCain/Romney in a dress. She’s very liberal.[/quote]
Trump isn’t remotely close to a conservative himself.
Any ticket with Trump or Carson on it is a threat to losing ground in the 2nd amendment arena. Because something like Sandy Hook happens with either of them (or Romney) as POTUS and we have an assault rifle ban and mag limits federally, if not confiscation of “Scary black rifles”. [/quote]
Carson has backtracked on his second amendment stance quite a bit. It is one area of concern for me though. [/quote]
Yeah, I’m still nervous. A lot like Push, it’s the first and last thing I look at. If you suck there, it’s a safe assumption you suck elsewhere, and I’m not going to find enough to support you.
In 2012, I went against some of my convictions and convinced myself Romney was better than he was, and that I would be good supporting him. I regret that. I should have blanked the ticket. [/quote]
Why? What has Romney done other than lose? [/quote]
Signed the assault weapons ban and mag limits in MA and instituted Obamacare in MA…
That alone should have kept me away.
He seems like a good person, and in a lot of ways I think would have been a good POTUS (not so much in a shrink government or restore individual liberty way, but fiscally and tax wise, yes). He just sucked on 2nd and the whole healthcare cronyism.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ya gotta admit…Trump/Carson would be quite the “Fuck You” to The Establishment.
I’d rather see Carson/Fiorina or Fiorina/Carson ticket personally. [/quote]
Fiorina is McCain/Romney in a dress. She’s very liberal.[/quote]
Trump isn’t remotely close to a conservative himself.
Any ticket with Trump or Carson on it is a threat to losing ground in the 2nd amendment arena. Because something like Sandy Hook happens with either of them (or Romney) as POTUS and we have an assault rifle ban and mag limits federally, if not confiscation of “Scary black rifles”. [/quote]
Carson has backtracked on his second amendment stance quite a bit. It is one area of concern for me though. [/quote]
Yeah, I’m still nervous. A lot like Push, it’s the first and last thing I look at. If you suck there, it’s a safe assumption you suck elsewhere, and I’m not going to find enough to support you.
In 2012, I went against some of my convictions and convinced myself Romney was better than he was, and that I would be good supporting him. I regret that. I should have blanked the ticket. [/quote]
Why? What has Romney done other than lose? [/quote]
Signed the assault weapons ban and mag limits in MA and instituted Obamacare in MA…
That alone should have kept me away.
He seems like a good person, and in a lot of ways I think would have been a good POTUS (not so much in a shrink government or restore individual liberty way, but fiscally and tax wise, yes). He just sucked on 2nd and the whole healthcare cronyism. [/quote]
Oh okay, I thought you meant after her lost. I was a little confused.
Push, I think you’re extrapolating a bit much out of that one short quote. I’m sure his stance will be fleshed out on the issue soon enough.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Also note, he didn’t say he thinks you should not be legal allowed to own a semi automatic weapon, he says he’d rather you not have it. [/quote]
Well, that tells me he ain’t smart enough to understand that Jane Single Mom living in the ghetto in fear of her life and the lives of her kids because of violent ex-boyfriend should not be able to arm herself with the single best thing she could possibly have on her or in her household when meth-crazed bastard kicks down her door. [/quote]
I think he probably understand this since his mom was a single mom living in the ghetto.
[quote]
She should rest assured that a Maryland surgeon KNOWS she’d be better off with nothing at all or a bolt-action rifle or something else on his approved weapon list.
Also, a guy who says urbanites should not have semi-autos is a guy who if elected president is more likely to sign a bill that deauthorizes urbanites from having them.[/quote]
He didn’t say they shouldn’t have them. He said he prefers they don’t. There’s a huge difference. I think women shouldn’t be allowed to vote by law. I’d prefer stupid people not vote. Big difference.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I think he probably understand this since his mom was a single mom living in the ghetto.
[/quote]
Then he should realize that 120 lbs mama with her fists or even a baseball bat is no match for Big Daddy at 240 lbs with a knife or gun. Her semi-auto anything tends to even the odds.
In fact, in the broad scope of things, you can follow the course of history and individual freedom has risen in direct correlation to individual firearm ownership.
Freedom in the ghetto would also increase if mama had a semi-auto and could put 14 rounds through the front door when daddy came huntin’ with blood in his eyes.
[/quote]
Absolutely.
Give her a semi-auto with 14 rounds, shit would correct itself rather quickly. This is the best rant I might have ever come across on this subject.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Push, I think you’re extrapolating a bit much out of that one short quote. I’m sure his stance will be fleshed out on the issue soon enough. [/quote]
I think Carson would be a disaster as both a candidate and, if by some miracle he won, as president, but his Second Amendment views re: different rules for different areas because of different needs (urban versus rural) isn’t out of the mainstream. That distinction has always been there in policy, even prior to the Second Amendment being nationalized. There’s nothing radical about that position, even if you (proverbial you) don’t like it.
It might turn off a few, but his other issues are far greater than that.