Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 94

Thread: Possible 3rd party in 2020 election?

  1. #46
    Asst. Administrator Rep Power: 100
    Reputation: 15254
    Rep Level: PDF Bronze Member
    ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 27th, 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,024
    Threads
    328
    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1585 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If 2A is not even one of the pillars of the COS movement, I am surprised you would be for it. I would not be. If they are not going to strengthen IA and 2A, the whole thing is a sham.
    To my knowledge, a Convention of States isn't required to have a platform, pillars or agenda. It'll start that way, since it's hard to get such a thing convened without having some idea of what's being planned. But, sure as the sun rises, numerous proposals will come out of the woodwork soon after convening. And I'm sure that RKBA/2A-related proposals will be among them.

    Plenty of areas to knock down, to strengthen, to reiterate/clarify. I have a hard time seeing how valid proposals wouldn't come along in most "key" areas that have been wrangled over in the past decade or two. (RKBA, abortion, equal rights, "national" debt, taxation, "war" powers, term limits/conditions, etc.)
    Cardinal principle: Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Philosophy: Why the Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
    On the RKBA: Most of what you think you know about our Constitution is wrong -- Michael Badnarik

  2. #47
    Member Rep Power: 0
    Reputation: 100
    Rep Level: PDF Range Member
    billt's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 20th, 2017
    Location
    Glendale, Arizona
    Posts
    114
    Threads
    3
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    117 Post(s)
    Democratic third party = Trump second term guaranteed. Remember, the greatest supporter Bill Clinton ever had was Ross Perot.

  3. #48
    Senior Member Rep Power: 5
    Reputation: 3067
    Rep Level: PDF Militia
    jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 28th, 2016
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,340
    Threads
    66
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    315 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    To my knowledge, a Convention of States isn't required to have a platform, pillars or agenda. It'll start that way, since it's hard to get such a thing convened without having some idea of what's being planned. But, sure as the sun rises, numerous proposals will come out of the woodwork soon after convening. And I'm sure that RKBA/2A-related proposals will be among them.

    Plenty of areas to knock down, to strengthen, to reiterate/clarify. I have a hard time seeing how valid proposals wouldn't come along in most "key" areas that have been wrangled over in the past decade or two. (RKBA, abortion, equal rights, "national" debt, taxation, "war" powers, term limits/conditions, etc.)
    Here's the problem I see. If there were such a convention, what are the possibilities that things would turn out like we would want? I am not talking about a "runaway" convention, I am just talking about the trend toward liberal progressivism winning out on more points than people with true libertarian views. Personally, I like our Constitution the way it is. I think it's a brilliant document. I can't see today's political actors having what it takes to improve on it.

    The problem is the government is not following the Constitution we have. Who is to say the government would follow the improved one any better? I see the probability of unintended consequences to be very high.

    To me the solution is not to say COTUS is broken. The public is always looking for some "one and done" It is to take responsibility for the fact that we, the people, are not using it to its best advantage. When we have such low turnout at the polls, how can we expect any constitution to be effective? The government is the way it is because the voters let it get that way. In any system of government that elects its leaders, that will always be so.

  4. #49
    Moderator of the Universe Rep Power: 20
    Reputation: 23836
    Rep Level: PDF Silver Member
    jeanlouise's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 27th, 2016
    Location
    In Wild and Wonderful
    Posts
    9,748
    Threads
    387
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    2197 Post(s)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost1958 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Agreed. And the people can vote them out.

    But the threat of not being elected tends to keep them honest to a point.

    A lame duck that holds any office with much power is more dangerous to our rights than any terrorist group.

    But that threat of not being re-elected keeps people in office by continuing to promise them free stuff, race baiting, sanctuary cities etc.

    Knowing your time in office will be up in 2 years no matter what...maybe some of those people would start voting responsibly because they don't have to fear the masses vote.

  5. #50
    Senior Member Rep Power: 12
    Reputation: 8975
    Rep Level: PDF Constitution Protector
    Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 27th, 2016
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,264
    Threads
    79
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    979 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Here's the problem I see. If there were such a convention, what are the possibilities that things would turn out like we would want? I am not talking about a "runaway" convention, I am just talking about the trend toward liberal progressivism winning out on more points than people with true libertarian views. Personally, I like our Constitution the way it is. I think it's a brilliant document. I can't see today's political actors having what it takes to improve on it.

    The problem is the government is not following the Constitution we have. Who is to say the government would follow the improved one any better? I see the probability of unintended consequences to be very high.

    To me the solution is not to say COTUS is broken. The public is always looking for some "one and done" It is to take responsibility for the fact that we, the people, are not using it to its best advantage. When we have such low turnout at the polls, how can we expect any constitution to be effective? The government is the way it is because the voters let it get that way. In any system of government that elects its leaders, that will always be so.

    I too believe the constitution is perfect.

    Only one amendment need be ratified at a Convention of States. That would be one that put long prison sentences for any government officials seeking to violate it as written.

    Removing a gazillion acres of illegally held Fed land would also be good.

  6. #51
    Senior Member Rep Power: 12
    Reputation: 8975
    Rep Level: PDF Constitution Protector
    Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 27th, 2016
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,264
    Threads
    79
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    979 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jeanlouise View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    But that threat of not being re-elected keeps people in office by continuing to promise them free stuff, race baiting, sanctuary cities etc.

    Knowing your time in office will be up in 2 years no matter what...maybe some of those people would start voting responsibly because they don't have to fear the masses vote.
    Unlikely. One has to assume elected officials in either party respect the COTUS , and want to honor the restrictions it placed on them.

    Problem is , even under threat of being voted out , ZBOTH parties want to disarm the citizenry, give KEW sweeping powers to control the public with intimidation , and steal as,much money and property as possible.

    Term limits would be like taking a badly behaved child to church with the promise that no matter what it does , no punishment will occur.

    If Trump gets a,2nd term, watch him change drastically.

    Obama did the same. He didn't start coming after guns until his 2nd.

    All 2nd term presidents put forth proposals,they would not dare do in their first because they have nothing to lose.

    Term limits is a horrible idea.
    There is the ability to vote the bums out. That's all that needs to be in place on that issue IMO.

  7. #52
    Senior Member Rep Power: 5
    Reputation: 3067
    Rep Level: PDF Militia
    jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 28th, 2016
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,340
    Threads
    66
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    315 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost1958 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I too believe the constitution is perfect.

    Only one amendment need be ratified at a Convention of States. That would be one that put long prison sentences for any government officials seeking to violate it as written.

    Removing a gazillion acres of illegally held Fed land would also be good.
    The first issue will not be solved by some new amendment. That rule is on paper now. Adding new words won't change the fact that it will still be up to government officials what "violating the Constitution" is and isn't.

    The second issue may be important to some, but I don't care about it and I don't think most Americans do either.

    So again, I see the whole thing having no upside, but a lot of possible downsides.

    As to term limits, I just look at the long term damage FDR did to this country, starting us down a socialist path as proof term limits are a good idea. We need fresh blood in government and incumbents get unfair advantages when running for re-election I would not let any politician run for even a second term. If they are popular and still want to make a contribution, they can run for a different office. That would clean out Congress pretty quickly. And as you say, presidents tend to do their worst stuff in their second term. If we move that to a first and only term, at least they will be out sooner.

    One thing, maybe the only thing, I like about the UK government is that any Prime Minister and their cronies, can get a vote of "no confidence" at any time. I think we should have that too. That would keep presidents on their toes!
    Last edited by jmf552; May 14th, 2019 at 08:22 AM.

  8. #53
    Asst. Administrator Rep Power: 100
    Reputation: 15254
    Rep Level: PDF Bronze Member
    ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 27th, 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,024
    Threads
    328
    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1585 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Here's the problem I see. If there were such a convention, what are the possibilities that things would turn out like we would want?
    Given that the mechanism for alteration is the amendment process itself, the only difference would be that it'd occur under the framework of a "convention." Hell, the idjets meet daily in the cesspool, already, and they can hardly agree on a single amendment. That occurs so rarely that there are only 27 of the things, across the 228 years the Constitution has existed.

    So, really, the likelihood a given thing is going to pass muster of two-thirds of the whole Congress and three-fourths of the states is, well, little different than it is now. Not all that likely. And it won't be any more likely simply because a given proposal for an amendment is being floated within a "convention" or on just another Tuesday in Congress.


    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Personally, I like our Constitution the way it is. I think it's a brilliant document. I can't see today's political actors having what it takes to improve on it.
    So do I. On both counts.

    About the only real change I think is needed is: to create very severe "teeth" in the thing, to dissuade bad actors from defilement of the thing. Trouble is, for the life of me, I can't quite come up with the language that'd both uphold the letter and spirit of the Constitution as a whole (along with its Founding, bedrock principles) while avoiding being a weapon to be slung at anyone who dares float an idea for change in the future.

    Outright defilement, too, ain't gonna get agreed upon so long as we've got a Court, a system of courts, and legislatures across the country who are perfectly okay with the concept of defilements that they claim aren't "infringing" on anyone.


    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The problem is the government is not following the Constitution we have. Who is to say the government would follow the improved one any better? I see the probability of unintended consequences to be very high.
    No guarantees either way, of course. No matter what is attempted. I just don't see the floating of an amendment on an average Tuesday as any more or less likely to pass than floating that same amendment concept within a "convention" format. It's still got to pass muster to the tune of 75% of us.


    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    To me the solution is not to say COTUS is broken. The public is always looking for some "one and done" It is to take responsibility for the fact that we, the people, are not using it to its best advantage. When we have such low turnout at the polls, how can we expect any constitution to be effective? The government is the way it is because the voters let it get that way. In any system of government that elects its leaders, that will always be so.
    That's about its only real broken aspect, right there. The mere fact that the foundational, bedrock principles can in fact be defiled daily, undermined to within an inch of their death. That shouldn't be possible, if the checks and guards within the thing disallowed that possibility. But as the Founders showed us, it's damnably difficult to craft phrasing of something in a manner in which a lawyer can't misconstrue the thing out of existence.
    Cardinal principle: Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Philosophy: Why the Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
    On the RKBA: Most of what you think you know about our Constitution is wrong -- Michael Badnarik

  9. #54
    Senior Member Rep Power: 12
    Reputation: 8975
    Rep Level: PDF Constitution Protector
    Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 27th, 2016
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,264
    Threads
    79
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    979 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The first issue will not be solved by some new amendment. That rule is on paper now. Adding new words won't change the fact that it will still be up to government officials what "violating the Constitution" is and isn't.

    The second issue may be important to some, but I don't care about it and I don't think most Americans do either.

    So again, I see the whole thing having no upside, but a lot of possible downsides.

    As to term limits, I just look at the long term damage FDR did to this country, starting us down a socialist path as proof term limits are a good idea. We need fresh blood in government and incumbents get unfair advantages when running for re-election I would not let any politician run for even a second term. If they are popular and still want to make a contribution, they can run for a different office. That would clean out Congress pretty quickly. And as you say, presidents tend to do their worst stuff in their second term. If we move that to a first and only term, at least they will be out sooner.

    One thing, maybe the only thing, I like about the UK government is that any Prime Minister and their cronies, can get a vote of "no confidence" at any time. I think we should have that too. That would keep presidents on their toes!

    The second issue of illegally claimed land by the Fed, was important enough to being 100s of people from all over to send the Fed packing at Bundy ranch.

    To find the Bundys not quilty in Oregon

    To lose their life over.

    May mean nothing to you ,but it does to many many Americans affected by it.

  10. #55
    Member Rep Power: 0
    Reputation: 100
    Rep Level: PDF Range Member
    billt's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 20th, 2017
    Location
    Glendale, Arizona
    Posts
    114
    Threads
    3
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    117 Post(s)
    As far as the, "Never Trumpers". Old man Bush and McCain are dead. And Flake and Jeb are both out of politics, so no one remotely cares what they say. (Not that anyone did when they were still in office). And Bill Krystol's magazine went belly up, because no one wanted to read the anti Trump slop he was trying to shovel on a weekly basis. Let alone pay to read it.

    So the whole, "Never Trump" movement is pretty much dead. It died the day he was elected. As far as Romney, perhaps him and Flake can open up a delicatessen. Then they can shovel slop instead of blabbing it.

  11. #56
    Senior Member Rep Power: 12
    Reputation: 8975
    Rep Level: PDF Constitution Protector
    Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 27th, 2016
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,264
    Threads
    79
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    979 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by billt View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    As far as the, "Never Trumpers". Old man Bush and McCain are dead. And Flake and Jeb are both out of politics, so no one remotely cares what they say. (Not that anyone did when they were still in office). And Bill Krystol's magazine went belly up, because no one wanted to read the anti Trump slop he was trying to shovel on a weekly basis. Let alone pay to read it.

    So the whole, "Never Trump" movement is pretty much dead. It died the day he was elected. As far as Romney, perhaps him and Flake can open up a delicatessen. Then they can shovel slop instead of blabbing it.
    Trump may well win.

    If he does the permissions to bear arms we still have ,and the 4thA will pay dearly in more gun bans, more gun regulation, red flag , stop and frisk and worse.

    Then the Trump faithful can look back and try to excuse him as they do now.

  12. #57
    Moderator of the Universe Rep Power: 20
    Reputation: 23836
    Rep Level: PDF Silver Member
    jeanlouise's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 27th, 2016
    Location
    In Wild and Wonderful
    Posts
    9,748
    Threads
    387
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    2197 Post(s)

    We have term limits for the President, why not for the rest of them?

    Can you imagine Obama getting another 4 or 8 years, because I think he probably would have been reelected in 2016 if he was on the ballot and not Hillary.

  13. #58
    Senior Member Rep Power: 6
    Reputation: 3592
    Rep Level: PDF Militia

    Join Date
    June 28th, 2016
    Location
    Confidential...
    Posts
    1,531
    Threads
    26
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    330 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost1958 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Trump may well win.

    If he does the permissions to bear arms we still have ,and the 4thA will pay dearly in more gun bans, more gun regulation, red flag , stop and frisk and worse.

    Then the Trump faithful can look back and try to excuse him as they do now.

    Of candidates from any party who might have a chance of winning, who do you think would be good for 2A and 4A issues? I'm not suggesting we vote for the lesser of two weasels, I'm just thinking alternatives.

    Thanks!

    John W in SC

  14. #59
    Senior Member Rep Power: 5
    Reputation: 3067
    Rep Level: PDF Militia
    jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 28th, 2016
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,340
    Threads
    66
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    315 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost1958 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The second issue of illegally claimed land by the Fed, was important enough to being 100s of people from all over to send the Fed packing at Bundy ranch.

    To find the Bundys not quilty in Oregon

    To lose their life over.

    May mean nothing to you ,but it does to many many Americans affected by it.
    We have almost 330 million people in the US. "100s" of people is not "many, many" Americans. It is a tiny few.

  15. #60
    Senior Member Rep Power: 5
    Reputation: 3067
    Rep Level: PDF Militia
    jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 28th, 2016
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,340
    Threads
    66
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    315 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John W in SC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Of candidates from any party who might have a chance of winning, who do you think would be good for 2A and 4A issues? I'm not suggesting we vote for the lesser of two weasels, I'm just thinking alternatives.

    Thanks!

    John W in SC
    Well the only candidates who have a chance of winning are Trump and whoever the Dems put up. No one else has a chance. For the Dems, itlooks like it will be Biden, Sanders or Harris at this point. All three are significantly anti gun. Trump is just softer on the RTKABA than we would like. So it is a pretty simple answer.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •