TexasCHLforum.com

jason812 wrote:TT, I don't know how you are so high on both Trump and Hilliary. I'm 96 Castle, 93 Trump, 89 Johnson and 2 for her majesty. Guess it's safe to say she won't be getting my vote, unless I die before the election, then she will get my vote 3 times.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

TexasTornado wrote:

parabelum wrote:TT,

Mr.Blanker is just trying to agitate. I'd just ignore him.

I'm not agitated at all. Not even my party that he's making look juvenile and foolish.

I'm one of those independent things nobody seems to believe Trump brings to the party.

Let me start by saying that, while my personal opinions are largely informed by my spiritual faith, I fully recognize that this is not necessarily the case for a lot of people (thank God for the 1st Amendment!); but my worldview colors what follows:

I'm an independent too, and you're right......a certain number of independents who have not wanted republican membership will support Trump. The problem is this...... Independents now make up something like 43% of the electorate (LINKY) and that is higher than it has ever been before......and some independents vote democrat too. Independents elected Obama. Historically, the democrat party has outnumbered the republican party in terms of registered voters, but registered republicans turned out in greater numbers to vote than registered democrats - which made for close election results, regardless of which party won the POTUS race. It also points to republicans being generally more politically active and less apathetic than democrats. But both parties are bleeding members and losing them primarily to the independent fold, and I expect the number of independents to continue growing as the major parties continue to lose relevance for their more traditional bases.

But this election cycle is different than any I can recall in my 46 years of being a registered voter.....and only partly because Trump is a nominee. It seems pretty apparent to me (and probably a lot of other folks too) that a significant percentage of republicans have become so disenchanted with the direction their party has taken that they're not inclined any longer to take direction from or believe what they're told by their party's elites. In fact, I think that Trump's candidacy is - for better or for worse - is exactly a symptom of this discontentment with the party's direction. A lot of people, myself included, left the party after the 2012 election and became independents.

My personal political values lean toward the (small "L") libertarian, but I'm not a libertarian party member, nor do I have any intention of joining that party. I was a registered democrat for 23 years before joining the republican party in 1993, so twice burned, twice shy. I'm done with parties, because they have become more about the accrual of power than they are about proclaiming a set of standards (the talk), and then defending those standards (walking the talk).

My personal social values lean toward the conservative and are informed by my faith. But, there was a time when I thought of the republican party as the best political repository of that combination of libertarian political and conservative social values that I cleave to. I no longer believe that to be the case about the republican party. I know for a fact that I'm not the only one who feels this way. FWIW, the democrat party is in a mirror image of that same same boat, which explains the rise of the Bernie Bros......but I don't really care what happens to democrats if their party goes down the tubes. I DO care about what happens to republicans when their party goes down the tubes, because for all of its flaws as a party, republican ideals are still closer to my personal set of beliefs than that crap the dems are selling. If only the republican party still promoted and defended those ideals.

Regardless of how you or I or any other independents vote, one thing seems certain: the party elites for both of the major parties are directly responsible for the current state of their parties, and this is why independents now make up as much as 43% of the electorate. I've never seen the republican party as divided as it is today. But despite any ongoing tensions between the Bernie Bros and the Hillary Hagiographers, the party rebels are mostly unifying behind their candidate, even if she wasn't their first choice. For all of her many faults, Clinton is much closer to being a traditional democrat than Trump resembles a traditional republican. In fact, my observation is that Trump is the least "republican" candidate that party has ever produced, and consequently the traditional republican base is finding it very hard to unify and rally behind him.

One of the complaints I hear against him is that Trump was a democrat for most of his political life. Well, people change. When I registered as a republican in 1993, I had been a democrat for all of my political life up to that point. So I don't have a problem believing that Trump might have changed, but the problem is, "changed into what"? He certainly hasn't morphed into a traditional republican. As Ronald Reagan once famously said, "I didn't leave the democrat party, it left me". In my own case, I hadn't changed so much as the republican party had changed. And that is why I reregistered as an independent after the 2012 election. The republican party changed.......and I think that Trump's candidacy is proof of that.

So IF I decide to vote for Trump in November, it will NOT be motivated by any loyalty I feel to a party, but purely based on whether or not I can make myself pinch my nostrils closed in the voting booth. The one thing I know is this......Tuesday, November 8 is still 2-1/2 months away. Until then, I am under no obligation to declare in advance for whom I will vote. I will be considering all angles prayerfully, and seeking God's guidance first and foremost, and then I will make my decision on that day. But this is for absolute certain: IF I vote for Trump, it will not be motivated out of a spirit of fear over what will happen if I don't, but rather motivated by Holy Spirit - whose authority is sovereign over all things. God can use, and has used in the past, unrighteous people to accomplish His purposes, for His own glory. I have absolutely no faith in Trump being a righteous man. In fact, I believe he is more or less the opposite of righteous. So if Holy Spirit leads me to vote for Trump, it will be because He has told me that He will be using Trump for His purposes, and not for any other reason. I'm still waiting for that particular message from the Lord, but my decision will not be motivated out of a spirit of fear over the consequences of not voting for him.

The Apostle Paul wrote:Romans 8:15 (ESV)
For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry "Abba! Father!"

2 Timothy 1:7
for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control

Personally, I think we may be under God's judgement at this point in our history, and even a Trump victory isn't going to delay or avert that judgement.

I realize that these views are my own, and I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just sharing my thoughts.

dale blanker wrote:

TexasTornado wrote:I'm glad to hear that there is a circumstance where you can accept a woman who let honorable men die on her watch and not only did NOTHING, but also lied to their families. I'm so happy that you'll be able to sleep at night while every man and woman in uniform is subjected to that special brand of leadership because you've determined that a Republican Senate is good enough.

Again, my point is still that a Republican Senate is better than the nothing we're heading for.

I don't enjoy defending Hillary who I've already referred to as "the pits". There's plenty to dislike about her and her emails and her rationalizing about her emails but you go too far.

From Politifact:
On lying to the families:
"It is impossible to know with certainty what Clinton told these families in brief conversations at a private reception only three days after Benghazi. Some, but not all, family members who have spoken to the media said Clinton mentioned a video or protests in their meeting. Some said she didn’t mention a video. Clinton says she did not.

If she did say something about the video, would it have been an intentional lie? It’s very possible that this is one of the many conflicting pieces of intelligence that the administration was working with at the time.

There simply is not enough concrete information in the public domain for Rubio or anyone to claim as fact that Clinton did or did not lie to the Benghazi families."

On Security:
"Clinton has been investigated thoroughly by the House Committee, most recently at a Benghazi hearing in October (by then, she was a presidential nominee). While it could have stood to tarnish her presidential campaign, she staved off overly inflated accusations that seemed to fit the Republican narrative of the story — that she was the most responsible, and was negligent to respond properly.

Clinton was able to deflect responsibility for initially incorrect assessments of the motivation of the attack, stating the State Department was relying on information from the intelligence community," Mic's Stefan Becket wrote. "

parabelum wrote:TT,

Mr.Blanker is just trying to agitate. I'd just ignore him.

dale blanker wrote:

mojo84 wrote: Your last post paints a different picture than your previous comments. What good does it do to publicly bash Trump and paint him in a light that he is worse than Hillary if you are really concerned about republican races and congressional influence?
Whether I agree with you or not doesn't effect the fallacy of your reasoning behind publicly bashing Trump while promoting Hillary.

I guess you're partly right, I'm bashing Trump mainly because I think he is a lost cause and taking our Republican Party down the drain. It should have been easy to beat Hillary but he's blowing it. And yes I've decided I can tolerate Hillary if we have a Republican Senate. I think I have been consistent in my posts, supporting the Republican Party. The Republican party is not perfect but way better than the alternative. Too bad you can't see it.

dale blanker wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

dale blanker wrote: Hillary is the pits but Trump is beyond words. I'm amazed that anyone still takes Trump seriously.

You don't think Hillary is beyond words and you take her seriously?

Why do you not ever apply your "reasoning" to your positions? How about voting how you are going to vote and stop kicking the ant pile with the anti Trump rhetoric?

Well, my reasoning is: Hillary is very likely to be president so let's salvage the other elective offices by working hard to get Republicans elected. Then, with a Republican Senate, Hillary can only do so much harm - especially when picking SCOTUS prospects. My fear is that Republican candidates who endorse Trump will lose trying to explain what Trump really means.

How's my reasoning, even if you don't agree with it?

bblhd672 wrote:

dale blanker wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:

dale blanker wrote: Republican loss of POTUS and Senate control would be much worse than Hillary with a Democrat Senate, don't ya' think???

Actually they are the same thing.

Whoops, my bad. Thanks.

What I meant to say is.. without a Republican Senate things could really get nasty with Hillary as president.
I'm afraid Trump is taking the Republican Party down in flames. I hope I'm wrong.

It could be argued that the Republican Party is taking themselves down in flames by ignoring the will of the people who elected them based upon their campaign promises.

dale blanker wrote:

parabelum wrote:Mr. Blanker,

Stop trolling on with anti-Trump malarkey.

I thought I was being pro-Republican and pro-2A and being realistic. I haven't suggested not voting for Trump - of course we have to do that - but let's not look like we really support him. I think congressional candidates would have a better chance of success in November if they didn't appear to endorse Trump. Clear?

parabelum wrote:Mr. Blanker,

Stop trolling on with anti-Trump malarkey.

dale blanker wrote:

TexasTornado wrote:

Beiruty wrote:You may not secure Trump win but at any cost we need to keep lock on House and Senate.

The same Republican house and Senate that has given in to everything Obama has put in front of them? The same congress that didn't end Obama Care, or the Iran treaty? The same Congress that lowered military funding...again?

I get not liking Trump, even despising him, but a vote against Trump IS a vote for Hillary and more of the same Obama administration abuses of power.

Controlling Congress but not POTUS is like grabbing a snake by the tail, it may not get away, but you're still going to get bit.

Hey, wait, what? Didn't McConnell put a hold on Senate approval for Obama's pick to SCOTUS? Doesn't the Senate have to approve the SCOTUS (and cabinet) nominee any more?

Of course doing the other things you mention require bigger Republican majorities in Congress.

Republican loss of POTUS and Senate control would be much worse than Hillary with a Democrat Senate, don't ya' think???

Hillary is the pits but Trump is beyond words. I'm amazed that anyone still takes Trump seriously.

Beiruty wrote:You may not secure Trump win but at any cost we need to keep lock on House and Senate.