TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:

VMI77 wrote:Is Fiorina Obama-lite?

Fiorina's Leftist Connections: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=366&v=P3w7qI7z7uE

Is the producer credible or is he Alex Jones-lite?

I don't think he's an Alex Jones type. Karl Denninger features his videos from time to time and Denninger is definitely not an Alex Jones type.

Is Fiorina Obama-lite?

Fiorina's Leftist Connections: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=366&v=P3w7qI7z7uE

flechero wrote:I've learned a lot about our membership by reading this thread.... perhaps more than I wanted to.

The reason I feel like we're doomed again- the whole conservative population seems to tear down candidates we don't like, rather than championing the people/ideas we do like. It simply poisons them all.

No, we're doomed because the GOP sabotages actual conservative candidates like Ted Cruz. A party that purports to be conservative and then champions someone like Mitch McConnell as their Senate leader is a fraud. What people are rebelling against is that fraud and that's why someone like Trump, who may just be pretending to be conservative, is leading the pack

mojo84 wrote:It all depends who is asked.

http://www.empowertexans.com/features/s ... witterfeed

Sure it does but wouldn't you expect a poll of Texans to produce a different result than a national poll? Even in this poll Trump was right behind Cruz with 30%. I like Cruz, but in every other poll I've seen he's nowhere near the 32% of this poll......the video I linked to cites other polls, some of which were apparently random sample polls....all of them put Trump #1, and Fiorina #2 at about the same ratio.

Also, I'll point out ...this poll has a sample size of roughly 3300. Last time I looked at the Drudge poll there were 659,000 votes with Trump at 52%. At least one of the other polls cited in the video had a roughly 16,000 vote sample size, and its results were similar to the Drudge results. This non-debate debate was obviously intended to knock Trump out of the lead, and I don't think was intended to boost Fiorina, but so far at least it looks like the RNC isn't getting its desired results.

puma guy wrote:

C-dub wrote:How's she looking today? She seems to have done quite well last night.

It will probably be a couple of days until there's a poll that reflects the last debate. I think Donald Trumps performance will have a negative effect as there was nothing substantive in his answers. What he dished out is like when the wind blows his comb over to expose an empty pate.

According to the Drudge poll, Trump won the debate with 52% of the vote. Fiorina was second with 22%.....so maybe not. Next highest was Rubio with 7%. It's not "scientific" but over 650,000 votes so far, so who knows how accurately it reflects voter opinion.


https://polldaddy.com/poll/9081166/?view=results

Edited to add:

I've now seen several other polls on the non-debate debate and the Drudge results are similar to all of them. In one poll where the question was who do you think will win the nomination Trump was on top with 58% and Jeb in second with 15%.

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=230676

J.R.@A&M wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

ShootDontTalk wrote:...A case can be made that electing the absolute worst candidate will produce more change faster because it will drive the system into the inevitable collapse sooner, when more people are prepared to do something about it...

I think it is very important not to make this case in a vague sort of way. If you think it is even remotely valid, you better make it very explicitly. And while you are doing it, you better contemplate the implications for 2nd Amendment rights. A democratic POTUS reinforces a liberal SCOTUS.

I'm not going to make an explicit case on here. One reason is that even if I did and it was a good one, I still have no certainty that it would provide the "best" outcome. I don't know what the best way forward is but at the same time I'm not convinced it matters all that much. I think we're past the point of no return by practically every measure. Voting in a Republican because he's slightly less toxic than a Hillary is not going to overcome decades of public school and college indoctrination. GWB and a Republican Congress helped put us where we are economically and is only second to Obama at increasing the national debt. GWB presided over the "Patriot Act" and the imposition of the surveillance state.

But on the question of 2nd Amendment rights.....we all should expect to face the fact that eventually the Feds are going to try to eliminate them, and it's probably not going to matter much when the next SC lackey is appointed. There are plenty of anti-gun wackos on the Republican side and the chances of a Republican president getting someone like Scalia confirmed are probably pretty slim. Widespread door-to-door gun confiscation is extremely unlikely. That didn't even happen in the UK and Australia. You can still own some types of guns in the UK, they're just highly restricted. MORE important than what kind of guns you can own is the right to use them in self-defense. That right was extinguished in the UK. We're not on the verge of that happening in the US, but that is likely to be gradually eliminated before any widespread gun bans.

The first recourse is with the States. The Feds pass, say, another assault weapons ban, and the individual states like Texas state categorically that the law doesn't apply in their state --otherwise we're lost and headed down the same path as the UK. Like the residents of New York, all of us at some point are going to be forced to decide whether we obey a draconian gun law or not. OTOH, even with a change in the disposition of the court, I'm not so sure it will be that easy to overturn the 2nd Amendment precedent that has already been established, so any anti-gun measures will probably remain around the margins for quite some time. Expanding the definition of "mental illness" will probably be at the forefront of those efforts. After all, if you oppose Obama's policies, you must be a racist, and racism is a form of mental illness, is it not?

This all presupposes a continuation of more or less the same path we're on now. If something catastrophic happens, like an economic collapse with lots of ensuing violence and chaos, there will be very little support for gun control measures for at least another generation.

ShootDontTalk wrote:Well I agree with you to a point, and it is just this, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Me just sitting back and letting my grandkids and great grandkids fight this fight is just not acceptable in my view. First, it may be too late for them to win by then, and second, I'm not willing to let the liberals win because I can't have everything my way. At this point in time, I'd settle for a 50% improvement. YMMV

I don't disagree, I just don't believe selecting one oligarch candidate over another is actually doing anything. I don't know what you would consider a 50% improvement but no meaningful improvement is possible at the national level under the current system. A case can be made that electing the absolute worst candidate will produce more change faster because it will drive the system into the inevitable collapse sooner, when more people are prepared to do something about it. Poor people and rich people aren't going to do anything to change the system in the way we want it changed because they benefit from it. The objective of the ruling class is to eliminate the middle class because that is the only group that has the incentive and the resources to make the kind of changes you and I want to make.

However, the bulk of the middle class is still in the grip of normalcy bias. The longer the charade goes on the smaller and more impoverished the middle class will be. The modus operandi of the left is gradualism. We're the proverbial frogs in the pot. Ruling class overreach....too much too fast....is the only thing likely to shock the middle class into action. The Federal government is a liberty swallowing leviathan. The withdrawal of consent is about the only tool we've got, but a lot of people have to withdraw their consent for it to be effective. The only way I see this happening is by states simply withdrawing consent by ignoring the Feds. That means not taking Federal tax dollars to start. When the Feds pass a law, states simply ignore it and refuse to enforce it.....already happening with marijuana laws and some gun laws in states like Wyoming.

For instance, if the Feds require a city to social engineer neighborhood demographics their only real power to make it happen is money. Local and state governments need to start saying no and refusing the Federal dollars. In some places, like the People's Republics, that isn't going to happen and probably can't happen. But it's not going to happen any place unless enough people in the middle class say enough is enough and start acting at the local level. The system is rigged to neuter opposition at the national level. The only way anything is going to change is from the bottom up, starting in towns and cities and reverberating up to the state level.

ShootDontTalk wrote:

VMI77 wrote: Given that the recent election put GOP majorities in both houses and they immediately betrayed those of us who voted for them and have been steadily advancing the Obama agenda ever since, what meaningful difference do you think it would have made, or will make? If any of the current candidates are honest and show any chance of getting the nomination the GOP establishment will knee cap them. No honest candidate that will actually try to change anything has any chance of getting the GOP nomination. And that assumes that he could change anything with a GOP Congress that has been carrying water for Obama. I have to agree with GWB when he said, fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, won't get fooled again.

So who would you suggest the next occupant of the WH be? Are you saying the alternative is Hillary, Uncle Joe, or comrade Bernie?

I'm not happy with the GOP leadership either. But I fully believe another 8 years of someone as incompetent and with as little disregard for the American people and the Constitution as BHO will lead to a civil war, or reveloutionary war. Not just civil disobedience, but the full understanding of the safeguard the 2nd Amendment provides. I don't really relish my great grandkids having to endure that. I just hope there is a candidate that can channel all the seething, just beneath the surface anger back into hope for the future. Maybe I'm just a dreamer and it is too late? You tell me.

Boy do I ever miss Ronald Reagan.

I responded yesterday but apparently I didn't get the submission right and it didn't post......not the first time I've done that. I'm pretty much like TAM above except I am totally pessimistic and cynical. I think we're in a nose dive, the control surfaces have jammed, and all the pilots are partying in the back of the plane. Actually, no, that's too generous. We're on that Lufthansa flight about to crash into the mountain and the pilot (the ruling class) has locked anyone who can take control and avert the crash out of the cockpit.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I am one of those who, last time around, strongly advised my (then) fellow republicans to hold their noses and vote republican. I am no longer a republican. I completely understand the electoral college math. But honestly, I'm not sure I care that much anymore.

What was it that Davey Crockett is supposed to have said.......something along the lines of "You can all go to hades, I'm going to Texas"? That is pretty much how I feel about politicians these days. Pretty much all of them. I am more discouraged today than I've ever been. When my own former party makes the likes of Boehner Speaker of the House, and the likes of McConnell Senate Majority Leader, why on earth should I have any faith in the republican party to do the right thing? Neither of those two clowns are any better than Reid and Pelosi.....if transparency and paying heed to the grassroots have any meaning at all. I know whom I was impressed with in the first debate, and whom I was disgusted with. Time will tell and shake them out.....and we'll get down to a small enough number of candidates that we can tell who stands for what. But if the republican party, nationally, can elect clowns like Boehner and McConnell, then they can easily come up with a Trump/Bush ticket..........and that is some scary stuff.

So this year, I'm going to mind my own business, and vote how I want to vote, and keep my vote to myself. I sure as heck am not going to let anyone try to scare me into voting for an inferior candidate, because I'm askeered of his opponent, and I most heartily apologize for having done the same to others in the last two elections.

ShootDontTalk wrote:

J.R.@A&M wrote: We Texans have a philosophical luxury in that all Texas electoral votes will likely go to the GOP candidate, regardless of how or whether any of us vote.

But if the above sentiment came from a conservative in Ohio or Florida, I would say that it doesn't matter if you would never vote for a democrat. Not voting for the GOP candidate will help elect Hillary Clinton. Mind you, I will not presume to question the preferences of any woman or man, especially an annoyed man. I'm just talking about the electoral college math and the SCOTUS math.

At this stage, almost anybody would be infinitely better for the republic than what we've had the last two terms. I also think a lot of people who didn't actually see the danger in BHO helped to get him elected by saying Romney would have made such a poor president. I don't know how they voted, but every vote counts ultimately. And I seem to remember lots of posts on here about how nobody should vote for a candidate like Romney. I wonder if anyone who actually believed that feels really good about where we are right now?

Given that the recent election put GOP majorities in both houses and they immediately betrayed those of us who voted for them and have been steadily advancing the Obama agenda ever since, what meaningful difference do you think it would have made, or will make? If any of the current candidates are honest and show any chance of getting the nomination the GOP establishment will knee cap them. No honest candidate that will actually try to change anything has any chance of getting the GOP nomination. And that assumes that he could change anything with a GOP Congress that has been carrying water for Obama. I have to agree with GWB when he said, fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, won't get fooled again.

stroo wrote:I didn't have any problems with the site when I pulled it up using firefox.

Carly is my candidate this year. She checks all of my policy position boxes, is a fighter and comes off as very knowledgeable. Cruz also checks all my policy position boxes but comes off as a little smarmy. I don't know if she can win, but I think she made real strides forward in the debates.

And you're running No-Script? If you're not running No-Script you're probably not going to see any of the stuff I'm talking about.

The message is appreciated but the website it's hosted on is horrible...with cross-site scripting, a boat-load of pop ups, and oodles of tracking cookies. Running Firefox with No-Script I got more than a full page of garbage....42 items on the No-Script block list --about half of which I had to allow to see the video. By comparison I get 5 block list items on an actual commercial website that is directly selling something, like HEB, 5 on Cabela's site, 6 on Walmart, and 4 on Amazon.

The Annoyed Man wrote:.particularly when the DNC chairperson can't/won't even articulate a difference between a democrat and a socialist.

Be fair now...it's hard to articulate a difference that doesn't exist. About the only accurate thing she could have said was that Democrats are not Socialists but aspiring Marxists, and that might not have played too well.