Can someone please educate me on Obama/Romney

Status
Not open for further replies.
My post disappead AGAIN!

Re mtncreek

Im more comfortable letting the current admin run the clock out as a lame duck for four more years and trying again. than I am locking in at least 8 more of under an anti. Whomever runs against a sitting Romney is gonna be anti too.

I take the long view. If you set precident that an openly anti can get elected on the Republican ticket NEVER AGAIN will you see a pro 2a choice from EITHER party
 
Last edited:
I hope this threaded doesn't get closed. Come election time I'm going to have to live with my decision and reading peoples thoughts are interesting and informative, whether backed by info or not.
 
Yes if there is some latent 3rd party candidate that is going to run the board please let us know.
The 2 front runners are all we have IMO and history has shown that election can be turned by 3rd partys running strong on either side, let Nader screw it up again.
I am not opposed to the concept but it needs to be played out early in the cycle long before Nov.
 
January 2013, either President Obama or Mr. Romney will be sworn in as president. Given the choice, who do you feel more comfortable with regarding 2A rights?[/QUOTE

Neither I'm writing in Dwayne Johnson. Rock the vote by voting the Rock.
Click to expand...
 
The only positive we can salvage from this situation is to utterly reject what our broken primary and Republican party has given us in such a resounding way it doesn't happen again
 
For some reason when I quote you it chops off my reply.

Understood

I really don't think it matters anyway. On the pure politics I don't think Romney can beat Obama. Especially if you look at an electoral map.
 
Incidentally, the huge gulf between what's documented here, and the position of "factcheck.org" pretty much shreds the last bit of factcheck credibility.
 
EVIL 1, AND EVIL2. take your pick, neither of them have the general populations best interest, or the best interest of the country in mind. it is all about "leaving their mark" on the land. so they can be remembered in infamy. personally, if the tea party held a news conference, and threw a dart at a national map, determined the exact location of who's land the dart landed on, and sent them up for president, i would vote for that person, who ever it turned out to be. if enough people did that, and "Joe American" was elected, at least it would be a break from the "business as usual", and turn this country on its head. maybe then, the major parties would rethink their priorities a little. and try to what was right for this country, instead of their wallets. realistically, it would be hard to do a lot worse than the disgusting, crooked politicians that have been coming down the pike for the last 20 years.
 
mljdeckard said:
Seriously, who would you Romney grumblers rather have picking all federal judges for the next four years?
Click to expand...

Not worried about it.

All the judges most likely to retire were all in the dissent on Heller and we have absolutely O garentee Romney appointments would be any better.

Relax the sky is not falling.

How do you Romney apologists justify never having another pro 2 a Republican candidate. How do we get judges with pro 2a beliefs if every presidential candidate hereafter is anti?
 
Not just Supreme Cour judges. ALL federal judges. This is the pool from which most Sumreme Court judges are chosen. Federal judge choces have influence for DECADES. You are thinking of the next four years, but the next round of Supreme Court judges will likely be sitting for the next thirty years. You are playing checkers, they are playing chess.

And NO, Romney's judge picks will NOT be the same as Obama's. Where could you POSSIBLY get that conclusion from? Have you been paying ANY attention AT ALL to the people Obama has been nominating for judge seats?

Obama is solidly anti. Romney is reluctant grudgingly pro. To say otherwise is straight hyperbole.
 
Sigh.

Anyone who throws away one of our greatest rights by not voting astounds me.

Those who do not vote this time around are making a grave error and need to keep any whining about "problems" thereafter to themselves for the next four years. I do not want to hear it from people who will not pony up and vote.
 
Romney is way worse than Obama. He is actively anti gun owner. Obama's Senate voting record is not indicative of his actual stance because he was so junior he was voting as he was told by his leadership...which was Feinstein and what's her name, the former speaker lady...I've blanked here out of my mind...Pelosi.

Obama is a constitutional lawyer. It is my belief, the firmness of which varies, that he'll stay away from gun control because he knows what the 2nd Amendment really means. Romney doesn't care what it means. He's a big finance businessman and laws don't mean much to them. The law means something to Obama. You gotta remember, the President is not an Island. Sure, he's only got one re-election to get through. As a whole the Democrats have 3 they gotta get through in the same space of time (2012, 2014, and 2016 when the White House opens up again). If Obama goes and does what the NRA says he's gonna do, which is get elected and go wild with gun control, he's gonna loose seats for the congressmen needed to do other things on the Democrat party agenda. So for that reason, I believe he will not go down a strident gun control path.

On gun control, I believe, again firmness in doubt, Obama to be the lesser of the two evils. Other "liberal" vs. "conservative" issues perhaps the equation is different.
 
Hoosier, No way. Not at all. His personal beliefs are NOT the thing keeping him from having intruduced new gun laws. The ONLY thing that has prevented it were the Democrats in congress who signed a letter saying they would vote against any new gun laws, and Harry Reid as speaker. NOTHING else has prevented him from introducing new legislation.
 
He has so much respect for the rule of law, he bypassed congress to implement parts of the Dream Act after specifically saying he couldn't because it was illegal. He has so much respect for due process of law that he invoked executive privilege to prevent all of us from finding out exactly how he is involved in the Fast and Furious scandal. He follows exactly as much of the law as he feels can get away with.
 
HoosierQ said:
Obama is a constitutional lawyer. It is my belief, the firmness of which varies, that he'll stay away from gun control because he knows what the 2nd Amendment really means.
Click to expand...

Prior to the Heller decision, President Obama said that he "believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional." (Source: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/06/obama-camp-disa/)

Shortly before the Heller decision came out as he ramped up his campaign for national office, he changed his tune by saying ""Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence."" and declined to answer whether the D.C. law was constitutional in his view.

So, unless you believe that a security guard in D.C. can't keep a loaded .22LR revolver in his own home for self-defense, it is difficult to square your argument that President Obama "knows what the Second Amendment really means" with his past statements and actions.

The law means something to Obama.
Click to expand...

Well, creating a requirement to do multiple-sales reports of semi-automatic rifles out of thin air is an odd way to show respect for the law concerning firearms. Proposing a sporting purposes test for shotguns that would make large numbers of domestic shotguns into NFA-registered destructive devices is also not in line with that idea.
 
Yes seriously. The man's a lawyer and he understands the constitution. So, yes, serioulsy the man understands the law and the constitution and right there in the Bill of Rights is the 2nd Amendment. That is a huge hurdle that will cost his party a lot of votes if he messes with it. You gotta remember, gun control is not a partisan issue. Lot's of Democrats with A+ NRA ratings, and plenty of Republicans with F ratings. The President with a the Democrat party can loose elections for a lot of people besides himself. It happened with Clinton who really was an anti-gun President, and anti-gun person (and yes, I know, he was a lawyer too). He fooled around with the AWB and lost his butt for his own party...and got himself impeached in the process, if not convicted. He made enemies of liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, and a lot of the American people and a huge part of that was his strident gun control stance.

So yes, Obama is the lesser of these two evils here. No the man's not personally pro-gun, and is probably personally anti-gun. As a politician, he's gonna pay it some lip service and otherwise stay away from it. Now I will concede the Romney has even more to loose by taking a gun control stance but he has proven, as a politician, to be anti-gun there in Mass.

And despite what he might have believed, Heller passed.

Now let me be clear, before the tar and feathers come out. We are talking lesser of two evils here. Not "good choice" vs. "bad choice" from our perspective. Neither is a good choice for us. Neither cares about our position instictively like say the Bush's, Reagan, Barry Goldwater bless his heart...guys like that. None of our choices are good.

Give me somebody besides Romney, and I'd throw the current administration to the wolves. If this were a healthcare forum (which it ain't) you'd be hearing a very diffferent song out of me. I'm in healthcare and all this legislation isn't going to help. That's because nobody in Washington understands healthcare and there is nothing in the constitution about it to guide anybody.

Lesser of two evils is all I am saying. Romney is not it. Barry Goldwater is dead. James Baker is probably 92 years old. Cap Wienberger is dead. Gingrich is an idiot. Not much to choose from. 2012 is going to be a sad day because nobody who wins is going to be any damn good at all.
 
Last edited:
I could alway be wrong of course mind you. I guess we'll see. I wish I could say I hope "you're" right. But right about what? That's the thing. Right that Obama is a terrible monster whose gonna take away everybody's guns? Well I don't want "you" to be right about that! So that leaves us with Romney doesn't it...Ron Paul I suppose. Haven't heard much good said about Romney have we? None. He's a Republican...so what. So was Richard Lugar, NRA=F. So sure, maybe I'm wrong and the lesser of the two evils is Romney. Well that get's us nowhere does it because he's rotten to the core too...probably crooked.

If it makes anybody feel better, I'll will be voting and I'll be voting against the current administration because of a series of other issues that are of greater concern to me that the current administrations stance on gun control. So maybe, I should just bow out since the point is rather moot from my perspective. I suppose unless we vote for Ron Paul, who I am not sure will make it on the ballot here, we're gonna be voting for a candidate nobody is going to be comfortable with from the gun perspective. It's just how it came down and it sucks.
 
At the same time, what is the likelihood that the perfect candidate will EVER exist? Even Ronald Reagan dropped the ball on gun rights a couple of times. (And I believe Ron Paul to be far from perfect.)

We could ask if I am the one being naive, and Romney will come into office, and the first time an anti-gun law gets attached to a law he wants REALLY bad, he will sign it. I just don't see that. Even if he is entirely ambivalent about gun rights, the climate is much different than when he was in MA. He was in a climate where he was a republican governor in a Democrat state, and he had to do some bending to keep THAT constituency happy. (Not saying it was right, just saying that is why he did it.) Also, back then, we as gun owners were poorly organized and not internet savvy at all. That has certainly changed. Then also remember, the same factors that would keep Obama from passing new gun laws (pro-gun dems in congress and Reid leading the senate,) will likely STILL be in place if Romney takes office. Obama has a strong anti-gun demographic in his base to whom he is STILL making excuses for not having been more active in gun laws. Romney doesn't. He is the opposite, trying to convince a conservative base that he really is more conservative than he was in MA. He is trying to prove himself in the OTHER direction.

With everything else off the table, I still refer to Obama's conversation with John Lott. I think he has wanted to ban guns all of his adult life, and I see nothing in his entire career that shows anything to the contrary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Romney admits hunting only twice
Replies
9
Views
2K
spocahp anar
S
X
  • Locked
Romney, a Second Amendment Killer?
Replies
2
Views
408
TonyB
T
Trent
  • Locked
Obama - the real message.
2 3
Replies
63
Views
3K
Trent
Trent
M
  • Locked
Mitt Romney's On Fox TV Now
Replies
0
Views
437
madcowburger
M
I
  • Locked
  • Poll
Is Obama pushing you to get into NFA items?
Replies
4
Views
517
Jeff White
J
Back
Top