On the first part, voting for anyone who doesn't at least get 20% of the vote- seriously, Mike Rosen said it today, once a 3rd party candidate can get 20% of the vote, it's really not going to do anything. I've said it over and over again today, when your presidential candidate (looking at everyone that voted for Gary Johnson) gets .99% of the vote, and your gubernatorial candidate get's 1.8%, that's not really doing anything. That's like going to a football game with a baseball and saying "to hell with this, two of us are going to play baseball, the other 20 of you can do what you want." What did that accomplish? The words "Jack" and "Shit" come to mind.Originally Posted by cstone
I shake my head because there are people who somehow believe that John Hickenlooper is a moderate, and there are people who seem to think that voting for Matthew Hess would bring them the Change they Hoped for. Good luck with that.
I'm just glad it is over with. I want to buy standard capacity magazines again and have them shipped to my house. I want to meet some fine board member in a parking lot at Cabelas and buy a gun. I want to do all these things because two years ago they were both legal and now that they are illegal, not a damn thing has happened to make any victim safer from the crimes that were committed against them. Just my rights being infringed so some dumb ass can FEEL better. Sign it Hick, because you can
Point two- Again, you put it so well! I can't agree more. What did these two gun control bills do to make the fine people of Colorado safer? Do they really think that the next mass-shooter that decides they want to murder folks here in CO is going to say "well, damn, I can't legally purchase these 30/50 round magazines here, I guess I'll just not go batshit crazy today." I worry that there are some (even running our state) who really are that incredibly stupid.
Had it been one candidate that garnered 85,000+ votes, I'd say that's pretty impressive. But spreading it out among several candidates that had not even the slightest chance of election, that does nothing. See my above sports analogy. Basically, since we can safely assume you weren't in Hickenlooper's camp (otherwise you would have directly voted for him), you basically helped by proxy to get him reelected. Congrats. How does that feel? I see the whole vote for the guy who doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell as the same as not voting in that race. Protest or whatever when it comes to the polls, but like was said ad nauseum in 2012, elections have consequences. Since you and the people that voted for Dunafon or Hess deemed it unimportant to get Hick out, you must reap what has been sowed. I didn't like Beauprez, but I sure liked him more than Hickenlooper, and I found that getting rid of Hickenlooper was priority #1, then we can work on the other stuff. You don't like the idea of changing the republican party from within? How's your alternative working out for you? Again, when a 3rd party candidate can get 20% of the vote, I'll continue to work my ass off in the ways I can to try and sway the Republican party towards a better and more meaningful direction.Seeing as how you are clearly pissed at anyone who may have, in your mind, cost Beauprez the election by voting 3rd party AND you have the power to ban people...I am going to attempt to tread lightly in my response.
You do a couple of things in your post that are bothersome...you attempt to make anyone that disagrees with your post as unintelligent which is page 1 column 1 out of the Democrat playbook. You also insinuate that 3rd party voters are lazy because they support a 3rd party candidate as well as accusing them of not working towards change inside the Republican party. I have to disagree on both counts because you cast a wide net with those two points and they are almost completely inaccurate when it comes to any 3rd party supporter that I've ever met.
The lazy, utopian type people you speak of are the occupy wall street people. Jobless, helpless and anarchist. 3rd party supporters that I've come across are thoughtful, intelligent, generous people who want nothing but the best for this country. You may be upset with the amount of votes that Hess, Hempy, Dunafon and Fiorino recieved...but what I see when I look at the polls is 85,578 people (as it stands currently) in this state who had the courage to stand up and say "Hickenlooper or Beauprez...this isn't good enough for us". If you really want to be pissed at someone today, Beauprez is the man you should be pissed at. If Beauprez ran a campaign instead of (I think it was Jer that said this) "I'm not him (Hick), so vote for me!" then he could have earned some of those 85,000+ votes. He didn't, and that's why he lost.
In short, agree to disagree
Yeah, this... mine was way more long winded.
Ugh, now that that's out of the way, my conundrum comes in. In this case, a runoff, like in Louisiana, might have helped to get Bob in. But what if the tables had been turned and Beauprez won 48% to 47.5%? If the law were like that of LA and the candidate would have to get 50% or better, what would happen in a runoff if he lost? He already won the first one, but due to the runoff rules he loses. That's a pretty hefty risk and why I guess I really can't get behind an idea of a runoff. Although I do think that if all the folks who voted for candidates 3, 4, and 5 were only allowed to vote for 1 or 2, the majority would hopefully go for our guy... except for those that just pout and stay home.
Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums
Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
Reply With Quote
I don't know that it's ever going to be realistic, but it does seem like it might solve both problems. If you did a first and second choice, people could certainly decide not to register a 2nd choice and stand on morals, but I'd have to believe that many independents I know would just like to have their voice heard before voting for one of the two parties.
