Trump= 2A threat.

[Great-Kazoo]

I have maintained since the minute he decided to run that he is the most elaborate agent provocateur in American history. He's playing a Democrat-designed character that is meant to kill off the Republican party's establishment for good.


Interesting thought. Exactly the same one another forum member and i had a discussion about some time back.

[<MADDOG>]

I posted this during the primaries, and I stand by it still...

[Skip]

The only person who was going to win '16 was Trump. Everyone else was going to be a good loser. We could tell early when the GOP field cowered in fear of the MSM. Trump shoved it up their collective ass and broke it off.

"You would be in jail." "They're not sending their best." No one else would have said that. Remember how Romney got on his knees after the "47%" comment? And he was right and his base knew he was right!

Cruz is a good man, would be a great president, couldn't win in this climate. Rubio is giving away 2A right now. Yeb? Trump had to stand up to 95%+ negative coverage, FBI/Deep State colluder's insurance policy, and all the nasty accusation that used to frighten Conservatives (racist!).

If Trump burns down the establishment and demonstrates that Conservatives have to fight to win, so be it. It needed to happen or all we would be able to do is negotiate our losses which would inevitably include 2A. 62M Americans now know we can beat them. Maybe Cruz or someone like him can win in the future.

The country needed Trump, even if he does turn out to disappoint, to demonstrate we don't have to do as we're told. We can still win elections (for now). We don't have to be nice. And we don't have to cower because of what someone said about us on FB.

If you believe voting is a solution, even a temporary necessary step to try and right the ship, voting for Trump was the best possible choice.

Take the "I told you so's" and tell us how a Clinton presidency would look right now because that was the only other option.

[RblDiver]

Take the "I told you so's" and tell us how a Clinton presidency would look right now because that was the only other option.

For one, Clinton would be talking various gun bans, and R's would actually be united in opposition.

[Skip]

For one, Clinton would be talking various gun bans, and R's would actually be united in opposition.

Really?

What would stop the reasonable GOPers from being reasonable with a Clinton in the WH?

Does Rubio grow a pair just because Clinton wins?

What is different about Florida and Sandy Hook? Hint: it isn't who's in the WH.


ETA: And by this logic we should NEVER vote for a Republican president because of the risk to gun rights.

[waffles]

Really?

What would stop the reasonable GOPers from being reasonable with a Clinton in the WH?

Does Rubio grow a pair just because Clinton wins?

What is different about Florida and Sandy Hook? Hint: it isn't who's in the WH.


ETA: And by this logic we should NEVER vote for a Republican president because of the risk to gun rights.

How are you getting that last bit from what the previous poster said? A republican president taking an anti-2A stance is potentially much more damaging to our gun rights than a democratic president continuing their party line. Voting republican doesn't pose a great risk to gun rights if that republican president actually supports the second amendment.

[Skip]

How are you getting that last bit from what the previous poster said? A republican president taking an anti-2A stance is potentially much more damaging to our gun rights than a democratic president continuing their party line. Voting republican doesn't pose a great risk to gun rights if that republican president actually supports the second amendment.

For one, Clinton would be talking various gun bans, and R's would actually be united in opposition.

The previous poster argued that GOPers would be united on gun rights with a Dim president. I have quoted and highlighted it.

So if we don't want a fractured a GOP on a gun rights we have to make sure they stay united in opposition to a Dim WH by not electing a GOP president.

Does that make sense? Of course not!

Here is the roll call for the 1994 AWB. See all those Rs voting "Yea?" Bill Clinton was president in 1993. He was a Dim. GOP was not magically united on gun rights against the Dim WH.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...00375#position

[Zundfolge]

But then things get weird https://hotair.com/archives/2018/02/...oing-gun-bill/

[RblDiver]

So if we don't want a fractured a GOP on a gun rights we have to make sure they stay united in opposition to a Dim WH by not electing a GOP president.

Foxtrot said it better than I.

If we elected a GOP president who too was opposed to anti-gun legislation, then it wouldn't matter as much if a few R squishies were for it, as such legislation would be killed. But when the president is in favor of these restrictions? I think in that case, the answer is not to elect a Dem, but to elect an R (well, or better yet a real lower-case l libertarian) who actually is in favor of gun rights.

[Skip]

Foxtrot said it better than I.

If we elected a GOP president who too was opposed to anti-gun legislation, then it wouldn't matter as much if a few R squishies were for it, as such legislation would be killed. But when the president is in favor of these restrictions? I think in that case, the answer is not to elect a Dem, but to elect an R (well, or better yet a real lower-case l libertarian) who actually is in favor of gun rights.

Foxtrot said something totally different from what you said.

What he said made sense.

Believing the GOP would be united because Clinton beat Trump makes no sense to me. We saw a lot of unity on the tax bill. We saw unity on the ACA. Both different parties in the WH on each. I don't think we'll see GOP unity on the gun issue. Too many closeted authoritarians and useful isle crossers.

[snip]

A r voting for a pro-hillary bill would have been hung in a public street. But a R voting for something the MAGA camouflage supports? The fallout is debatable. It could even be beneficial. Thus, time will tell what happens but your rights are actually at greater risk under Trump than Hillary if he starts to shift even the littlest bit anti-gun, and he has. With the noteable exception of the AWB (which was programmed to expire), much of our anti-firearm legislation has passed under republicans.

[snip]

Even without a Dim bill there are GOPers asking for a AWB right now (e.g. Kasich). They aren't being hanged. I hope they are thrown out of office!

And Trump asked the Dims to put together their own bill, it was never going to be a Trump bill. They said "we want AWB" in the meeting and he said "make it a strong bill!" Is that brinksmanship or smarmy politician? I don't know... I wish we had a window into a parallel universe where we could see if Trump would sign such a bill.

WH is back peddling hard this week, btw.

MAGA camo is indeed dangerous. I don't see that as justification to vote Dim. This election offered two choices.