Democrat Party

borkon said:
Question for you guys.
I vote R across the line but I don't consider myself a R. Just what I feel is the better of 2 evils
Independent 100%.
To be honest, if the 2A wasn't involved, I doubt I'd vote at all.

I'm actually ashamed at what both parties have evolved into.
The Republican party has turned into a complete ShitShow.
Far left/ Far right ain't getting us nowhere.

Bout the only one I actually 【 somewhat】 admire in politics today is Fetterman and he's a Democrat? :oops:

Edited to add, how many here are actually PROUD to call yourself a Republican?
Or are most of you more online with me?
Click to expand...
I've been a registered Republican since I started voting, but that is only because until recently NM didn't allow third party members to vote in the primaries. I align much more closely with Libertarians. I want to do my thing and let you do your thing and neither of us should mess with the other unless doing your thing screws up my ability to do my thing.

If typically vote Libertarian when a candidate is offered. I would have loved to see Gary Johnson as president.

I hear you about 2A - that's what typically drives how I vote. I'm almost a single issue voter these days, and with almost no exceptions, Rs are better than Ds about 2A issues.

This year I plan to vote "no incumbent," which is actually easy in NM, because most incumbents are Ds that I'd likely vote against anyway.
 
The world is run by those who show up

I'm not a republican. I have in the past voted for dems for various positionss, never president. They haven't run a decent one in my lifetime. At this point I doubt that I'll ever vote for a dem for anything again, simply due to their performance. They might turn it around but at 65 I don't expect to live long enough to see a point where I'd trust them enough to vote for them again

3rd party is a non-starter. I'm more libertarian that anything but they can't get anyone elected to save their lives & no other 3rd party is any different. They all function as internal debate clubs. None of them are serious about actually gaining elective office & working on governing based on their stated platforms

The DDA is. They've figured out how to do it, have been exectuing plans to do it & are having increasing success doing it. And they're doing it by running as dems & taking over the democrat party, by intent. So keep that in mind as elections roll around

Here in Alabamistan we don't have to register to any party. We can vote in any party's primaries, only catch is whichever one you pick, you can't vote in any others, including runoffs. So if I vote in the dem primary & the GOP primary has a runoff vote, I can't go vote in that runoff. Only in any dem runoff in that election. Come the general, the entire ballot is open & I can vote any way I want to

But the dems have increasingly gone off the rails. They've become fundamentally stupid & increasingly insane & that's before factoring in the DSA takeover efforts. Just look at how they (old scool, actual democrats) govern: they protect illegal criminals at all costs, including (maybe especially) the violent ones. They refuse to lock criminals up & just keep them on the streets. They're hell bent on indoctrinating children, inculding this whole transitioning insanity (if you're ana dult, you do what you want but leave the minor kids out of it).

They violate the constituion & bill of rights at every turn

If you like how the dems run things, by all means, vote for them. Or don't vote. If they get enough votes, they win & they run things

I'm not a single issue voter but I do start with the 2A. If a politician is willing to violate that, which means violating my civil rights, that politician has demonstrated that they should not be allowed in office, period. If they make it through that filter, then I look at other issues
 
borkon said:
Question for you guys.
I vote R across the line but I don't consider myself a R. Just what I feel is the better of 2 evils
Independent 100%.
To be honest, if the 2A wasn't involved, I doubt I'd vote at all.

I'm actually ashamed at what both parties have evolved into.
The Republican party has turned into a complete ShitShow.
Far left/ Far right ain't getting us nowhere.

Bout the only one I actually 【 somewhat】 admire in politics today is Fetterman and he's a Democrat? :oops:

Edited to add, how many here are actually PROUD to call yourself a Republican?
Or are most of you more online with me?
Click to expand...
I'm a registered R. I see myself as extreme right. Most viewed as conservatives are not Right enough for me.
 
1784039768768.png
 
borkon said:
Question for you guys.
I vote R across the line but I don't consider myself a R. Just what I feel is the better of 2 evils
Independent 100%.
To be honest, if the 2A wasn't involved, I doubt I'd vote at all.

I'm actually ashamed at what both parties have evolved into.
The Republican party has turned into a complete ShitShow.
Far left/ Far right ain't getting us nowhere.

Bout the only one I actually 【 somewhat】 admire in politics today is Fetterman and he's a Democrat? :oops:

Edited to add, how many here are actually PROUD to call yourself a Republican?
Or are most of you more online with me?
Click to expand...
I vote Republican by default, not by loyalty. I'm more libertarian leaning than anything, and I don't trust a word coming out of either party. About the only guy in the mainstream media I listen to recently is Chris Cuomo. Ever since he split from the Democrats, he seems a lot more willing to call out both sides instead of carrying water for one. I used to hate him..
 
Ever since it was reported last week that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had intervened to deport a Laotian illegal alien who was convicted of repeatedly raping a 10-year-old girl over a multi-year period, many people have rightly demanded to know why in the world he had received a pardon from Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. We now have the answer. Brace yourselves.

Turns out that Minnesota’s Clemency Review Commission voted 4-2 despite him admitting the horrific crime, with the four aye votes arguing that they were concerned that if they didn’t pardon him, he might be deported. One commissioner argued that that would separate him from his six children, and “the kids not having a father is not in the best interest of society.”

We would argue that not having a child rapist around is in the best interests of both society and his own children.

A DHS official hit the nail on the head by saying, “Gov. Tim Walz’s decision to pardon an illegal alien convicted child rapist so he can remain in our country is disgusting. These are the criminal illegal aliens he and his Minnesota sanctuary politicians are protecting.”
 
Fortunately, SCOTUS realizes the meaning of the word "regulated" as it was meant to convey in the 2nd amandment.

Meaning of “Regulated Militia” in the Second Amendment​

In the Second Amendment — “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” — the phrase “well regulated militia” refers to a citizen-based defense force that is organized, disciplined, and ready to serve govfacts.orggovfacts.org+1.

Historical Context​

When the Constitution was written in the late 18th century, the U.S. had just fought the Revolutionary War and was expanding westward. Militias were groups of able-bodied men — often farmers, tradesmen, and freeholders — who could be called upon to defend their communities or states The U.S. Constitution OnlineThe U.S. Constitution Online+1. They were distinct from standing armies of professional soldiers, which the Founders distrusted because they could be used to oppress the people The National Constitution CenterThe National Constitution Center+1.

What “Well Regulated” Meant Then​

In the 18th century, “well regulated” did not mean government control or strict regulation in the modern sense. Instead, it meant:

  • Well-organized — structured and ready for duty.
  • Well-disciplined — trained and following military order.
  • Well-armed — equipped with weapons.
  • Effective — capable of fulfilling its defense role govfacts.orggovfacts.org+1.
The goal was to ensure the militia could respond quickly to threats, whether from foreign invasion or domestic unrest, without relying solely on a large, permanent army The National Constitution CenterThe National Constitution Center.

Purpose in the Second Amendment​

The prefatory clause — “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” — was meant to explain why the right to keep and bear arms was important. The Founders saw militias as a collective security measure that would deter tyranny and protect liberty govfacts.orggovfacts.org+1. They believed an armed populace, especially one trained in militia service, would make it difficult for a government to oppress them The National Constitution CenterThe National Constitution Center.

Modern Interpretation​

Over time, legal interpretations have shifted. While the militia clause originally framed the right in a collective context, Supreme Court decisions like District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) have recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, even outside militia service The U.S. Constitution OnlineThe U.S. Constitution Online. Today, “well regulated militia” is often understood as a historical concept, with the National Guard and other organized forces seen as the modern equivalent of the militia The U.S. Constitution OnlineThe U.S. Constitution Online.

In short: In the Founders’ time, a “well regulated militia” was a disciplined, organized citizen force ready to defend the state — a safeguard against both foreign threats and government overreach.
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top