Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
So hard to choose...
11-12-2015, 03:28 PM,
So hard to choose...
After listening to the latest Republican debate, and doing some more research online, I think I may have narrowed down on possible best choices for their candidate, based on ideas i'm passionate about:

Fiorina: I like her zero-based budgeting push, 2A supporter, and some of her foreign policy ideas.

Cruz: Immigration ideas, government reform, pro 2A.

But...both fail on my other passionate area of our future energy and environmental actions.

None of the candidates supported my idea of energy/environmental policy; all lock step with the Republican Party.

The Dems are exact opposites and they fail with immigration / guns, etc.

Hmmm...I may "waste" my vote again on a third party candidate, whoever that might be.
11-12-2015, 05:19 PM,
RE: So hard to choose...
Please don't "waste" your vote on third party. They never have any chance of getting in, and pretty much guarantees the worst candidate gets in.
11-12-2015, 05:27 PM,
RE: So hard to choose...
I just wish we could get "moderate" candidates; everyone is so extreme, that it's a total turnoff. It's hard to believe that not ONE Republican candidate comes out and supports the value in preserving our environment, over corporate interests or other concerns. The last debate didn't touch on that topic. I guess the next debate may do so.
11-12-2015, 09:25 PM,
RE: So hard to choose...
The problem is the modern environmental movement has become so corrupt and politically motivated you cannot "support" it without getting in bed with some dangerous people. And I am a backpacker, kayaker, etc. and spend a lot of time out there and am a huge fan of the national park system.
[Image: CatGun5_zpsxcamfme3.jpg]
11-14-2015, 12:12 PM,
RE: So hard to choose...
Yes, the environmental movement is using the environment to further their far left agenda. We in the USA are about 320 million people. Out of a World population of 7 billion plus. Nothing this country does will have mucgh effect on the global environment. Every FORCED, big government environmental mandate will cost jobs, and reduce our standard of living. New methods of energy will never succeed while government subsidies exist. If new energy is to succeed, it MUST be economically viable. Government subsidies eliminate that need, thus preventing its adoption, because no capital is invested in making it economically viable.

I believe the lastest polls have shown Donald Trump is surging at near 45% support today. I still favor Cruz or Paul. Donald Trump hits all the right cords. On Immigration he is right. On Gun Rights he is right. On government being too big he is right. He is a bombast however. Given the criminal, socialist Hillary is likely to be the opposition, there really isn't much of a choice. Dr. Ben Carson, might be the only alternative at this point. Bush, Rubio, or the rest of sub 5%ers are not going anywhere.

Voting for an unknown third party guys is not the answer, unless you could deal with Hillary...
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper
11-18-2015, 09:33 AM,
RE: So hard to choose...
I'm not concerned about the politics of environmental causes; either party would be just as corrupted if the platforms were reversed. No, I think we can all agree that the environment should have a higher priority than polluting it with mountain top removal, fracking and other highly destructive methods. It makes most sense to push hard to get as far off the fossil fuel kick we're currently stuck on. Now's the time aim high. I don't see enough concern over this from either side. Yes, we still will need fossil fuels to provide plastics for almost everything we do today, but how about preserving that resource as long as possible by limiting how we use it for driving vehicles or generating power. First step is to USE LESS power, so it's more feasible to use solar and wind as a larger resource. Limit light pollution as an example.

I have to disagree with BelieveIn308, I think if we embrace new energy, it can produce new jobs. Nothing lasts forever, so if your coal mining job is obsolete, then retrain. People need to be more flexible; just like those folks from all over the country that relocated to North Dakota to fracking jobs. I DO AGREE, however that government subsidies are out of balance. Either eliminate them entirely, or make them fair and balanced. I personally would prefer them be eliminated. Make the technology stand on its own.

I'd vote Republican in an heartbeat, if they would just make sensible arguments on how important the environment is and commit to preserving resources. All I hear so far is BIG OIL and COAL today. This is backwards thinking IMO. People should be worrying about our water resources and our energy resources of the future, and oil ain't it.
11-18-2015, 02:01 PM,
RE: So hard to choose...
What you say makes sense except one thing. I don't see how any of that has anything to do with the government.

If you want to reduce the use of fossil fuels, the use less. You don't need the government for that.

The LAST, LAST, LAST, LAST, LAST, LAST thing we need is more government control on how we live our lives and more artificial influences on what we can do.

THAT is how we got into 99.8% of the messes we are in now.

I am with you on what your saying. I just couldn't care less what any politician says about it either way.

Whatever they try to do just screws it up anyway.

Take the wolf population in Isle Royale NP, it is down to 6 or so if I remember the last report, and all these people are wringing their hands about what are we going to do. What are WE going to do? WE should do nothing.
[Image: CatGun5_zpsxcamfme3.jpg]
11-18-2015, 08:17 PM,
RE: So hard to choose...
You make the perfect argument against government mandates. Who has done the most damage to the environment? Answer: Government! The EPA this year dumped more toxins into the water than 100 years of private industry! The coal industry? If you eliminate coal this country must reduce it's electric usable by 55%. If you eliminated natural gas too then 81%! Yes some items might be work the cost, like the Hoover dam, which recently paid for itself (in 2007). Solar panels create far more pollution in their manufacture, than they save. They are actually worse for the environment than coal. As for job retraining for the coal industry, ask England how that worked out for them. After a generation, their are still few jobs, and their cost of energy is twice what it is here in the USA.

Government mandates work? Ask the cost of MANDATED asbestos usage by the government worked out for us? Sorry, but let the private sector do it's job and keep government out of environmental policy.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper
11-22-2015, 06:53 PM,
RE: So hard to choose...
I would love nothing better than cheap clean energy, but....I doubt the government will be the ones to bring that.

There is no group that can figure out what the markets want/need. Let the market figure it out. Every time the goverment gets involved, we get unintended consequences. I'm tired of elected officials trying to figure out what is best.

SHUT DOWN THE EPA. As mentioned by Sir Beleivein308, look at the mess they created this summer. Our government at work.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | Red Dot Arms Forum | Return to Top | | Lite (Archive) Mode | RSS Syndication