va mtn man: (I myself has helped organize a group Union brothers in New York against the SAFE act, their where many former Obama voters present, but they swore almost to the person ,"Never again" ).
These 'many former obama voters present' swore 'almost to a person' that 'never again' would they vote for obama? Bravo for believing them, I don't blame you one little bit; tell you what, I'm going on record right here & now to say that I too will never vote for obama for president again.
Shouldn't you have cheerfully piped up that obama was living up to michelle bachman's post election revised prediction 'A TWO TERM PRESIDENT!'
But, evidently our parties leadership, like religious faithful, simply do not care about the end result of such an intensely unpopular position will be. ......So be it.... Sic semper tyrannis
You do realize, mtnman, that by tacking on 'sic semper tyrannis' you said 'thus always to tyranny', somewhat condoning what you wrote immediately prior (it actually could be what he meant to write, hard to say, the phrase is often misinterpreted as being 'do away with tyranny').
va mtn man: I know the current jihad against anyone who disagrees on gun control, has cost them life long supporters.
Your usual shtick about how siding with guncontrol will cost congressmen their seats;
It's you who should be worried, mtn man, cause you might have the guns, but we got the numbers:
Why the Senate Vote May Signal 2016 Problems for the Gun Lobby ... the {bgcheck} vote suggested that, after years in which gun-control has been sublimated as a political issue, support for expanding background checks and possibly further steps has again become a political norm in almost all of the blue-leaning states that underpin the recent Democratic advantage in the race for the White House.
....examine the Senate vote on the critical amendment to offer background checks through the prism of the Electoral College. The amendment drew unified support from both senators in 21 states representing 261 Electoral College votes. By contrast, both senators opposed the amendment in 17 states representing just 146 Electoral College votes. Senators from the remaining 12 states, with a combined 128 Electoral College votes, split their vote on the amendment.
.. The contrast between the tight balance in the total number of states that unified for and against the amendment, and the broad imbalance in their Electoral College strength, underscores how the Senate’s structure magnifies the influence of smaller states, most of them rural, preponderantly white, and culturally conservative.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-the-senate-vote-may-signal-2016-problems-for-the-gun-lobby-20130418
What the article is saying is that, while redstate senators from smaller populated states get magnified in the senate, this advantage does not roll over to the popular vote for the presidential election. Au contraire.
= new reply since forum marked as read
