PDA

View Full Version : If its between Witman and Brown...


adumbomb
05-14-2010, 7:25 AM
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=5662175&id=167823637655#!/photo.php?pid=5662175&id=167823637655
..I will vote on principle for the very first time and take one Chelene Nightingale.

AEC1
05-14-2010, 7:26 AM
Good for you, if more people voted on princable the two party system would be done.

adumbomb
05-14-2010, 7:30 AM
http://hphotos-sjc1.fbcdn.net/hs301.snc3/28642_437563657655_167823637655_5662175_7109649_n. jpg
I am pretty sure we know where she stands on the 2nd.

PatriotnMore
05-14-2010, 7:35 AM
I've already voted by mail, and I am like you I voted my conscious. It was interesting writing in almost every Candidate, because when mail voting, they send you a ballot by party.

OleCuss
05-14-2010, 8:02 AM
She looks good with a holstered gun on her hip!

Too bad she seems to be dishonest and a bit wacko.

Uriah02
05-14-2010, 8:06 AM
She looks good with a holstered gun on her hip!

Too bad she seems to be dishonest and a bit wacko.

Evidence?

OleCuss
05-14-2010, 8:11 AM
Evidence?

Most of it is on the Chelene Nightingale thread. I'm no good as a librarian.

BKinzey
05-14-2010, 8:13 AM
Evidence?

Do a search for her name in this forum.

warbird
05-14-2010, 12:01 PM
God help the guy who does not like the cooking of the young lady in the picture. But back to the subject. If it is between Whitman and Brown I have only one thing to say and it is used in the military a lot. FUBAR!

CCWFacts
05-14-2010, 12:06 PM
I like Brown. We as gun owners will always be indebted to him for his Amicus brief. That type of brief, from a state as "important" as California, is of great importance. And Brown didn't need to write it. In fact I'm sure was under pressure to not write it. He wrote it based on his ideals, nothing more. For a politician to do something like that, for us, is something rare and wonderful.

Unfortunately, Brown is endorsed by the SEIU. I have vowed never to vote for anyone with SEIU endorsement. If enough people in California would take that same vow, we would have excellent, responsive service from our government, our budget would balance, and we would have a "lean and efficient" government. Further, the SEIU is deeply anti-gun-rights and in favor of creating a powerful Socialist state. There would be a lot less gun control in this state if it weren't for the forces of the SEIU and various similar unions. Tolerating the SEIU is like tolerating cancer. Just like cancer, we need to not just put it into remission, we need to excise it.

So I'm a bit stuck.

demnogis
05-14-2010, 1:29 PM
Don't feel obligated to partake in the 2-party "system". The misleading claim that you can only pick from those 2 is just that... If you're along the "lesser of 2 evils" thought there is no progress for our rights.

Make an informed decision and vote in line with your principles. If you truly believe that Whitman or Brown are good candidates, that's your decision. But don't complain when both of them sign anti-2A laws because there are more than 2 options on this ballot.

I'm voting for Poizner, but that's my decision. IMHO, Whitman or Brown will do nothing good for this state. We'll be surpassing Venezuela in debt and be damn near close to Chicago in terms of 2A rights and crime level if either of them get into office. Brown's only boon for 2A was his amicus brief. No other positives. Whitman claims to be "conservative" but is a RINO.

wildhawker
05-14-2010, 1:45 PM
2010 CA Gubernatorial Election Math

Poizner > Brown.
Brown > Whitman.
Winning > Losing.
Voting for a candidate with zero chance of winning = -1 vote for 2A.

huck
05-14-2010, 2:09 PM
This is only a primary election, so it's a good time to vote on principle. The real election is November 8th and then you're going to have to hold your nose and make a choice.

There IS a Libertarian candidate by the way...

http://www.daleogden.org/

wildhawker
05-14-2010, 2:24 PM
If a viable, supportable candidate doesn't make it to the general election we can thank irrational voting in the primary.

This is only a primary election, so it's a good time to vote on principle. The real election is November 8th and then you're going to have to hold your nose and make a choice.

There IS a Libertarian candidate by the way...

http://www.daleogden.org/

winnre
05-14-2010, 2:31 PM
Evidence?

She's a female? :smartass:

lioneaglegriffin
05-14-2010, 4:27 PM
is this another Nightingale troll? :confused:

i remember a while back when there were people from her campaign making pro-Nightingale threads/posts.

and my antenna is up because the OP has 7 of his 10 posts pertaining to Nightingale.

Cokebottle
05-14-2010, 4:40 PM
is this another Nightingale troll? :confused:

i remember a while back when there were people from her campaign making pro-Nightingale threads/posts.

and my antenna is up because the OP has 7 of his 10 posts pertaining to Nightingale.
Doesn't matter because Dems and Repubs can't vote for her in the primary anyways.

The viable choices in June for 30-35% of the voters are Meg or Steve, and 60% or so are pretty much limited to Jerry (not sure who else is on the Dem primary ticket, but they won't beat Brown).

The time to vote for Celene or whoever else will be in November.

lioneaglegriffin
05-14-2010, 7:07 PM
Doesn't matter because Dems and Repubs can't vote for her in the primary anyways.

The viable choices in June for 30-35% of the voters are Meg or Steve, and 60% or so are pretty much limited to Jerry (not sure who else is on the Dem primary ticket, but they won't beat Brown).

The time to vote for Celene or whoever else will be in November.

probably a good thing for her that brown has no competition, because independents can vote in Democratic primaries.

huck
05-15-2010, 7:15 AM
If a viable, supportable candidate doesn't make it to the general election we can thank irrational voting in the primary.

I agree with you, but how do we ever get any real change if we don't vote on principle? In the end, I don't think there's that much of a difference between Dems and Republicans anymore.

cmaynes
05-15-2010, 7:21 AM
Depends on the Principle, For me the 2A is about the most important principal in the world. ALL else pales.

1st5
05-15-2010, 8:58 AM
I'm voting Poizner...

http://www.pjtv.com/v/3557

Here is his interview on PJTV. He is catching up to Whitman big time.

OleCuss
05-15-2010, 9:57 AM
You're right about Poizner catching Whitman. Technically, it's a dead heat (difference is within the margin of error).

Here's a link to the most recent poll: http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollPrint.aspx?g=f74df263-5576-4f7f-97fe-32fd0d35835c&d=0

OleCuss
05-15-2010, 10:33 AM
I agree with you, but how do we ever get any real change if we don't vote on principle? In the end, I don't think there's that much of a difference between Dems and Republicans anymore.

Fights based purely on principle are interesting - but not because of their record of success.

Let's use the example of war.

Let's assume that I've got a square country with 4 neighbors (one at each of North, South, East, and West). Let's assume that I have been living peaceably with them all but the one to the North begins to make war-like preparations and on very short notice they mass on my northerly border and I can rally only a small but capable and mobile force to that northerly border prior to the invasion.

I have a principle that says that I will not cede one inch of territory to the dastardly and repressive regime which wishes to subjugate my freedom-loving people.

I will postulate two approaches to the problem:

1. I can distribute my forces evenly along the border opposite the enemy with orders to make their stand there and fight to the death.

2. I can keep my forces positioned near the border but consolidated and with orders to do their best to harass the enemy, sap their strength, maintain their own fighting effectiveness, and to destroy the enemy if they have the opportunity.

Option #1 will certainly result in the destruction of my forces. The enemy can concentrate their own forces, punch through my lines and roll them up in an unpleasant manner leaving my country undefended.

Option #2 has at least the potential for success. Since I have preserved my opportunity to employ maneuver and to behave both strategically and tactically I can:
1. Potentially pre-emptively attack into enemy territory and disrupt their logistics, battle plans, etc.
2. When the enemy attacks I can maneuver to preserve my forces and to find tactically advantageous terrain and timing, concentrate my fires, etc. - and even if I may not be able to immediately halt the enemy advance I can at least slow them and degrade their effectiveness.
3. Use my own maneuver and fires to potentially force the OPFOR into a terrain not advantageous to them while I rally forces from within my own country and from without my country. It may be that East and West aren't particularly my friends but they hate North even more so they can be encouraged to attack North and effectively flank the North's forces and render their attack impotent.

Net effect is that if you hold rigidly to your principles - you lose. If, however, you work strategically and tactically to maximize your advantages and to put your opponent at a disadvantage - you have a chance at winning.

You know what they call the valiant warrior who courageously stands his ground against impossible odds? A dead loser.

Politics aren't all that different. If you ally yourselves with the impotent then you end up being impotent and ineffective. If you choose a principled but ineffective stand then you will be defeated. When you are defeated you have made your opponent your ruler.

Stand your ground and die - and let those you abhor run the show.

Hold true to your principles while choosing the most tactically and strategically advantageously course of action and you maintain your relevance and you may eventually win and be able to fully implement your principle.

Let's quickly look at the Republican primary race. Whitman and Poizner are effectively even and no one else is at more than 3%. At this stage of the game it is clear that if I were to support Naritelli (whom I suspect I'd like better than the others) I would be utterly wasting my vote - he's not going to win. So it's a matter of choosing the best of Whitman or Poizner and settling for the candidate which may be (in my estimation) the 2nd, 3rd, or may be 4th best.

Fight tactically and strategically.

turbogg
05-15-2010, 11:04 AM
2010 CA Gubernatorial Election Math

Poizner > Brown.
Brown > Whitman.
Winning > Losing.
Voting for a candidate with zero chance of winning = -1 vote for 2A.

I agree. Throwing a vote at a candidate with no chance of winning is throwing that vote away (unfortunately). So we're left with choosing the best candidate out of a less than ideal group of politicians that will end up doing whatever they want, and doing complete 180's on all the issues anyways. Sad.

nso1
05-15-2010, 4:04 PM
I'm voting for Brown because he will bankrupt California the fastest and thats the only real solution to Californias problems. Bankruptcy is the only way California will be able to break the ridculous union contracts and state worker pensions. Brown might be a closet 2nd ammendment supporter but i think he would go along with whatever lunacy that the legislature would cook up.

jester
05-15-2010, 4:04 PM
If its between whitman & brown...@ this point I will probably jumpship @ vote dem....for the 1st time ever!

nicki
05-15-2010, 5:04 PM
If Whitman wins the Republican primary, then for gun rights we have to support Brown.

If Poizner wins the Republican primary, then we need a serious talk with him to see exactly how he stands although having both candidates being pro gun would be a nice change.

I know many people here won't vote for Brown for other reasons and I can respect that as long as you are not voting for Whitman.

To me, if you are a gun rights supporter, then GUN RIGHTS TRUMP everything else, it is that BLACK and WHITE.

If Whitman wins and you voted for her, then if bad gun laws come along, you will have only yourself to blame.

Sure the Fed courts for getting back our gun rights look promising, but it is not a sure thing.

Nicki

hkuspc40
05-15-2010, 7:36 PM
In any case, its a shame this great nation and leaders of the states no longer represent the people's interests. Instead, they act, and govern on behalf of major campaign contributors, personal and partyline interests, and support any option to win minority votes. The Dems and their amnesty ideals, Villalagarosa and his cronies talking bout boycotting AZ....please....CA is SO BROKE (CA ranks #8 on the top 10 list of states and nations that may default on their credit)....we're fortunate AZ did not decide to cut the power and water they sell to this pompous state. The CA leaders and its representatives should fix our damn problems before criticizing others. What we need to do is go vote for who remember that the reason they are in office is because of the PEOPLE, and will rule on behalf of the PEOPLE.

wildhawker
05-15-2010, 8:00 PM
To be fair, the Democratic party is not the only one who panders to "major campaign contributors, personal and partyline interests"; Republicans have been known to court their fair share of special interests. Many CA Reeps have claimed to be pro-2A when, in reality, they'll just simply "support any option to win minority votes" (in our case, the CA gun owner minority).

Liberty knows no party affiliation.

In any case, its a shame this great nation and leaders of the states no longer represent the people's interests. Instead, they act, and govern on behalf of major campaign contributors, personal and partyline interests, and support any option to win minority votes. The Dems and their amnesty ideals, Villalagarosa and his cronies talking bout boycotting AZ....please....CA is SO BROKE (CA ranks #8 on the top 10 list of states and nations that may default on their credit)....we're fortunate AZ did not decide to cut the power and water they sell to this pompous state. The CA leaders and its representatives should fix our damn problems before criticizing others. What we need to do is go vote for who remember that the reason they are in office is because of the PEOPLE, and will rule on behalf of the PEOPLE.

Paladin
05-15-2010, 8:17 PM
The thing that concerns me about Brown is that, at least on his campaign website (http://www.jerrybrown.org/), he does not say what he plans to do if elected governor (again).

I want to know his position on the death penalty, illegal immigrants, gov't take over of health care (auto industry, etc.), and several other issues.

Yes, RKBA is a major issue to me. But, as I wrote in another thread, I'd rather live in CA with the gun laws it has now than live in a Latin American country that was Shall Issue, no AWB, etc., and that's what we'll be in less than 30 years if we don't stop the invasion of illegal immigrants.

Our RKBA is to protect our liberty -- our freedom. But one of the biggest threat to our liberty I see is us the Old Guard Dems forcing socialism down our throats, like they did w/health care. If we don't stop that immediately, we'll more likely need our guns to keep from being sent off to "re-education camp" or tried for "political crimes" in a decade or two.

ETA: Another top priority is what he plans on doing about CA's budget mess. Again, a major "crash & burn" on that and we're more likely to need to use our guns to protect our lives.

dantodd
05-15-2010, 8:46 PM
2010 CA Gubernatorial Election Math

Poizner > Brown.
Brown > Whitman.
Winning > Losing.
Voting for a candidate with zero chance of winning = -1 vote for 2A.

So the lesson for those of us who get to vote in either party is to vote in the R primary this time to try and get Poizner in so we are choosing between the 2 best 2A candidates rather than the 2 worst in November?

dantodd
05-15-2010, 8:47 PM
I want to know his position on the death penalty, illegal immigrants, gov't take over of health care (auto industry, etc.), and several other issues.

against, for protecting their rights, I'm not sure.

warbird
05-16-2010, 11:31 AM
We do need to break the hold of SEIU over state workers but don't take it out on the workers when you do. If Poiszner can win the primary then we should have a good fight on our hands. I would never vote for Whitman after seeing her new turn about face campaign ads. I have recieved one house call from Posizner's camp, a dozen from Whitman and none from the Brown people. I would say Whitman is panicking and that does not bode well for the state if she was to become governor. As for welfare reform we need to go back to giving an average of what other states give and not lead the nation in handouts. We have attracted generations of welfare recipients simply because we make life nicer out here while sitting on your a-- and not doing anything. I heard one mother say she needed to stay home with her kids and that was why she moved her to get better benefits and free services. I am sure every working mother would love to stay home to raise the kids but for responsible ones that is not always possible if the husband cannot generate enough income. We have to reward the ones who bite the bullet and go to work and not reward the ones who decide to sit on their a-- and collect freebies.

KylaGWolf
05-16-2010, 11:54 AM
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=5662175&id=167823637655#!/photo.php?pid=5662175&id=167823637655
..I will vote on principle for the very first time and take one Chelene Nightingale.

eeewww I am so not impressed with her. I have met her in person and have to say there is something majorly off with her. Not to mention her ethics are questionable.

KylaGWolf
05-16-2010, 12:06 PM
We do need to break the hold of SEIU over state workers but don't take it out on the workers when you do. If Poiszner can win the primary then we should have a good fight on our hands. I would never vote for Whitman after seeing her new turn about face campaign ads. I have recieved one house call from Posizner's camp, a dozen from Whitman and none from the Brown people. I would say Whitman is panicking and that does not bode well for the state if she was to become governor. As for welfare reform we need to go back to giving an average of what other states give and not lead the nation in handouts. We have attracted generations of welfare recipients simply because we make life nicer out here while sitting on your a-- and not doing anything. I heard one mother say she needed to stay home with her kids and that was why she moved her to get better benefits and free services. I am sure every working mother would love to stay home to raise the kids but for responsible ones that is not always possible if the husband cannot generate enough income. We have to reward the ones who bite the bullet and go to work and not reward the ones who decide to sit on their a-- and collect freebies.

At one point and time I was on welfare in the state of CA let me tell you its not a huge handout as you think it is. I got $550 a month. My rent was $400 that left me $150 to cover electric, water, garbage and sewer. Yes I got food stamps that helped feed my daughter and for that I was grateful. I never wanted to be on it and did my damned best to get off of it. I put myself through JR college with NO help from the welfare system. I got a pell grant and that was it. I worked part time, did two full time internships (for free) and was a full time single mom and graduated with HONORS with three degrees (one was earned without trying with the classes I needed for the other two). I was told one semester short of graduation I was going to have to drop out because of the so-called welfare reforms. I fought them on the grounds as an honor student vs. those that were in the programs and FAILING their classes were being allowed to remain. That and the fact they messed up paperwork from when they finally paid my child care. I got any job I could after graduation I didn't care what it was and was damn glad to be working and off of welfare...it meant I could actually PAY rent and not worry if I could also afford electric and such. So don't lump all of those on welfare as those wanting a free handout.

Chk Chk Boom
05-16-2010, 12:13 PM
I like Brown. We as gun owners will always be indebted to him for his Amicus brief.

I don't like him, I refuse to be a single issue voter, and I will never feel 'indebted' to him for his amicus brief.

I'm voting Libertarian, screw the 2 major ****ty parties.

bwiese
05-16-2010, 12:30 PM
I don't like him, I refuse to be a single issue voter, and I will never feel 'indebted' to him for his amicus brief.


A history of thinking like that is why CA gunnies got into the shape they're in.

Members of every other pressure group (unions, gays, teachers, animal rights activists) generally vote for their specific interest exclusively.

It's time gunnies do the same - esp at a critical time, the state is broke, we can take advantage of this while court cases go our way, etc.

CCWFacts
05-16-2010, 12:37 PM
We do need to break the hold of SEIU over state workers but don't take it out on the workers when you do.

I'm sure there are many good state workers. The problem is, the system provides so much money and protection for the bad workers, that it attracts them, and it even influences good people to perform badly. If you took any business and gave the employees union protection that would make it impossible to fire the bad ones or lay off the unnecessary ones, and on top of it you had hiring rules that mandates hiring a certain number of unqualified workers, you would have a grossly dysfunctional business, which performed badly, attracts the worst workers, and wastes mountains of money. In the private sector such a business would be gone in a blink, but in California such a company is in charge of our state.

We have attracted generations of welfare recipients simply because we make life nicer out here while sitting on your a-- and not doing anything. I heard one mother say she needed to stay home with her kids and that was why she moved her to get better benefits and free services. I am sure every working mother would love to stay home to raise the kids but for responsible ones that is not always possible if the husband cannot generate enough income. We have to reward the ones who bite the bullet and go to work and not reward the ones who decide to sit on their a-- and collect freebies.

Yeah, I agree with you 100%. We should have the worst, least helpful welfare in the country, to discourage welfare-collectors from coming here. They are both rational, and mobile.

DarthSean
05-16-2010, 1:43 PM
Jerry Brown may have given us one favorable amicus brief, but that is anything but a legally binding contract that he won't bend us over after he is elected.

NiteQwill
05-16-2010, 2:05 PM
A history of thinking like that is why CA gunnies got into the shape they're in.

Members of every other pressure group (unions, gays, teachers, animal rights activists) generally vote for their specific interest exclusively.

It's time gunnies do the same - esp at a critical time, the state is broke, we can take advantage of this while court cases go our way, etc.

+1

But when you can barely have gunnies convince each other about the superiority of one caliber over another... it's futile.

Just look at the threads here on CG's about ethics, morality, and religion... it's all downhill as far as where each of us stands.

The opposite, as you say, is why OTHER groups are so successful at pushing their interests... they vote unanimously amongst each other for their cause.

Gunnies rather eat their own instead of standing side-by-side for ONE IMPORTANT cause.

Cokebottle
05-16-2010, 2:30 PM
Gunnies rather eat their own instead of standing side-by-side for ONE IMPORTANT cause.
Maybe because gunnies tend to be true conservatives or libertarians and are able to see beyond their little pet issue.

After incorporation, our governor's stand on 2a very well may matter little, and in that case, suddenly the issues of taxes, uncontrolled spending, and enforcement of immigration laws become serious business.

Radiant
05-16-2010, 2:31 PM
Voting for Nightengale on principal is interesting. I guess if you want chemtrails investigated and you want 911 re-investigated, she's a good candidate. What does that have to do with a $20B deficite that continues to get worse and business happily hiring illegals all they want to? What makes anyone think she knows her way around Sac. enough to get anything at all done?

Instead of her, and if you hate chemtrails, why not vote for Bugs Bunny. At least he's curious and seems to know more than the guys he deals with. I like Foghorn Leghorn 'cause he has such a good speaking voice!

Really, Nightengale seems like she'll appeal to the least educated and the most disgruntled. Those who are the most fearful of government.

Look there's a UFO!

OleCuss
05-16-2010, 2:40 PM
Voting for Nightengale on principal is interesting. I guess if you want chemtrails investigated and you want 911 re-investigated, she's a good candidate. What does that have to do with a $20B deficite that continues to get worse and business happily hiring illegals all they want to? What makes anyone think she knows her way around Sac. enough to get anything at all done?

Instead of her, and if you hate chemtrails, why not vote for Bugs Bunny. At least he's curious and seems to know more than the guys he deals with. I like Foghorn Leghorn 'cause he has such a good speaking voice!

Really, Nightengale seems like she'll appeal to the least educated and the most disgruntled. Those who are the most fearful of government.

Look there's a UFO!

Chelene is better looking than the others and it would at least be entertaining listening to what she spouted! OK, the entire state would be a laughingstock for electing her - but we're already a laughingstock in so many ways so just how would this be substantially different?

Oh, well, some will vote for her anyway. Really not much hope of changing anyone's mind on this.

KylaGWolf
05-16-2010, 4:28 PM
Chelene is better looking than the others and it would at least be entertaining listening to what she spouted! OK, the entire state would be a laughingstock for electing her - but we're already a laughingstock in so many ways so just how would this be substantially different?

Oh, well, some will vote for her anyway. Really not much hope of changing anyone's mind on this.

Why give them any more reason to not take us seriously. Why not do all we can to make this state what used to be referred to as the "golden state" yet again. We can do it but it will take getting the morons out of office and actually elect those that know and understand the constitution and have the balls to say NO to unions.

I am not a fan of Brown. I remember way too much from his first round as Governor. But I do know all of the good he has in being pro 2A by making some changes that actually favor gunnies in this state. Although I would have LOVED for him to have stood up and told them that ab962 was BS and cost the state more than helped but he didn't. I cannot or will not vote for Meg. I don't care what she says in her ads. I do not trust her...she has been quoted in saying she has no problem in giving illegals education and medical...when we have legal residents that can't get help with medical because they "make too much" yet are considered below the poverty line....she has no problem with the laws we already have on the books and said she would have signed ab962 had she been in office. So no matter how much spin she puts on her ads now I wouldn't vote for her regardless of whomever ran against her. I would even vote for Larry Flint if he were to run and I find that man to be a joke. Hell even Garry Coleman would be better than Meg.