US Republican Presidential candidates (L-R) Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and John Kasich pose for a photo at start of the Republican Presidential Debate in Detroit on March 3, 2016. / AFP / Geoff Robins (Photo credit should read GEOFF ROBINS/AFP/Getty Images)

Watching the last Republican debate gave me a headache. The main thing that infuriated me: Donald Trump’s thinly veiled reference to the size of his penis. Is this really what we’ve come to? The party that’s supposed to be protecting our gun rights is now using the “small penis fallacy” to attack each other. Does anyone care what the genitals of any politician look like? I certainly don’t and it isn’t an image I need in my head. Worse still, this tactic is regularly used by those who loathe guns . . .

People who oppose the right to keep and bear arms are constantly telling us as gun owners (yes, even women gun owners) that we only have firearms because we are somehow dissatisfied with the size of our genitals. Now the Republicans have stooped as low as anti-gunner hoplophobes, in my humble opinion, and it doesn’t seem to get better. There’s one candidate who will not stop, always defend against insults, and honestly, if it keeps up, I hate to think of what he will come up with to prove he is “adequate”.

When have these below-the-belt insults ever helped in any debate? All they do is seek to intimidate because one can’t form a logical response – hence the reason the tactic’s use by so many anti-gunners.

This political cycle is frustrating because, based on polling, it’s not looking good for our gun rights. That said, there are candidates on both sides who have lost my vote, and at this point, I will probably just vote third party. Go ahead and tell me I’m wasting my vote but my conscience won’t allow me to choose some of these people as our next president. Perhaps I will write in John Elway. At least he didn’t blame the loss in Super Bowl 48 on the size of anyone’s genitals.

132 Responses to Can We Talk About Guns, Not ‘Size?’ Please?

  1. Right from the get go of the campaign, I wanted either Trump/Rubio/Cruze. As time has went on, I’ve watched every debate, I have made my decision to go with Cruze. The biggest factor is his flat tax policy which will virtually eliminate the IRS. Policies are what I dictate my vote on. Everybody on planet Earth has called someone a name before. You’re not better then them and they are not better then you.

    • I think they are all liars and will say anything to get elected. Can anyone name the last large scale governmental agency to be closed? Government only grows in size, it is never reduced.

      The tax code is designed to control the population. There is no chance in the world that the IRS or any other agency with its size and scope of intrusiveness is eliminated.

      Voting for the lessor of two evils is still voting for evil.

      • The Resolution Trust Corporation. That was pretty big, but it was also over 20 years ago.

      • Truth is execution and wish to do things are far from the same. If we got everything our presidents promised we’d either live in the greatest country on earth or an absolute nightmare. Personally I lean towards the latter at some level, then again that is the “sales” version.

        That being said I am far more concerned about 2A issues and general country issues. I really wish that they’d reign in the networks on the debates. Hell they could hold their own online if they really wanted to, and chose their moderators vs these idiots with agendas.

      • And NOT voting for the lessor of the two evils IS VOTING FOR THE MORE EVIL.

        if Trump is the Rep candidate in the general, I’ll take the CHANCE on him screwing us vs KNOWING that Hillary will screw us COMPLETELY.

        • The establishment and TTAG would rather have Hillary for president, I garuntee it. The establishment will back Hillary and destroy the Republican Party, and TTAG will reap EXTREME benefit with a Hillary presidency. Look at it from a practical business stand point, if you wanted to make money off guns and gun news, you WANT Hillary because it continues the status quo of constant fear mongering and panic.

    • Folks , please use your heads and not your emotions , Cruz will actually be able to do the stuff he says he will do , he really believes it , he is a true constitutional conservative the likes we have not seen in 30 plus years and I believe even more than Reagan , this is why both GOP and DEM progressives are doing everything they can to keep him out of the white house . If Americans actually succeed in getting Ted Cruz in we will actually be able to see the results of progressivism and the real benefits of shedding this disease for everyone .
      Trump has never advocated decreasing the size of government or eliminating departments and agencies until now and he is obviously saying what ever he needs to say to get elected .
      I have heard people ( supporters of Trump ) being interviewed on the street time and again say that he has his own money so he can’t be bought , well it isn’t money that drives Trump anyway , his own words . it’s power , the most powerful position on earth is what is motivating Trump . We now have Trump being compared daily to A. H. and B. M. and I think it’s a fair comparison if you present it in the 1930’s era .
      Trump is threatening to change the laws on suing media and has his supporters giving a raised hand salute to swear their support .
      I am 100 % for Ted Cruz and I pray every night we can get him in . Hard row to hoe but I’m still hopeful .

      • …………….and the Dems , free school , free ride here free ride there .
        The point is we really won’t know what the def. will be , if we really eliminate agencies , and departments and cut real waste and motivate growth with low corporate taxes and entice industry back with less regulations and stimulate saving over debt the def. will shrink . This would also sure up the trade imbalances with out tariff threats .

        • Look at those numbers again. You’d need to cut everything, down to and including veteran’s benefits, for the Cruz plan to even break even for that one year (meaning that existing debt would be serviced at minimum payment level). And and that is ignoring his military spending increases, which would require an extra $2.4 trillion. Do you seriously believe that cutting taxes will increase tax income by $2.4 trillion?

        • ………………..along with taking the chains off of enterprise and business and releasing the hounds of true capitalism via smaller government , less taxes and fewer regulations on existing and new startups , yes , I don’t think this number is a pipe dream at all . There are many more resources available today than there were in the late 70’s and into the 80’s when Reaganomics unfurled the massive influx of wealth into the treasury , resources through technologies that are allowing growth even in our current stagnant economy .

        • >> into the 80’s when Reaganomics unfurled the massive influx of wealth into the treasury

          Tax receipts as percentage of GDP fell under Reagan. Spending, on the other hand, remained at the same level. Consequently, Reagan left the country with the budget deficit tripled.

          But even if you look at tax receipts alone, there’s nothing indicating that it was Reaganomics responsible for them. In absolute numbers, they rose 70% under Reagan, but they rose 90% under Clinton.

          Overall, here are the results of the Reagan presidency wrt the budget:

          – The debt held by the public rose from 25.2% GDP ($789 billion) in 1981 to 39.3% GDP ($2.190 trillion) in 1989.
          – The federal deficit as percentage of GDP rose from 3.8% of GDP in fiscal year 1982 to a peak of 5.9% of GDP in 1983, then fell to 2.7% GDP in 1989.
          – The federal government spent an average of 21.6% GDP from 1982-1989, versus the 1974-1981 average of 20.3% GDP.
          – Federal revenues averaged 17.5% GDP from 1982-1989, versus the 1974-1981 average of 17.8% GDP.
          – Federal income tax revenues fell from 9.1% GDP in 1981 to a trough of 7.5% GDP in 1984, then rose to 8.0% GDP in 1989.

          People love to talk about the Laffer curve while forgetting that it is a curve, with a maximum. And asserting that said maximum is on the left (i.e. requires a lower tax rate to achieve) rather than on the right (i.e. requires a higher rate) is rather arbitrary.

          If you look at when the country did best overall, both in terms of federal budget, and in terms of individuals being well-off (middle class growth etc), it was the 60s, with extremely high marginal tax rates on income.

        • ……………….. and to my point , Clinton rode the coat tails of Reaganomics and rode them well . It takes a little time for these adjustments to take effect , tax cuts have to trickle down , as Milton Freidman explains so eloquently . Companies have to expand , jobs need created , wages paid , cars and homes purchased , families raised , entrepreneurship expanded and taxes paid .
          I will give , and have always given , Clinton credit for managing the money coming back into to coffers , sorta good . I could have done much better .

  2. Well, if we’re supposed to vote for Hillary because of her, uh, equipment, then why not vote for Trump because of his?

    • I want Trump to go to Washington as punishment. I want him to punish the government and the media. That’s what all these talking heads don’t get. We all know Trump is an asshole. He’s an asshole we’re electing for the Feds to put up with to teach them a lesson.

      • Trump only wants to go there because it’s the biggest deal making game on the planet. He isn’t on any populist mission to help you, to hurt career politicians and bureaucrats, or to make America “great” again; whatever that infinitely elastic counterword means. He’s a bored billionaire who just wants to play games.

      • Trump wants to run the powerful Washington machinery, not punish it. I can’t believe people buy this argument.

        Also TTAG: get rid of the autoplay videos or I’m done with your site.

      • That sounds like punishing parents for their neglect by putting them in the back seat of a cop car with their child at the wheel. It doesn’t work out well for anyone.

    • It is funny that a man worth 100s of millions of dollars, and has been able to get beautiful women is still worried what people might think of his penis size.

  3. Ted Cruz will defend your gun rights Sara-and not talk about his junk. Bottom line the orange one is the source of all this dreck. Still better than a dumbocrat or Independent…

    • ..though more similar to a liberal dreck in every possible way as the days go by. Heck, he even talks like them now (to say nothing of his wavering policy stances)

  4. Excuse me Sara, Marco Rubio brought up the small hand insult. Mr. Trump was just defending himself just like any other man would after that kind of insult. Hillary Clinton is the only anti-gunner on either side.

    • I wouldn’t be so sure about Trump. He may be pro-gun now, but that’s only because it’s convenient for him. “Flexibility”, remember?

    • I believe that’s the point.
      When Rubio insulted his penis, rather than Trump acting presidential, he acted like a high school kid.
      If by some stroke of dismal luck, Trump actually becomes president, can we be certain that he won’t react to the childish rantings of Kim Jong Un by starting a war?

    • Marco Rubio brought up the small hand insult.

      Yes, but ladies will let that slide because Marco is cute.

      • He’s pretty not “cute”. And it’s not unusual for women to fall for the pretty boy. Who prefers boys.

        If Rubio doesn’t set off a Quagmire’s-dad-alert on your gaydar, it’s thoroughly broken.

        • 16V, if Rubio is somewhere on the gay-bi spectrum, what difference does it make?

          What’s the BFD with you on this?

        • I’ve never brought it up, till lately, because I don’t think it matters. I have zero problem with any of it, they’re entitled to get married and lose half their stuff just like us, I’ve got friends, I’ve employed many, I even owned a chunk of a martini bar at one point…

          I was talking with a lesbian friend the other day, and she was laughing about some guys in the ‘community’ were in debates about when Rubio went in the closet, and if he would come out if elected. There apparently has been talk about the “brainwashing/curing” the gay away with religion, and the whole panapoly of all that accompanies.

          If I know it, I’m sure Trump knows and I think he’s mocking him. I don’t approve, but I think it’s kind of an open secret. Which is not exactly presidential – hiding the very nature of who you are is a bit wrong. It’s like Newt Gingrich talking about ‘family values’ as he cheated on at least two of his wives. Which also should have been talked about. But you’re right, I’ll leave it alone. They guy doesn’t stand a chance in hell of getting nominated, let alone elected at this point.

    • >> Mr. Trump was just defending himself just like any other man would after that kind of insult.

      A man secure in his masculinity would not even deign such remark with a reply.

    • I wish Pat Paulsen was still alive. Then we could have a comedian who”s actually funny in the White House. These jokers aren’t helping our cause.

      • Someone old enough to remember Pat Paulson. Wow. I was just looking at his you tube videos a couple of weeks ago. A very funny guy.

  5. I can’t think of a job I would get or keep if I discussed my genital size. I could not say I would date my daughter and expect approval either.

    These candidates are applying for a job.

    I’d fire the bastard.

    I’d certainly not vote for him. I’d look to see if he was offering me something he couldn’t fulfill. I’d look to see if he’s representing the good ole US of A.

  6. I can’t think of a job I would get or keep if I discussed my genital size. I could not say I would date my daughter and expect approval either.

    These candidates are applying for a job.

    I’d fire the bastard.

    I’d certainly not vote for him. I’d look to see if he was offering me something he couldn’t fulfill. I’d look to see if he’s representing the good ole US of A.

  7. ‘Does anyone care what the genitals of any politician look like?’

    Here’s a thought that will keep you up at night – theDonald and Hildebeest doing a porno together.

    ‘When have these below-the-belt insults ever helped in any debate?’

    They’re helping Ted Cruz, so I say keep it up Rubes and Donny.

    Perhaps I will write in John Elway.

    I’m voting McCubbins if Trump gets in.
    http://limberbutt.com/

  8. Does anyone care what the genitals of any politician look like?
    There was that Italian porn actress who got elected to parliament…but generally, no.

  9. “Does anyone care what the genitals of any politician look like?”
    The porn actress in the Ted Cruz political ad has apparently endorsed Trump.

  10. The only two people in the GOP debate to vote anti gun were Kasich (Clinton gun ban in 1993) and Rubio voted for an gun ban in West Miami that was contrary to state preemption.

  11. Sara, any time a guy insults another man in that way, any and every guy is going to defend himself in some way or another.
    I don’t expect a women to really get it as they are.. women and as such very few have a penis to be insulted and those that do have one, don’t like it anyway.

    Penis insulting has been going on since guys were big enough to stand in front of a urinal or piss on a rock or write their names in the snow. I know one time here in the Pacific Northwest, after beer drinking, we were writing our names in the snow while the women were in the car laughing at the guys outside pissing in the snow. One of the women said to get bigger pens. EXCUSE ME??? I beg your pardon, my “pen” writes just fine!

    To be honest, I find it highly unlikely that you were ACTUALLY offended and it’s more likely you are just lacking material and what better material than a mans guns, cars or his junk. Really, if you were all offended, you wouldn’t be writing about it. Few guys are really going to care and as an example, few guys if any really gave sh– that Bill Clinton was getting his knob polished in the oval office. A few married guys had to pretend they were offended in front of their wives, but for the most part, it was the female of the species who did the “that’s horrible” routine and guy were mostly thinking…RIGHT ON Bill….get some!

    • ” few guys if any really gave sh– that Bill Clinton was getting his knob polished in the oval office. A few married guys had to pretend they were offended in front of their wives, but for the most part, it was the female of the species who did the “that’s horrible” routine and guy were mostly thinking…RIGHT ON Bill….get some!”

      Shear and utter horseshit.

      Some guys, more than “a few,” respect their marriage and the promises they made when they said the vows. Such men do not applaud or celebrate adultery.

      Furthermore, it was the President of the United States, for crying out loud, not some Hollywood celebrity or sports star. It was the Oval Office. It was a person people…national leaders and militaries…are suppose to respect. It was a man that could have been responsible for launching weapons that would kill a billion people, and his frat-boy level lack of self control is supposed to be admired? Get real.

      And then…there was the lie. Or, the weak, sub-pre-pubescent attempt at a lie. No, that was not bothersome at all because we were all acting like a bunch of arrested adolescents “proud” that one of our club was “getting some.”

      Bull. Freaking. Shit.

        • I’m with you JR , no respect for white house , oval office , presidency , citizens , or his wife and daughter . Cheap man , and if Kennedy was doing same , he was a cheap man too .

      • To say nothing of the potential that that clown could have been caught in a “honey trap” because he couldn’t keep his slick willie zipped up.

        Hell, given that he allowed ballistic missile technology to be sold to the PRC, maybe he did get caught in one.

      • Adultery in the white house is nothing new. JFK was chasing skirts there constantly. And I’m pretty sure others were ahead of him. “Powerful” people have a hard time behaving well.

        • So what?

          I knew someone was going to bring this up. Moral Relativism is alive and well…I get that. People really believe this stuff. “Kennedy did it so it must be ok for Clinton to do it, too.” However, that is simply not relevant to the choices an individual man makes to keep his promises or not.

          Kennedy, et al, have nothing whatsoever to do with my point. The statement was made that men did not care because we were all in the wings cheering like frat-boys that Bill was “getting some” at a Saturday night party.

          That assertion is a load of feces.

          And so is the attempt to ‘justify’ Clinton’s adultery by saying “others commit adultery, too.” And….even none of THAT is the full point, which is Clinton’s completely immature reaction to the accusations at the time, the deflections, the lies, the attempts to re-invent language to fit his bratty little 5-year-old-in-mental-development-terms need to avoid punishment.

          If you (or anyone) doesn’t have a problem with adultery in general, or that of a President in particular, that’s your business. But don’t claim to speak for the those of us that respect the kind of honor it takes to keep a promise made before God, friends, family and….spouse.

          My word means something to me and those that trust me (such as my wife and my children), and I’ll NOT make light of that just so I can appear to be “cool.”

        • @ Owen
          Clearly JR_in_NC gets his panties in a knot over the issue. Goody for him. We get it. Good boy. He’s the moral compass for us all. He’s probably a good god fearing Ward Cleaver. To be quite frank about it, I could care less. Everyone makes mistakes.
          Did Bill Clinton make a mistake? Sure he did. He used bad judgement. The second part of it is do I really care?
          Not in the least.

        • “Clearly JR_in_NC gets his panties in a knot over the issue. “

          Nice. So, you make a ridiculous, overgeneralization about men being morally bankrupt, someone calls you on it, and your response is to fling insults.

          Fits the pattern of a Clinton supporter, or at least the general “discussion” style of Progressives.

        • Also, since your reading comprehension skills are not up to the task, here…let me help you out.

          Here’s what I actually said:

          If you (or anyone) doesn’t have a problem with adultery in general, or that of a President in particular, that’s your business. But don’t claim to speak for … us”

          So, where you get

          “He’s the moral compass for us all. “

          is a bit of a head scratcher.

      • two words – Bill Clinton and evey other one that did not get caught and hey he might get back in there. I wonder what 1st lady (man?) project he will do??? Sex Ed?? For the children…….

      • JR_in_NC, CLEARLY your panties ARE in a knot over the issue. Me pointing out that fact isn’t flinging insults.
        Get over yourself.

        • JR is right. Here is a question. Do lies matter or not? Slick willy got caught and then he lied. He was the president. Does that matter to you or not?

        • Not really. So, it’s not a “fact” that you are pointing out, just your “feelings” about what I said, which was that you overgeneralized and do not speak for “most guys.”

          What you are doing is trying to hide behind some sense of “I’m better than you because your panties are in a bunch over something I said” when what you said was utter horseshit.

          To wit: What you said was that most guys were cheering Slick Willie on cuz he was “gettin’ some.” What you said was that ‘us guys’ were PRETENDING to be concerned about his behavior in front of our wives, like we are all too weak to be who we really are in front of our spouses. Etc.

          You were attempting to speak for people you don’t know and overgneralized in the process. I call BS on you and your crap. I did it then, and I am doing it now. Now you have been chided for committing an Overgeneralization Fallacy and your reply to that is the very mature and intelligent {/sarc} reply, “Your panties are in a bunch.”

          Why don’t you just admit “Yeah, I was not speaking for every guy. I was only speaking for guys that have a 14 year old’s mental development who think that every instance of a guy having any form of sex with anyone is not only a-okay, but to be CELEBRATED!”

          You don’t get to come here and make ridiculous claims and then hide behind baby talk when you get called on it. No panties are bunched; a fallacy is a fallacy.

          In fact, I’m kinda laughing at you at this point, because twice now the best you could come up with is an adolescent attempt at an insult.

          And, cue third attempt…

  12. Right message, wrong messenger. This criticism comes from someone who seems to love nothing more than writing about herself, or finding reasons to post profile pics and selfies.

    Sigh..

  13. Sara doesn’t understand when a man says you have a small penis you don’t let that go. I wonder what Sara would do if a woman said she had a tighter pussy than her or bigger boobs.

    RACIST COMMENT DELETED

  14. Put this on Rubio, not Trump. The next morning, Rubio was on NPR, purportedly to talk about “issues.” What did he whine about? Trump. Issues discussed? Trump.

  15. How about we just don’t discuss partisan politics and sectarian religion here? Nobody’s opinion is gonna be changed by what they read on TTAG!

  16. Trump thinks that we are all low brow, bathroom joke, nativist knuckle draggers. So, he tries to play to this caricature. It is not a reflection on the GOP since Trump has spent far, far more of his life in the donkey party, well, and in his own strip clubs in Atlantic City. It’s a reflection upon Trump’s Manhattan-based perception of the GOP. Oddly, the evangelicals do not recoil from it, in large numbers anyway.

  17. It still comes down to the evil you think you know versus the evil your not sure of. 3rd party is a waste but if it makes one feel better. Write in your own name.

  18. I think it’s hilarious.

    Trump is pissing off the D’s and R’s, alike. He is pissing off other countries. He has diplomat crapping their pants. He is pissing off all the PC Nazis. He is talking about his junk on national TV. And the best part is I think he can win doing it.

    It’s better than standup comedy. I want him to keep going and win it all. Then maybe people will final catch on to the joke our system has become. It’ll at least be good for some laughes.

    • Hell, can, do like the dems and vote 6-8 times in the same election. It’s only fair cause once you’re dead you’ll be voting dem for at least 50 years.

  19. I don’ know if Trump is going to be the nominee, and I’d sure prefer Cruz, but we get who we get. And if you don’t vote for the Republican, you’ll get Hillary Clinton, and you can kiss your guns and your country goodbye. Which, I suppose, is the whole reason behind this “Hate Trump” campaign.

    • I am suspicious of all the TTAG attacks on Trump. Is it really because of a problem with him or is it just because he is the “front runner”? Would Cruz get the same treatment if/when he is the front runner? Having Hillary as Pres would sure lead to a lot prospective gun-rights blog topics. Just sayin’

  20. Don’t put anything Trump does or inspires to be done on the Republican Party. Trump is Trump, out for himself and nobody else who doesn’t help him dominate the media spotlight. Look at everyone else out of the original seventeen candidates until Rubio mentioned the small hands bit last week, and point to which ones were stooping to gutter humor and petty insults. Bush? Carson? Maybe Christie, but I’d call him for all practical purposes a Democrat himself- I still haven’t forgiven him for the hug.

    If the media weren’t fawning all over Trump for the ratings he gives them, and actually looking critically at his actions and his history the way they do with every other political candidate who doesn’t have a little ‘R’ by their name, the last debate might not have gone the way it did. But they are, and it did. By the way, if you want preservation of Constitutional rights, I think Cruz is your best bet. Hasn’t made a penis joke yet, either.

  21. I think little Marco brought up the hands and implied penis topic.
    Trump just gets free publicity.

  22. Wife is right that Hitlery will probably win as the RINOs will tear any realistic Republican candidate apart or ignore them.
    Ooooh, lets back Rubio, Kasich, or Mittens!

  23. From experience: First, the devil only speaks about himself. Second, they seem interested in my genitals, but when it’s time to play, they would rather do weird, unsexy crap, unless you like scat. Third, yes, I do need to compensate for my erection not being able to put holes in a cockroach trying to murder/ rape me and my loved ones at 30 feet, especially when the corrupt local “LEO” groups sometimes refuse to respond after instigating the situation.

  24. This political cycle is frustrating because, based on polling, it’s not looking good for our gun rights. That said, there are candidates on both sides who have lost my vote, and at this point, I will probably just vote third party. Go ahead and tell me I’m wasting my vote but my conscience won’t allow me to choose some of these people as our next president.

    Vote as you wish; it is your right. But don’t expect us to praise you for throwing your vote to Hillary Clinton, who is the single, biggest opponent to gun rights of all the candidates election. Voting third party is stupid. You’re cutting off your own nose, but it’s our faces that get spited.

    • I agree. There is on such thing as the utopian candidate. They all have flaws.

      Rubio voted to ban guns in city parks and now lies about it.

      Kasich voted for the assault weapons ban while in Congress.

      Trump says he has changed his mind on the second amendment. Now can we believe him???

      Cruz is 2A all the way and always has been. But he supports things that others don’t like. Such as supporting christians sent to jail for their religious beliefs. Or threatened with loss of their private property.

  25. Now that’s funny, an article deriding Trump for penis size innuendos on a blog that routinely uses scantily clad women for marketing. Please.

    • Ironic indeed. Not to mention calling out the counter argument rather than than instigator (Rubio).

      But I do have to say I’ve watched these debates with the same enthusiasm I had while watching WWE while in jr. high. It’s quite entertaining. I’m way beyond thinking either party will work for my rights. They only care about the Agenda–slow and incremental.

      • Agree 100%. The pro wrestling comparison is right on, in fact pro wrestling was sometimes more realistic than the choreographed nonsense we now call politics. People that still talk along party lines at this point in time probably either have a financial interest to do so, or they have been asleep at the wheel for a long time.

  26. This article is so last week. Besides, the panel sets up the questions and firearms haven’t been the topic de juer

  27. “When have these below-the-belt insults ever helped in any debate?”

    You all have apparently not watched Ben Shapiro lay this out, have you? It is a simple political tactic that has been around as long as we have had politics. Rather than discount your political opponent’s policies or track record, you simply discount your political opponent. Why? Humans are loathe to support a “broken” person — someone who is stupid, crazy, and/or corrupt — no matter how wonderful their track record or policies may be.

    And the corollary is equally simple: we are inclined to support a “decent person” even if we don’t agree with their track record or policies.

    Progressives have mastered this technique. For the life of me I cannot figure out why Republicans fail to take advantage of it. Perhaps Rubio is the first Republican to do so?

    Note: Progressives who portray their opponents as corrupt are usually touching upon moral corruption, although they sometimes refer to physical corruption as in references to genitalia. References to physical corruption are actually a double attack because they suggest that you are physically inferior and suggest that your actions are “compensating” which is moral corruption.

    • “…Perhaps Rubio is the first Republican to do so?..”

      Myself, Rubio has shot him self in the foot with his comments. Too me, he has made himself look immature.

  28. You know there are other options, right? Instead of writing someone in, why not vote for a legitimately pro-gun candidate that will actually be on the ballot? Gary Johnson is running Libertarian, and he and the libertarian party have always been very pro civilian firearm ownership.

    With how many people ive heard dissatisfied, id think the Libertarian party could capture a significant part of the vote (especially in a Trump vs. Clinton scenario ).

    • People should try the “I Side With” quiz. I think many would be surprised to find themselves aligned with the Libertarian candidate.

      If anyone is interested, its at http://www.isidewith.com/ Be sure to set your importance level and look at the “Other Stances” options, if you do.

    • I am not in the “Third Party is throwing away your vote” camp, but…

      A third party does not stand a snowball’s chance in winning a General Election right now. The reason?

      The MSM. Too many people vote for President based on the same criteria they pick their favorite “American Idol” contestant. It’s gloss and glitter and personality and drama (and Trump provides the drama, that’s for sure) and ‘face or name recognition” and certainly not substance.

      The media acts as if other parties don’t even exist. They present the false dichotomy of D or R, and for what evidence shows is the vast majority of Americans, those ARE the only two choices.

      Individuals that know other parties exist and know enough about them to prefer them over D and R candidates comprise at most about 10% of the voting population.

      Too often, these elections come down to “turn-out” and not actual conviction of conscious anyway. Usually, less than 2/3 of the eligible voters bother to vote at all. In 2012, it was only 57%, so just barely over half the people in the country voted.

      What chunk of that almost half that didn’t vote believed their only choice was R or D?

      The problem 3rd Party candidates will have for a long time is “air time” and general exposure.

      • Just remember the well know definition…”doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result”….
        That’s why we vote 3rd party, because we’re the only sane ones around…

      • Voting gives the fraudulent system legitimacy. As you mentioned, the D vs R is a false choice, and there enough people who realize this and choose not to play the game.

        • All I’m saying is that in the mean time, that fraudulent system continues on unabated. Its ‘legitimacy’ is defined by it being the system in power … not how many votes a 3rd party gets (up until, and not before, a 3rd party WINS and election) in what amounts to an irrelevant blip of a minority (in terms of election results).

          Voting 3rd party is not going to change the present system, which includes by implication the (majority) of voters that believe it’s a two party choice.

          The 3rd parties are going to HAVE to gain mindshare…through exposure. The MSM media sure ain’t going to give them that – not without a fight (or equivalently, making it prohibitively expensive). The Internet helps, I guess, but 3rd part acceptance in this country is far, far from “critical mass.”

  29. Actually we’re talking about the wrong “man part” Trump should use a wheelbarrow when he comes on stage. Cause he’s got a big pair. Trump or Hilderbeast? That’s not a choice, it’s a no brainer.

  30. Here’s a thought…how about not writing-in someone that isn’t actually running, and instead vote for somebody third-party that is. Might I suggest looking into Gary Johnson? At the very least, your conscience will be clear (as you say), and you make it easier to get a third party candidate on the ballot in following years.

  31. To me a wasted vote is when you have to hold your nose when pulling the lever.
    People that accuse you of wasting your vote on a 3rd party candidate obviously don’t really understand what a vote really is.
    Voting is nothing more than a means of communication. If you don’t vote, you’re communicating that you’re happy with how others are choosing your leaders. If you vote R or D you’re communicating that you’re happy with the way they’re doing business. If you vote 3rd party, you’re communicating that you’re unhappy with both the R’s and the D’s.
    I say vote your conscience. If you’re unhappy with the two major parties, find a 3rd party that most closely aligns with your views. You’ll sleep better a night knowing that you didn’t vote to continue the madness.

    • “If you don’t vote, you’re communicating that you’re happy with how others are choosing your leaders”, not necessarily true, did you consider the other, more likely reason…people don’t vote because they understand on some level the system is rigged and does not represent them regardless who they vote for?
      By voting, people give the system legitimacy, and by not voting the message they are sending is much different than you surmised.

      • pg2,

        “… by not voting the message they are sending …”

        is totally ineffective and the ruling class could care less.

        The entirety of human history demonstrates that someone will always claim ruling power over the populous. The more you withdraw and abstain, the easier it is for someone, anyone to claim that ruling power. Are the claims of most such people righteous or legitimate? Of course not. Nevertheless, they will successfully wield such power when no one opposes them.

        I encourage you to oppose dishonorable candidates in every way possible. Vote for people who will not abuse their office. Teach your family, friends, and community how much they stand to lose when someone abuses their political office. Drive people to the poles so they can vote for honorable candidates. Find our which candidates are honorable and support their campaigns.

        Make no mistake: sitting at home and not participating in politics enables dishonorable people to rule. As the proverb says, “You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you.”

        • ““… by not voting the message they are sending …”
          is totally ineffective and the ruling class could care less.”

          So isn’t voting. I appreciate what you are saying, and I would agree if I wasn’t certain that both parties are one in the same, and both are controlled by the same people/special interests. Voting gives the illusion of choice.

    • Soccerchainsaw,

      I hear and appreciate what you are saying. Here is my hangup with your approach. In my experience most of the people who seriously consider/align with Libertarians are very intellectual people. They do NOT have an entitlement mentality nor function on feelings. In other words most of the people who seriously consider/align with Libertarians are NOT Democrats. And that means Libertarian candidates are going to pull most of their votes from the Republican party … which also guarantees that Democrats will win elections.

      This is the reality of politics in our nation. I don’t like it. Nevertheless, it is what it is. And I will not vote in such a way as to increase the probability of Democrats taking office. From my perch, that forces me to vote Republican … which in many cases is unfortunately Democrat Light for all the reasons that everyone else has already mentioned.

      • Why do you believe that there are no “entitlement” on the Republican side? Now that it’s turning in record numbers for Trump, who promises public healthcare, protectionist foreign trade policies etc, it’s clear that for a lot of people, their problem wasn’t with welfare per se, it was that it was going to the ‘wrong guys”.

        • int19h,

          Public health care has unintended consequences that are disastrous for any society that implements it. That is why I oppose public health care — including any proposals from Trump.

          With respect to “entitlement” on foreign trade, I view that on two levels:
          (1) Policies that weaken our nation in order to strengthen foreign nations are national suicide and I oppose them. Instead I support policies which strengthen our nation. If such policies fall under the category of “entitlement” and support for such policies means support for entitlement, so be it.
          (2) The central governments of foreign nations subsidize their companies and give their companies totally unfair advantages over U.S. companies. These subsidies come in the form of centralized healthcare and/or relaxed/zero pollution standards. Because those foreign companies do not have to pay for healthcare for their workers and/or because those foreign companies do not have to pay for waste disposal, they can charge less than U.S. companies. U.S. trade deals should account for that disparity to put U.S. companies on an even playing field. If this “entitlement”, so be it.

  32. Snowden said it best, this year the election is between Trump and Goldman Sachs(which owns ALL the others left in, hell Cruz is literally MARRIED into it).

    I don’t trust Trump. I don’t like Trump. I have no faith in Trump. But I saw an article the other day about how NYC therapists are actually seeing an uptick in business because he causes anxiety in those lefty r-selected rodents that live there, and that makes me happy.

    There is no way to fix America as long as it’s populated with leftists that have the ability to vote. We can’t fix the problems and deal with them at the same time, and the result is that we end up stuck dealing with them on the same six issues over and over and over and the problems keep getting exponentially worse in the background while we’re so entangled. And the Washington, DC Republican establishment has long since abandoned the idea of fixing anything, throws us under the bus in a heartbeat, and generally all around isn’t worth the powder required to blow them to Hell.

    So I say we send Trump, since he makes them both start squealing in terror and discomfort. If he makes a move on gun control, he can take a bullet to the head the same way we would do that to ANYBODY. There is no salvation in the ballot box, Trump is no exception, and if it takes this to finally get that through everybody’s head, then so be it.

  33. At this point the Republican Establishment has two front runners, Trump and Cruz, they really don’t like (“Hate” is such a strong word)! They tried some Trump-dumping using Marco Rubio last week which resulted in this moronically juvenile hands/penis size crap and blew up in Rubio’s face. Cost him my support and probably a lot of others, as well. Now Rubio will likely not even win Florida. Kasich may still win Ohio, but he’s not (yet) gaining enough traction and has not shown us he’s pro-Second Amendment.

    I was disappointed with BOTH Rubio and Trump when the hands/penis size foolishness surfaced in the debate and that’s when I decided Rubio is NOT my guy any longer. I was also deeply angered with Trump over his response, but it was not out of my realm of expectation for him.

    My personal reaction to the penis size realm of personal insults is that using it just proves the initiator to be an imbecile who has got nothing. The last few people who tried that one on me person-to-person were invited to disrobe, assume an appropriate position for their gender and told I would gladly enable them to decide for themselves. Interestingly enough that tactic caused them to retreat from that moronic assault immediately and never mention it again. One person mentioned the idea of oral demonstration and I advised them that it would be utterly stupid to ever let anyone you are having a disagreement with put their teeth anywhere near your John Thomas, so its front-hole or rear-hole, depending on gender, or STFU. They chose STFU and never tried that again, either.

    As to voting for a candidate who has no chance to win at all, or abstaining from voting altogether: No matter how you do the math either of those choices ultimately gives a vote to the worse evil and there is no salve in deluding yourself you have assuaged your conscience by voting for a sure loser or not voting at all when the tyrant you’ve helped to win begins destroying your right to keep and bear Arms. You cannot construct an argument on that which will stand the test of logic and consequences, so get over it and vote AGAINST the greater evil because Hildabeast’s evil ranges far beyond our Second Amendment Rights and she cannot be allowed to win the Presidency.

    Besides, before this is all over, the Republican Party seems likely to implode and hand the Presidency to Hildabeast, anyway. Then you can at least feel good you voted against her, even if you end-up voting for The Donald. There’s no more bitter pill than the one that will come with, “…but IF I had only voted for someone who COULD have won the Presidency…”. Anyone who voted for Obama in 2008 and later realized what a terrible, unforgivable mistake that was, can bear witness to that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *