-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Credit where credit is due, re: Joe Donnelly
- Thread starter Bill of Rights
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Pretty easy to vote for (or against) something when you know your vote doesn't influence the outcome.
And he should be vilified for those votes and any position he's taken against the 2A or any part of the Constitution.
I'm not talking about those, and I'm not cheerleading for him. (I'm nowhere near flexible enough, I don't even own a set of pom-poms, and I'm not shaving my legs or armpits.)
I'm only pointing out that this time, his vote was where it needed to be.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while, and a broken clock is right twice a day. That's all.
Blessings,
Bill
It really wasn't.
This is an insurance policy against the Republican candidate in the next election. If Donelly is called anti-2A, he can rebut it with this vote.
This bill didn't "need" his vote. He needed this bill to NOT need his vote.
The buzz I'm hearing says Luke Messer.
yepthatsme
Master
I would say it a little differently - This bill didn't need his vote, but he needed this bill.
T.lex is right. He used this bill to fool voters
luke messer would be a great candidate
against obama joe. He will wipe the floor with Donnelly
luke messer would be a great candidate
against obama joe. He will wipe the floor with Donnelly
I hope so, but I'm not sure. Joe does the whole "Indiana Democrat" quite well. I know Luke won't pull a Murdoch, but that race was closer than it should have been in 2012. Luke will have better Republican backing than Murdoch did. This could have played better in 2012 if Luger would have just stepped back.
I dont think credit is due when its a vote simply to save face or to curry favor with a demographic for the sole purpose to win re-election. It is counter to his normal position.
Mark my words, this vote will be referenced in his campaign ads next time around.
Mark my words, this vote will be referenced in his campaign ads next time around.
I didn't vote for him last go around and i won't the next either. TOO many career politicians in congress and the senate WE need to limit the years of service they can be in.!!!!
Please see my first full sentence in my OP.
There's no question it was political cover. I'm not speaking to his motives, just to the simple fact that he voted as he did. Kinda like a vote next to Donald Trump's name was not necessarily a vote for Trump so much as a vote against Hillary.Beyond any doubt, you are correct. It will indeed be referenced. Of course, the rest of his history will be equally referenced, if we, the people, do our homework and know that history. I suggest such sites as votesmart dot org.
I'd agree with that as well, but at the ballot box, not within the legislature. I don't want to see good legislators like Rep. Jim Lucas term-limited out just because some arbitrary number was reached. Too... Look at the kind of crap Obama pulled approaching the end of his term: He didn't care what people thought, as he was beyond our reach, politically. Once he got his second election, there were no more in his future. Once it was known that Hillary would not be succeeding him, he doubled down on gun rules and Obamacare and tried to make them harder to get rid of, and why not? He didn't have to make anyone happy anymore, and all the fallout from his BS was going to fall in Trump's lap, thanks to a complicit media.
Let's make them have to work to stay in office, not just "Meh. I'm term limited. The hell with "the people"."
Blessings,
Bill
Donnelly is a true to form demon-crat-he nearly always votes party line. I give him no credit since he wouldn`t vote pro-Second Amendment because it`s the right and proper thing to do, he would only do it if it`s politically expedient for him.
And this is why everyone in IN should know that Joe is from Massapequa, NY...not IN. Sure, he graduated from ND but so did a lot of other people from out of state. His values are not ours, he is a coastal liberal infecting the MidWest.
Unfortunately, for another two years, he is half of our representation in the US Senate, thanks to Mr. Mourdock being maneuvered into a horrid misstatement so soon before the election. The media seized on it, torpedoed him, and our chance of having a good, pro-rights conservative in that seat for six years went up in smoke. (and yes, I know where the thinking comes from that he advanced. It's patently false in every way, but it's something many believe and it thus persists. To dispel it, yes, the human body *CAN* be made to climax even when the person is not "into" what's going on, and no, a woman most assuredly does *NOT* have to climax to become pregnant. I am hopeful that this has or will become one of those liner notes in every political speech, akin to the local price of a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk (which was asked of a candidate who was trying to paint himself as a "man of the people" when it was clear he'd not personally been in a grocery store in years, if ever.))
Blessings,
Bill
