So i was discussing the upcoming primaries with some friends and i realized two things:

1) most of the republican candidates arent really galvanizing, are too conservative to likely cross the aisle for new voters and are thus unlikely to win the presidency.

2) outside of the justices, how much does it really matter?

How did i come to the second realization?  Well, i was just thinking about how the house and Senate often react to support the other party following a presidential win.  Im just wondering, if we lose thw presidency, wouldnt that just entrench thw current majorities in the house and senate even deeper?  Is having the house and senate better than losing both to win the presidency? 

Look, im not saying i want hillary to win.  I really despise her.  But im just throwing this out there:  which is more vital to have?  The person with veto/signing power, or the one who couls potentially override a veto, and introduce the right bills and cut out the bad ones instead of even letting them get to the president?

That, and of the libs, bernie sanders just declared and his voting records indicates a far less anti gun stance.  Just spitballing here, but perhaps having him, who barely treats guns as a major issue, while still keeping the house amd senate would be ok.  Just have to worry about the judges.

My concern is bringing the deficit down, fixing social security/medicare, repealing obamacare, CCW and reducing gun regulations, improved economy.  I'm not sure if any republicans are able to do these things, but more likely than a democrat.

And my main concern is the supreme court.  Next president will determine where our gun rights go over the next 20 years.

So i was discussing the upcoming primaries with some friends and i realized two things:

1) most of the republican candidates arent really galvanizing, are too conservative to likely cross the aisle for new voters and are thus unlikely to win the presidency.

2) outside of the justices, how much does it really matter?

How did i come to the second realization?  Well, i was just thinking about how the house and Senate often react to support the other party following a presidential win.  Im just wondering, if we lose thw presidency, wouldnt that just entrench thw current majorities in the house and senate even deeper?  Is having the house and senate better than losing both to win the presidency? 

Look, im not saying i want hillary to win.  I really despise her.  But im just throwing this out there:  which is more vital to have?  The person with veto/signing power, or the one who couls potentially override a veto, and introduce the right bills and cut out the bad ones instead of even letting them get to the president?

That, and of the libs, bernie sanders just declared and his voting records indicates a far less anti gun stance.  Just spitballing here, but perhaps having him, who barely treats guns as a major issue, while still keeping the house amd senate would be ok.  Just have to worry about the judges.

Short of a third party pulling off a miraculous win and reducing government size, spending, 3 letter acronyms, I don't see much change coming out. 

Does anyone really believe D or R is in the people's favor?

what the reality is.

Short of a third party pulling off a miraculous win and reducing government size, spending, 3 letter acronyms, I don't see much change coming out. 

Does anyone really believe D or R is in the people's favor?

I feel the same. For the most part, it really doesn't matter, for instance that assbite McConnell.

The only people I see truly representing the wishes of their constituents are Tea Party Republicans. The rest of them would sell us all into slavery to get reelected and keep the gravy train going. Not that I completely agree with the Tea Party platform, they've gone too far to the religious right for my tastes.

A Republican in the White House would be good for 2a issues, but for the country as a whole I don't think we'd see much of a difference.

We have a REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED Congress.

To have another DEMOCRAT president will not improve anything at all.  If the House, Senate, and Executive bodies are all Republican, there is a chance they can pass real solutions that have a chance of making real improvements. 

That is our best chance of correcting some of this administrations failures and put the nation back on a more Constitution-guided path.

We have a REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED Congress.

To have another DEMOCRAT president will not improve anything at all.  If the House, Senate, and Executive bodies are all Republican, there is a chance they can pass real solutions that have a chance of making real improvements. 

That is our best chance of correcting some of this administrations failures and put the nation back on a more Constitution-guided path.

Really.

Very little has changed. Same scumbags doing the same things they have for the last 30-50 years.

Until this changes, nothing else will.

I'm huge on freedom. Don't want to restrict anyone else's rights.  Everyone should be equal.

On the other hand, I can't help but notice these mindless idiots, voting in people because the name looks familiar, rather than scoring someone against the constitution and that candidates voting record.

Seriously, look at the lack of attention devoted to driving on public roads.  A license is a huge gain in personal freedom, but the huge responsibility associated with it sadly does not rise accordingly.

Really.

Very little has changed. Same scumbags doing the same things they have for the last 30-50 years.

Until this changes, nothing else will.

The last Republican-controlled Congress balanced the budget.  They brought all the stalled, hot-button issues up for a vote after the Dems had stalled them for years in committee. 

Since then, the Dems have had control of Congress.  They brought us the housing melt-down and Obamacare, to name just two massive problems.

The current Congress has barely been in power four months, and they still have Mister Veto "I have a pen" Obama to contend with.  Anything they hope to become law either must be watered down to satisfy him, or be capable of a Veto override.  Neither are good options.

I'm not saying the current batch of Republicans are perfect -- not by any stretch!  But when they vote, they go down party lines most of the time.  We think we've had too much posturing for the media demonizing "the other side".  We need a balanced budget again, or this debt will never be manageable.  The interest payments alone are reason to pay the debt down.

Duplicate

The last Republican-controlled Congress balanced the budget.  They brought all the stalled, hot-button issues up for a vote after the Dems had stalled them for years in committee. 

Since then, the Dems have had control of Congress.  They brought us the housing melt-down and Obamacare, to name just two massive problems.

The same folks that got us involved in 2 pointless quagmire wars, massively grew duplicitous federal law enforcement and threw away billions of unaccountable defense/aid spending. Those heroes? I've seen enough programs come and go to know that we are in fact better off with less defense spending - it trims the fat.

And while I'm oversimplifying - here's the problem.

Democrats shove a socialist agenda down our throat and don't trust us to do anything ourselves.

Republicans shove a "Bible-based" agenda down our throat and toss money at bloated defense contractors.

Both are probably equally worthless at foreign policy.

Which you consider "better" is mostly aligned with your personal beliefs, but they certainly aren't very different in kind - just in which way they lean.

The issue for me is that we are not really voting for a person. Literally we are, but figuratively we are voting for a person who embodies a party with an ideology. And neither party has an ideology that I am aligned with completely or even largely. There really is no third party choice unless you vote for someone who has no chance of ever winning. Both parties are out of touch with the people and reality and have let me down IMHO.

Unfortunately, the two candidates that I think would make good presidents will probably never win the nomination of the Republican party. And I know of no one in the Democrat party that I think even comes close to embodying the same morals and has the same integrity that I think we need in a president. And is not a Socialist.

A good friend of mine once said that both parties (Despite what they say, but by their actions) are steering this country towards Socialism. It is just that one party is trying to get us there sooner rather than later. To answer your original question, yes we will benefit but only in that it may only slow us down from reaching the inevitable. JMHO 

To have another DEMOCRAT president will not improve anything at all.  If the House, Senate, and Executive bodies are all Republican, there is a chance they can pass real solutions that have a chance of making real improvements. 

but my point is, every time a party gets into power, thre's blow back in congress.  the republicans didnt retake congress til Obama came in.  almost every president is going to have a lower approval rating since one side already dislikes him and the other side will have people become disenchanted, so there's a natural reaction to that in congress.  my point is, if trends keep up, would a republican president be worth losing congress?

also, im going to be the first one to say it.  i dont care if you hate me.


socialism isnt inherently evil.  its the implementation that sucks.  its honestly the last thing im worried about when considering a candidate because it really doesnt affect too many other topics of interest outside of welfare spending, which we could totally afford on the current taxes if we didnt waste so much money elsewhere (cough, ATF, cough).   

im not a fan of current implementations you see in other countries, but socialism as an idea isn't evil.

but my point is, every time a party gets into power, thre's blow back in congress.  the republicans didnt retake congress til Obama came in.  almost every president is going to have a lower approval rating since one side already dislikes him and the other side will have people become disenchanted, so there's a natural reaction to that in congress.  my point is, if trends keep up, would a republican president be worth losing congress?

i'd have to say yes
right now, in terms of the second amendment, the president is the most important, because of the danger of losing supreme court justices and having them replaced by progressives
and this would cause changes in other areas of law also

also, im going to be the first one to say it.  i dont care if you hate me.


socialism isnt inherently evil.  its the implementation that sucks.  its honestly the last thing im worried about when considering a candidate because it really doesnt affect too many other topics of interest outside of welfare spending, which we could totally afford on the current taxes if we didnt waste so much money elsewhere (cough, ATF, cough).   

im not a fan of current implementations you see in other countries, but socialism as an idea isn't evil.

Socialism is a pipe dream.  No society that has tried it has succeeded long term. 

I heard the colonists in America actually started out in a communal setting.  Everyone worked to create food, clothing, housing, etc., and everyone was given what they needed.

The problem was, when colonists working extra hard were receiving the same share of goods as those who did less work, the colony began to fail.  It was difficult to be motivated to work for the benefit of others.  The longer they continued under a socialist system, the fewer resources they produced for the group, hence things they needed to live were becoming scarce.

Then, the leaders decided to switch to a capitalist system.  Each would produce what they wanted and would trade the excess to others for the rest of what they needed.  If you had much larger surplus than you needed, that equated to capital to be used to trade for other goods and services.

Within a year, the colony went from miserable to prosperous.  The motivation to produce more is what was missing before.  When the fruits of one's labors are your own to enrich your life, you will be more willing to work harder, longer hours and with increasing efficiency and effectiveness.

So, while you can state that Socialism in theory is not a bad idea, the proof is in the application.  Socialism is all about "I am my brother's keeper."  "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."  What the theory ignores is human nature, i.e. what motivates people.  Redistribution of wealth punishes producers and rewards those who produce less - or nothing.  It's a fact that when you reward a behavior, you get more of it, and when you punish it, you get less.  Look at our welfare system, and you see a perfect example of that concept.

Well said mauidog.

If you are a law abiding Hawaii gun owner, you are already screwed.  They know where you live, what kinds of guns you have, all sorts of personal information.
It doesn't matter who is president or what their party is.  The county will just do a New Orleans trick for the least little reason and order cops door to door.  Look at how
much success Baker has had in the court system.  Nationally Hawaii is now at the bottom of the barrel our ability to influence the congress and presidency is zero.   They'd have
more influence if they caucus with the GOPe.
I think we need to worry about things closer to home.  Get rid of the anti-gun Judiciary chairman.  Get a gun friendly
police chief in every county.  Change our laws.  Then worry about which slime we elect to the Presidency.

If you are a law abiding Hawaii gun owner, you are already screwed.  They know where you live, what kinds of guns you have, all sorts of personal information.
It doesn't matter who is president or what their party is.  The county will just do a New Orleans trick for the least little reason and order cops door to door.  Look at how
much success Baker has had in the court system.  Nationally Hawaii is now at the bottom of the barrel our ability to influence the congress and presidency is zero.   They'd have
more influence if they caucus with the GOPe.
I think we need to worry about things closer to home.  Get rid of the anti-gun Judiciary chairman.  Get a gun friendly
police chief in every county.  Change our laws.  Then worry about which slime we elect to the Presidency.

You are mistaken.  The HRS has been modified to add a provision to  prevent the state from doing exactly what you are claiming:

§134-7.2  Prohibition against seizure of firearms or ammunition during emergency or disaster; suspension of permit or license.  (a)  Notwithstanding any provision of chapter 127A or any other law to the contrary, no person or government entity shall seize or confiscate, under any emergency or disaster relief powers or functions conferred, or during any emergency period, as defined in section 127A-2, or during any time of national emergency or crisis, as defined in section 134-34, any firearm or ammunition from any individual who is lawfully permitted to carry or possess the firearm or ammunition under part I of this chapter and who carries, possesses, or uses the firearm or ammunition in a lawful manner and in accordance with the criminal laws of this State.

     (b)  Notwithstanding any provision of chapter 127A or any other law to the contrary, no person or government entity shall suspend, revoke, or limit, under any emergency or disaster relief powers or functions conferred, any lawfully acquired and maintained permit or license obtained under and in accordance with part I of this chapter.

     (c)  For purposes of this section, "government entity" means any unit of government in this State, including the State and any county or combination of counties, department, agency, institution, board, commission, district, council, bureau, office, governing authority, or other instrumentality of state or county government, or corporation or other establishment owned, operated, or managed by or on behalf of this State or any county. [L 2010, c 96, §1; am L 2014, c 111, §7]

http://capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0007_0002.htm

Since tighter restrictions at the federal level can, and do, affect Hawaii gun owners, we should be focused on that level of government, not just at home. 

If the federal government passes nationwide CCW reciprocity, for instance, it will help us here by at least shoehorning in a better chance to change the CCW laws locally.

MauiDog:


You kind of missed my point.  The only way that law will be enforced when the county chooses to ignore it,  is in the courts.
That is why "may issue" really  means no issue. Right to keep and bear arms means only if the Police chief continues to allow you to. 
A permission he can revoke at any time,   remember your permit( his permission) to purchase?
The police don't work for you,  they get paid by the county.
Cops can't be sued for violating your rights.  Police chief can't be sued.
Your guns will be rusting in a leaky container for months and years
before you get them back.
Hawaii has 4 electoral college votes and Idaho cancels us out.
Kill the local problems first,  they are just right down the road.