Tillis ain't great but  is the better of the two IMHO.  

If the Republicans can get the Senate and the House, they can stymie any moves Obungo makes - like Supreme Court Justices.

We don't need any more anti-gunners like Hagan and Sotomayer.

Hagan's gone in my vote, but I'm outnumbered by some of my inlaws.

I am voting pro-gun and AGAINST both Tillis and Hagan.  My candidate lost in the primary.  Libertarian for me. Sean Haugh has more scruples in his nose hair than both candidates combined have in their testicles.  Think about it.

You might as well just vote for Hagan then since Sean is going to cost Tillis  the votes needed to win. The primary vote was the time to vote for your candidate now is the time to make sure that Hagan doesn't get reelected. I don't like Tillis either but he is better than Hagan and Sean doesn't stand a chance.

Absolutely, his numbers are way too low or I would vote for him. Can't chance hagen getting back in.

That's an age-old fallacy.  In reality, it leads to RINO's.  Tillis has a proven anti-gun record and even advocates gun control in his primary debates.  So, you would chose a lesser gun-control advocate over a greater gun control advocate?  I see two gun-grabbing liberals and a libertarian... and you want me to vote for one of the gun grabbing liberals?

You miss the point of my vote.  I do not vote for strategy, I vote for principle.  I am not a one-issue voter.  I'm actually a hawk whereas Sean's a Dove.  I'm rabidly pro-gun rights and he's just against taking away our right to chose (but he doesn't care for guns). If Thom wanted my vote, he would position himself in-line with the Libertarian views.  It is not a causal relationship.  Sean is polling so well (especially for a 3d party candidate) not to spoil the Republicrat but to FORCE that candidate to cater to the conservatives and civil libertarians.   The Libertarian polling is a RESULT of having a weak Republicrat candidate.

I will gladly consume a platter of crow if Tillis loses by 1 vote.  Until then, I will vote my conscience and forgo the lye-bath afterwards to wash the filth off me.

Everybody will make their deals with the devil in the voting booth.  I will walk away whistling.

QT, I want to start by saying that I joined the NRA as an 18-year-old and have been a life member ever since.  Thy endorse people based on their records and their words, not based on the NRA recommendation.  Thom got his rating based on his voting record and his answers to questionnaires.  He's a politician and so are those people at the NRA who put together these ratings...

... but digging a bit deeper we find that NAGR and GOA both endorsed Greg Brannon as did Rand Paul.  Brannon and Haugh have continually stated their undying and uncompromising devotion to the 2d amendment.  Game over.

http://www.redstate.com/diary/freedomrepublican/2014/04/26/thom-tillis-vs-greg-brannon-on-gun-control/

You can ask him to clarify at length his position on the 2d amendment.  Have him write a word essay on what limits to the 2d amendment he would support under his plan for "Practical" conservatism as he summed up in his response during the primary debate I previously referenced.

Here are some direct questions:
1) Are you for using VA medical records to strip Veterans of their second amendment rights?  
2) Who gets to declare a person a danger to themselves?
3) If you declare somebody a danger to themselves, are you going to confiscate their firearms?
4) What due process protections are you going to put in place keep gun owners from losing their rights based on the 'suggestion' of a family therapist, for instance?
5) Do you think your 'practical' limits on my second amendment rights will prevent me, a veteran, from seeking treatment for any minor mental or emotional issues such as depression, anxiety, or an evaluation for PTSD?

I'll be sending in my absentee ballot this weekend.

CD

I'm not voting. first time ever.

Even my local elections are a mish mash of horrible candidates.

I'm tired of voting for a lesser of evils. I see no one that makes me want to vote for them.

QT, I get what you're trying to do here.  This debate question was about absolutes and then Thom goes off and explains it was NOT about absolutes, it is about twisting the Constitution with progressive laws so that only 'the right people' get to own guns.

Contrary to what you said, Brannon's answer was not wholly about states rights.  In fact, his mention about States' rights is only an aside.  Here's his quote:
“2nd amendment. I’ve been endorsed by Gun Owners Of America, National Association for Gun Rights. I believe they’re more conservative than Thom’s NRA. Crucial: The Bill of Rights does not grant one single right. It declares God-given natural rights in which the federal government can never infringe upon. The first law of natural law is personal security. So the federal government should not be part of that at all. Local laws, state laws will take care of violent criminals. But here is the very scary part. I’m an OB-GYN. I give a lovely lady some medication for postpartum depression, like our troops coming back home. We’re going to have the federal government decide that that 6-week episode in her life will stop her from a God-given right to self-defense? That’s why it’s important to understand the federal role, the state role, and the local role. Madison was so clear on that. Their jealousy of those powers…they have the same mission statement, protect the individual with different functions.”

The red quote above sums up my feelings on this.  Tillis then responded to the above statement with a rant about how that woman SHOULD have her rights taken away.  Thom's response in the debate was an attack on personal liberties.  As I stated in my follow-up post, he opened the door to warrant-less searches and confiscations and back-door gun confiscation by declaring people 'unfit'.

I find it interesting that you are defending Tillis and ignore a glaring hole in his support of gun rights.  I never said anything negative about his voting record, I said that the NRA rates on that and therefore he gets an A and he turned in a questionnaire so eh gets an A+.  Hillary Clinton would have gotten an A+ during the campaign if she'd filled out a questionnaire and nobody had heard her talk before.  But, like Hillary, Tillis did talk.  Here's what I have an issue with:
"You can’t put a gun in the hand of someone who represents a danger to themselves, or to society." - Okay, who decides? There are 'progressives' that already say gun ownership is a mental illness. Does OCD count? Anxiety disorder? What if your dog dies and you are sad?  Depression?
"... folks this is being practical, this is being practical conservatives." - RINO rule 1, always replace "progressive" with "practical."
"This is about taking the Constitution, taking practical conservatism, and putting it to use. It’s that simple.” - The hell it is.  The Second Amendment is the law and it's the only law.  You don't take the Second Amendment and then apply progressive, uh, I mean PRACTICAL CONSERVATISM to it.  

and I thought I was the only person that caught that during the debate. I wish more people would have noticed that Tillis used the key words to make taking guns rights away seem like "it's for our own good"

 

I for one will always cast a vote...be it for the lesser of two evils or not.  Hagen has to go and the liberterian candidate will only take votes from Tillis.


I have never missed a chance to vote.  My feeling is if you dont vote you dont have a right to complain as to what gets elected  

I already backed that up.  Brannon said that a woman should not have her 2d amendment rights taken away if he prescribes an anti-depressant for 6 weeks.  He said we veterans should not have our gun rights taken away if we seek treatment for PTSD.  Immediately following that statement, Tillis said, "You can’t put a gun in the hand of someone who represents a danger to themselves, or to society."   I don't think that a politician can be much more clear about that.  In context, he doesn't dodge the point Brannon makes, he disagrees with Brannon.  Therefore, Thom wants to take gun rights away from PTSD and PPD sufferers.  There are only two dots to connect there.  It's not interpolation, it is a direct response to a direct statement.

It's easy to do this after the fact with a transcript and all, but when I LISTENED to the debate, I heard the tone and the lack of concern with Tillis.

I am not being intellectually dishonest.  I believe that because you are anti-Hagan, you're willing to accept a statement like that, but I sure as heck am anti-Hagan also.  That doesn't mean that 'anybody but' Hagan is a good choice either.  Tillis scores a 8 out of 10 on my scale.  Haugh scored a 9 out of 10.  Brannon was a 10.  Hell, Ronald Reagan was about a 5 and I still voted for him.  George Bush 1 was about a 3 and I voted for him.  George Bush 2 was about a 4.

No need to get catty about this.  We are on the same side.  You get to speak with Tillis?  Ask him the questions above.  If he has reasonable answers, great.  Let's hear them.  Until then, I can reasonably conclude from his statements that he supports 'suitability' tests for gun owners to prove that they are not a threat to themselves or society.  This is the 'may issue' vs. 'shall issue' debate.  That Tillis does not get the difference is disturbing.

By the way, a vote for Haugh is not a a vote against Tillis.  I am not wasting my vote.   I am not voting for Hagan.  My two choices now are Haugh or abstain.  If Tillis is willing to clarify his statements, I would probably vote for him.  But just to get this straight, it's a second chance.  Every time I speak to a VA doc, I get asked the same questions about whether I feel safe at home and whether I feel like hurting myself or somebody.  If i were to EVER answer that question wrong or if the VA accidentally wrote the wrong answer, I will then lose my gun rights forever.  It's not far fetched. Tell that to Pat Kirby.  Read this post. The DOD actively and forcibly subjects veterans to PTSD and TBI screening and intensive testing.  It has determined that those diagnosed with PTSD or TBI are at an increased risk to themselves.  Veterans continue to get letters telling them they are no longer allowed to own guns.

KNOWING THIS, Tillis had the opportunity to offer his position on this well-known and debated issue.  HE DID.  He positioned himself alongside Feinstein and Obama?  You don't think so?  Ask him.  Brannon knew the issue inside and out.  We have to assume that Tillis did also, right?

I may be mistaken, but didn't Tillis vote AGAINST the Restaurant carry bill the first time it came up a few years ago?  I know my local Representative, Tom Apodaca, did.

You have a good memory, Sam.  Yes, he did.  That was an eye opener.

http://www.grnc.org/defend-your-rights/recent-grnc-updates/622-grnc-update-04-16-14-faqs-about-grnc-candidate-evaluations

ETA: I've watched a few Haugh videos and I'm lowering my opinion of him based on his complete ineptitude. Looks like it's Tillis for me.  That's what I told my Wife.  My youngest said she's voting Libertarian also, so it's four anti-Hagan votes for us. Maybe I'll write-in with Brannon?  I'm voting the GRCC line now.  Gonna post another thread with their rec's.

GRCC election endorsements.

QT, let me quote GRNC on this one:

 

It's not a fallacy - it's math.   You don't have the votes on the libertarian candidate to score anything except a upset in favor of Hagan.  The L's don't have the numbers and pull their voted from the R side.  That is no fallacy either.  
I would ask you to understand incremental political change, vote for Tillis brother.  Pure and simple plea to stay in the game.  It's far from over.  

Well, I'll start my response by saying I've reevaluated my choice and I am now voting for Tillis based on GRNC's recommendation and my evaluation of Haugh's incompetence.  Back to the math, though, If I DON'T vote and Hagan gets 47%, Tillis gets 46%, and Haugh gets 7%, how is my NOT voting going to change that result?  If I vote for Haugh, then that doesn't add to or subtract from Tillis & Hagan.  Now, if I chose to vote for Tillis INSTEAD of Haugh, then Tillis gets one extra vote.  If I were choosing between Tillis and Hagan (and, uh, NEVER!) then Tillis would get a 2-vote differential instead of one vote.

Voting for Haugh is the functional equivalent of not voting at all... with one exception.  That exception is that the Libertarian party needs to get a certain percentage of votes to continue to get their voice their opinions and stay on the ballots.  My vote for a libertarian would not have been wasted, it would let the Republicans know that they need to move back to the RIGHT in order to get the votes.  Instead, Tillis is trying to paint himself as an Obama clone to get the liberal vote.

Yeah, but I'm going to vote for Tillis and take a shower after.

I'm voting for Tillis, then using the strongest mouthwash I can stand.  They are both terrible, but which is the worst.  HAGAN...!

Damn right I am! Cant stand Hagan and all the BS that she's been spewing.

While not the ideal choice (in my opinion), I will vote for Tillis.

Hagan maintains lead in North Carolina Senate race

Header-poll-results
Raleigh, N.C. – PPP's newest North Carolina poll finds a steady race, with Kay Hagan leading at 46% to 43% for Thom Tillis and 5% for Sean Haugh. This is the third month in a row that Hagan has held an advantage of either 3 or 4 points. In a two candidate race Hagan still leads Tillis 47/44, indicating that Haugh's potential 'spoiler effect' on the race is waning. Haugh's supporters only say their second choice would be Tillis by a 34/30 spread now, considerably closer than the difference was earlier in the campaign.

Both candidates remain unpopular in the closing stretch of the contest, but Hagan at least fares a little bit better with voters than Haugh does. 41% of voters approve of the job she's doing to 50% who disapprove, for a -9 net approval rating. That's not good but it puts her ahead of Tillis who just 37% of voters see favorably to 49% who have a negative opinion, for a -12 net favorability rating.

There's nothing very surprising about where the candidates' support is coming from. Hagan is up 49/37 with women, 85/4 with African Americans, and 61/27 with young voters. Meanwhile Tillis is up 49/42 with men, 55/34 with white voters, and 54/37 with seniors. Tillis is ahead 43/38 with independents but in an unusual finding for North Carolina politics, Hagan is getting the same share of the Democratic vote (81%) that Tillis getting of the Republican vote and if you do that as a Democrat in North Carolina you're generally going to win given the party's voter registration advantage in the state.

The polls are ran by Democrats and have never been a reliable predictor of the eventual victor.  What they say is, strange for a Republican who is only getting 81% Republican support is because he's a RINO!  Republicans are jaded by this piece of work.  I know, some people support him, but when the chips were on the table, he played for the other side on Gun Control.**** the NRA and their rating.  He's the lesser of two evils.  The Republicans lost their candidate in the primaries.

Yeah... That ^^^

I would have gladly voted for Dr Brannon.

Whatever guys. All it means is if you guys don't want Hagan then you can't vote for any one other that Tillis.

Its all the same to me. But for those who think it makes a difference there it is. Its Tillis or Hagan. The lib guy is polling 5-7% and Tillis is 2-3 behind.
decide what you can live with, because after Hagan wins this you'll be hard pressed to get rid of her.  She got eleceted because people hated Bush and Dole was an  carpet bagging moron. (she was) She'll get unelected because people hate Obama. and all things democrat. I doubt very much that any President will be despised like him in our lifetimes.

She wins and that seat is gone for our lifetimes. Because incumbants win 90% of the time, and the Senate is basically a lifetime job.

Choose wisely.

QT, I already did this.  Here it is as GRNC puts it (which is much better than I can put it):

Now, I already posted this and you've either got me on ignore, you overlooked it, or you are intentionally dismissing it.  If Tillis is pro-gun, he would not have done ANY of this crap.  Plain and simple.  I understand you are backing him and you have met him, and that means alot.  I trust that you formed your opinion diligently.  That does not mean that you are going to be able to ignore the negatives he does.  This is not sour grapes over the primary; this is plain and simple Thom Tillis doing things that hurt our cause.

No problem.  I was trying to give you (and Tillis) the benefit of the doubt.  That's why we have GRNC to keep an eye on these things.  I am a transplant from Alaska, so when I got here it was REALLY confusing the way the Pistol Permit thing worked, until I put it in the racist context.  You go to the Sheriff so that the Sheriff can validate you are 'white enough' to own a gun.  It also amounts to a 'poll tax' where you have to pay to play.  You would think that people would be up in arms about it, but most just shrug.

Alright I cast my anti Hagen vote today.  There sure was a lot of democraps at one early voting site.

The Dem's need to vote early so they can make sure to hit as many voting sites as possible.  #voterfraud

A vote  for a libertarian  is a vote for Hagan.

Seriously, the math just doesn't work out on this one.  A vote for HAGAN is a vote for Hagan.  If you vote Libertarian, it does not effect the other two candidates any differently than if you vote for neither of the other two candidates.  What it DOES do is give the Libertarian party a boost and nibbles away at the two-party system that has served us so poorly for 200 some-odd years.

It is hard to say if it does or not.  We won't actually know till after the election.  As you pointed out earlier the pols are ran by Dems so who knows what the current numbers really are.  I voted for the libertarian candidate Munger, back in 2008, over MCcrory.  Perdue won.  now by the numbers my vote did not change the results.  And even if everyone that voted for the Libertarian had voted For McCrory Perdue still would have won.  I don't know if I regret voting for the Libertarian, but I will Say that Since McCrory Got elected I do regret not voting for him, Since he has proven to be much better for the State then Perdue could have dreamed of being.

I agree Tillis is far from Perfect and he has a few things I don't understand either his vote or his statement on.  Both of which you mentioned.  But I do not find him to be anywhere near the "gun grabbing liberal" that he gets labeled as.  

I will also say this.  I have been disgusted by some Brannon supporters.  I have been accused of being as a bad as a pedophile for voting for Tillis over Brannon in the primary.  That is not Brannon's fault, but I have been disgusted by it none the less.

I have been listening to Sean Haugh's videos on his website.  You are voting for an ultra-liberal loon.  Open borders, really, is that what you want.  He won't let a gun into his home or car but, insists he will defend my rights to do so - bullshit.  Anti-Israel, pro-abortion, pie-in-the-sky anti-war, supports the Moral Mondays idiots...  No thanks.

I know you probably stopped reading the thread at this point to call me out, but if you would have read on, I came to the same conclusion you did a few posts later.

It is fuzzy math though.  You presume that it is possible that EVERYBODY voting for the third party candidate would instead have voted for the Republicrat.  In truth, many of those votes are mistakes or 'anti-votes'.  Somebody who likes NEITHER mainstream candidate.  Many of those votes are anarchists, pot smokers, doves, fascists, etc. who would NEVER have voted Republican.  In the end, you can't 'give' those votes to the Republican.

I see the Libertarian party as a wake-up call to the Republicans that they have gone too far left in their beliefs in search of RINO endorsements, money, and votes.  The RINO's should stop courting the left and bring the Right back into the fold.  You see it with the Tea Party and the Libertarian movements.  These movements aren't there because they hate the conservative movement, they are there because the Republican party has lost its collective mind on compromising with the [edited for common decency] we have in office today. The RINO's pander to the ultra-liberal media, are inept at using social media, and take most of their money from big business.  Tillis is falling in rank with the RINO's.  He needs to walk around a few Gun Shows and shake hands.  He needs to stop doing the Anti-Gunners' jobs for them.

Believe me the Republican party does not look to the Libertarians, or those who vote for them, for any guidance. So as admirable as that sentiment is its just not true.
I heard the same thing backin the 90s when the Dems had  even more seats and repubs got their asses kicked and it was shown that libertarians votes did have an effect. The repubs have not ever taken a single  libertarian position. Still they eventually took the house in Senate in 2010.

They simply are not influenced by them.

Also don't confuse the State level guys with the federal guys.

Its true, he didn't exactly use his power and position to advance anything pro-gun in the state. He could have. but he didn't. I don't know if it because he is am anti or just ambivalent, or doing calculus for his Senate run.

Regardless he is noTed cruz. Hell he not even Rand Paul
We will see NOTHING of IMPORT FROM HIM IN THE SENATE. He 'll be a nice steady vote for wahtever he id told to do, and cash his checks all the way and become a millionaire