We can't afford Don Bolduc!

Submitted by DethKnotWurst t3_yo7wki in newhampshire

I mean come on. That's so fun to say. I know people love bashing on that social security dude but he's got great bars. "This guy's a disastah!"

>! Also I agree with him and want the quiet majority of the sub to out vote the vocal minority. !<

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

WapsuSisilija t1_ivcuvyw wrote

Someone who talked about microchips in vaccines and a stolen election is unfit to serve.

22

granitestate420 t1_ivf5ha8 wrote

There you go, make your decision based on commercials

−4

David_Flann t1_ivfo4j2 wrote

Commercials based on truth. He’s literally saying it himself on video.

5

Alternative_Push5798 t1_ivdrnec wrote

have you seen Biden speak, walk or try to ride a bike? now that's unfit to serve. imagine questioning a guy who campaigned and got 5 people to show up and believe he got 81 million votes. you're an idiot if you don't at least question any of that

−5

Historyboy1603 t1_ivf56xh wrote

Politics isn’t a WWE match. The size of the crowd means nothing. Women vote more than men. And they voted AGAINST Trump not for Biden, per se.

81 million is a rather small number actually. It’s impressive that Trump, with his brutal sexism, and passion for taking away their reproductive rights, got as many women to vote for him as he did.

But there’s no mystery about his loss.

6

gOrDoNhAsNtPlAyEdIn3 t1_ivk36l9 wrote

>and got 5 people to show up

I vote every year and I'll never go to a political rally, just like every sane adult.

2

vexingsilence t1_ivf4syz wrote

We don't know who is actually running the country right now. It's certainly not him.

−4

MightyMeat77 t1_ivf2r3k wrote

Personally I look forward to when I never have to see that commercial again.

As far as Don Buldoc is concerned, he’s a no-go. He floats conspiracy theories like facts, has bad ideas(. The few I actually hear about, then hastily tries to walk them back when his poll numbers fall), takes orders from the Ex president showing that he lacks the balls to voice his own ideas.

He’s one who talks tough and walks like he’s missing a spine.

9

Automatic-Raspberry3 t1_ivcve02 wrote

He pledged to uphold the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Became a domestic enemy.

8

Omelettedufromage14 t1_ivcuzy7 wrote

he lied about litter boxes being used in schools though… ?

6

gmcgath t1_ivegf4l wrote

One more reminder that the Democrats helped set up Bolduc as Hassan's opponent, because they thought he'd be a pushover and don't care what happens to the country if Hassan loses.

> "Democrats sought to boost Bolduc in the primary in an effort to help Hassan have what they viewed as an easier matchup. The Democratic-aligned Senate Majority PAC released a TV ad this month highlighting Morse's ties to McConnell, who remains unpopular with many Trump supporters."

4

MightyMeat77 t1_ivf3q15 wrote

It’s a big problem with democrats. You can’t rely on the fact your opponent is an idiot, shyster or both. You need to have a strong candidate.

Idiocy, spoken with clarity and conviction will be seen by the ignorant as fact.

4

No-I-Dont-Exist t1_ivctxgi wrote

I haven’t looked at this sub in a while, which side is the ‘vocal minority’ and which is the ‘quiet majority’

2

DethKnotWurst OP t1_ivdbzns wrote

Since you were the first comment I'd recommend coming back and seeing which people are making the most noise on this thread.

1

No-I-Dont-Exist t1_ivdcg59 wrote

Seems to be mostly people who are against both, but leaning towards Bolduc

6

KrissaKray t1_ivcudzn wrote

The majority in this sub is anything but quiet. IRL though it’s a different story.

−3

[deleted] t1_iveqkyx wrote

[removed]

−3

David_Flann t1_ivfot7t wrote

It would be great to have the Republican Party get away from the crazies and the celebrities and unqualified personalities and actually become a conservative rather than bombastic activist party. It is dangerous that the party wants control of the elections at every level up to and including using state leaders to decide electors based on something other than their states popular vote. That’s scary beyond words. It’s a deal breaker all by itself Don Bolduc would go for that.

4

David_Flann t1_ivfoys8 wrote

He won’t be able to do it in NH, but he is no friend to free and fair elections.

1

Fabulous-Algae-408 t1_ivd3r8u wrote

I’m cool with not paying into for old people that didn’t plan for getting old

−3

Nevaknosbest t1_ivmei8j wrote

Lol like u know what social security even is, comrade

2

Historyboy1603 t1_ivoqege wrote

Willing to bet that you haven’t planned very well for this possibility at all.

1

FortitudeWisdom t1_ivd543t wrote

Yeah he seems like a moron. I'm still voting for him though. Hasan wants to push foolish gun control laws and has done nothing to legalize weed. Basically a wasted seat in the senate if you ask me. The chick is just collecting a fat pay check for nothing. I figure a dumbass who might even stand up to the ATF's nonsense is our better option.

−7

PebblyJackGlasscock t1_ivglk87 wrote

Hassan does not want to take your guns. She wants fewer mentally I’ll people to have guns. As a gun owner, I’d like fewer psychopaths to have guns. All gun owners should want that. Criminals want no control over who has guns.

Hassan can do nothing to decriminalize weed in NH; that would be Sununu and the legislature (and I bet you’re voting for them!) NH could be raking in tax money but chooses not to because the State wants control, like they do with liquor stores.

Don Bolduc is on the record as wanting to redistribute the money you paid into Social Security and leave you nothing.

Go ahead, vote for the socialists who want criminals to have guns. You’re an asshole who should do some research.

4

FortitudeWisdom t1_ivlfbmd wrote

I didn't say she was going to take my guns.

Everyone wants fewer psychopaths to own guns.

Hassan can do something about legalizing weed at the federal level.

I haven't heard of that or seen it. Where does he plan on redistributing the money to?

I'm ok with wealth redistribution. I'm something of a socialist myself. He doesn't want criminals to have guns, that's a strawman. You're bad faith.

0

Itsaburner777 t1_ivcw40k wrote

I like the nice lady who gave me a huge electric and heating bill better, she also completely disregarded the Will of the people who elected her by Vetoing the marijuana decriminalizing bill when she sat as governor.

Let’s keep her around because change sucks.

−8

pahnzoh t1_ivcwiah wrote

And she wants to imprison her constituents for owning firearms.

Suffice to say you couldn't pay me to vote for her.

Not a big fan of Bolduc but he's got my vote as would almost anyone running against her.

−4

ThisIsNotTuna t1_ivevsys wrote

It's like you guys never considered there's a third option..

−1

pahnzoh t1_ivex49x wrote

There isn't one that will win. I'd vote for a libertarian if they had a chance. They don't under our stupid two party system of government.

2

ThisIsNotTuna t1_ivf69rp wrote

They don't have a chance because hardly anyone bothers to vote for a third (or forth) option. And that attitude keeps it so.

1

pahnzoh t1_ivf6r85 wrote

I do agree, but it's a collective action problem. A vote for a third party takes away a vote from the lesser of two evil parties as you perceive it. I can't control how others vote.

I personally think the entire system is flawed and routinely say that. I don't think we should be voting in this way at all. But it's a defensive mechanism against the state using it's powers against us. I'm forced to vote for the person who will do that the least if I want my vote to have any effect, if it even does at all.

3

ThisIsNotTuna t1_ivf8sjg wrote

>I'm forced to vote for the person who will do that the least if I want my vote to have any effect, if it even does at all.

I don't know that I agree with this entirely. I don't recall who originally said it. But there's a saying.. "Be the change you want to see".

Look, one day, this system will either be redefined, amended, or obliterated entirely if we're not careful. Obviously, the change can't happen overnight. But I am repulsed by the notion that we're forced into voting in a binary sort of way; which, as history is showing us, isn't exactly working for everyone.

But I dunno. I'm not exactly a political guy, so I'm still learning the more I read up on things. The only thing I am sure of is....we can't keep doing what we've always done and expect a different result.

2

pahnzoh t1_ivfb1de wrote

Oh yes I agree that people voting for either Democrats or Republicans is going to change anything apparently don't pay attention.

I hate politics, but it's basically the idea that people are out there organizing to put rulers in power to use the government to create systems of control and expropriation. Unfortunately that works against us so the only thing you can do as an individual is vote for the people that want to do it less.

And in a system designed with 51% needed to pass legislation, you end up with competing factions like we have today.

2

petrified_eel4615 t1_ivf8w6t wrote

Not so. There is something called Duverger's Law that basically states that in a FPTP/winner takes all system, the "optimal" solution is two parties - smaller parties get absorbed into whichever is closer to them, because their chances of winning and modifying the behaviors of the two major parties increases.

If you want to get more parties, switch to instant runoff or Condorcet or another form of proportional representation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

2

ThisIsNotTuna t1_ivkimfb wrote

That sort of reinforces my point. The reason third party candidates have no chance of winning is because....voters believe third party candidates have no chance of winning.

But since I'm not much of a politically savvy guy (at least I admit it), I'm just gonna leave this here, as it better explains why so many voters are disillusioned with the two party system.

1

granitestate420 t1_ivf5bgd wrote

Because there isn't one....last time I checked, no one has won an election with 3% of the vote....

2

ThisIsNotTuna t1_ivf61p2 wrote

True. But that shouldn't dictate that I only vote for one of the two main parties just cuz "that's how it's always been".

Well, it hasn't...but you know what I mean.

1

Federal-Cockroach-62 t1_ivf14oe wrote

She knows she’s in a pickle because of her voting record. Putting a few commercials on saying she’s bipartisan is a joke. She’s a tax and spend liberal who has directly let to the highest inflation in 40 years.

−8

Historyboy1603 t1_ivf4e78 wrote

Just out of curiosity, how do you explain how the UK has higher inflation than the USA although governed by its Conservative Party for 20 years?

Other countries with right-led governments that have higher inflation rates than the US include India, Germany, Italy, Brasil, and Colombia.

My explanation is that what’s causing inflation is due much more to large global forces than domestic political policies.

And that voting for or against any political party in the US will not affect inflation in any significant way.

8

Berzerk_Unit_Alpha t1_ivf5r1v wrote

Liberals are responsible for inflation because the party elders of the conservatives say so. That’s all it takes.

Don’t expect an explanation, he is just doing as he is told and parroting what he heard his high priest say.

8

Gloomy-Guide6515 t1_ivfoi71 wrote

You are probably right.

Still, I am genuinely curious how people handle facts that, inescapably, conflict with their prevailing narratives. That's true for adherents of any narrative, political or otherwise.

And, at the least, it might put a tiny irritant in brains, like sand in an oyster.

4

MightyMeat77 t1_ivomuwu wrote

That’s the thing about politics. If a factual explanation can’t fit on a bumper sticker, then it’s all liberal college elitist propaganda.

1