Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

cdkzfw t1_iunsejd wrote

Sadly no matter how moderate you are, most people down here won't vote for anyone with D next to their name. You also aren't very likely to do any good in R primary unless your ready to use a flamethrower/50 cal/tank/cannon to blow up CRT in your campaign commercials. We need a common sense alternative but its a pretty hopeless effort at the moment.

11

willardharrisupvotes t1_iuo2wwf wrote

I have hope that over a few election cycles I can start to show moderate Republicans that I’m not trying to make things worse or ruin their lives. I’m fully aware I won’t win.

2

ProGlizzyHandler t1_iun7ibr wrote

You didn't say anything about the jews/mexicans/blacks ruining the country, didn't say anything good about Trump, and totally missed the whole stolen election. You also didn't support the troops, call Biden any names, or referencing locking up Hillary. Plus you failed to remind everyone that the LGBTQ community are pedo groomers trying to snach up all the children by letting men wear dresses.

Basically your chances are slim to none in southern MO unless you're willing to jump on the insanity train, run as a republican, and sacrifice all your good ideas in favor of crushing freedoms and supporting bigotry. Bonus points if you can string together a mildly coherent sentence that includes both being anti-censorship and pro-banning books.

Not to say I don't think you should run, just set realistic expectations. There's just not enough of is progressives around here to drown out the fascism.

7

willardharrisupvotes t1_iunh51z wrote

I don’t believe I’ll win at all. But I do believe I could help start bridging the gap with those who are on the fence about the GOP but have spent years being fed lies that Dems just want to destroy everything. Then maybe a few years later have enough base to successfully rerun

4

trailtotrial t1_iuo0039 wrote

Start smaller. Gain experience in campaigning. Get your name out there. Establish a record that you can point to as your position on important issues.

5

LifeRocks114 t1_iun7iba wrote

Your positions sound fairly middle-of-the-road but leaning to the left, which would make you popular with what few "common-sense" moderates there are in the ozarks. But the emphasis in that sentence should be "few". I like some of what you're talking about, but if there was another democrat running who's positions were more closely aligned to what I want I'd vote for them.

I have been called a "radical liberal socialist commie bitch" though, so take my opinion with a grain of salt I guess? You'd find some support, maybe even enough to get your name on the ballot, but I don't think you'd have good chances of winning against an incumbent republican without major help and then some.

4

willardharrisupvotes t1_iunjlwt wrote

It’s funny how many people scream communism but have never read the communist manifesto and don’t understand China’s “communism” is really just the facism the GOP is turning into

5

tc65681 t1_iuo0j8w wrote

lol “radical liberal socialist commie bitch” - don’t you love it when people say crap like that- makes you kind of realize they really don’t know what they are talking

3

KTfl1 t1_iuno1vo wrote

Moderate speaking federal candidates have historically voted along party lines. I don't know what happens along party lines behind the scenes, but it is rare a Democrat votes against Pelosi. Manchin comes to mind, but that seems very rare to me. Do you know why this is?

Unfortunately, without major $$, winning any election is difficult. Moderate candidates don't excite people anymore. I think people want a Hawley to counter AOC.

3

willardharrisupvotes t1_iunrnxj wrote

I’m not old enough to run for senate. Also Hawley would sadly roast any far left candidate.

2

Dbol504 t1_iuo24b1 wrote

I would start with a run for one of the open school board seats before getting too far out there yet.

3

willardharrisupvotes t1_iuo5jgy wrote

I’m not sure how I would benefit families in that role. My main position in education is setting aside more funding for classrooms and paying teachers more.

1

VaderTower t1_iuqc5y8 wrote

I think the point being made is school board is hard enough right now, try something more realistic to see if you can handle the pressure and stick to your points under pressure.

Federal office is definitely not something you can get into easy, hell even a MO state representative seat takes a lot of work, I know a few currently running locally and have seen the crazy amount of time it's taken. Not to mention only getting paid $30k/yr for half the year of driving up to Jeff City, so hopefully you have a fluid enough job on the side that will allow that, and pay a bit more. Likewise just to make banners/signs you'll need a minimum $5000, so you also have to be good at asking for money, unless you can handle putting up that or more personally.

2

willardharrisupvotes t1_iut34up wrote

I can put up a good amount of funding myself for a state rep position. As for asking for money, I don’t mind as long as it’s for reasonable purchases and not so just to funnel into other things

1

heavyrocker1989 t1_iunhmax wrote

I live in Willard, I don't see you really going far unless you start promoting now to get your name out there. And by promoting, the Veterans day parade coming up, sponsoring events during Christmas, 4th of July events all over w/ booths, craft fairs in the fall, going door to door as much as possible and news leader interviews, etc. Honestly most people would need a lot of time to see past the blue D next to your name on the ballot. I'd focus more on local issues, the foreign investors purchasing our lands, veteran benefits and more public education funding would be the things I'd probably promote. Being pro 2nd amendment is basically a must, but people would see you wanting to limit gun access and possibly use that against you, so you'd need to rebrand that. You can opt to get involved in Springfield to get your name out there, however I'd focus more on the rural side and doing what is best for rural Missouri and what makes the rural parts of the state great.

You can message me and speak to me individually and I'd be happy to talk about putting a sign in my yard, too busy to really volunteer. If you wanted to replace Billy Long, I'd happily endorse you already on spec.

1

willardharrisupvotes t1_iunjzco wrote

I want to work with farmers! Like I’ve ran cattle and cut hay. I feel for the farmers getting undercut by companies like Tyson so much. My biggest fear is they’ve been so brainwashed that they’ll hear democrat and think I’m going to take their jobs.

2

StrongPlan3 t1_iunvv14 wrote

Are there any true, solid libertarians in the area?

1

willardharrisupvotes t1_iuo3gmr wrote

I know a lot of former Republicans that left the party due to Trump but they’d go back in a heartbeat if the GOP denounced him. (Which they never will as he’s like a prophet to them)

3

StrongPlan3 t1_iuo5nn7 wrote

I just can't stand either anymore, red or blue. I'd be willing to put some time and energy into a third option just there seems to be no option that doesn't involve shoving opinions and beliefs onto others with an indirect threat of force ie laws and regulations. We need to start repealing laws imo and every politicians solution to a problem is writing more laws.

Also most libertarians seem to be stereotypical republicans that smoke weed which I think has garnered libertarianism a bad wrap.

0

willardharrisupvotes t1_iuo6ita wrote

Sadly everyone gives the “if you vote for a third party, you’re wasting your vote” answer

2

StrongPlan3 t1_iuo7h8c wrote

Unfortunately, you are right. Which will keep us on the slow march, which I feel hastened recently, to either red or blue authoritarianism. People seem to advocate for the removal of their own freedoms as long as the party doing it is the right color. What they fail to realize is those regulations they advocated for will be weaponized against them the next cycle.

0

willardharrisupvotes t1_iuoqt7d wrote

The weaponizing has always been a thing. It would happen even if there was more than two parties.

2

ManlyVanLee t1_iuozh8u wrote

No matter what don't run as a Democrat. The mindless droves from here absolutely will not vote for you. You could literally run on the "give everyone a million dollars" platform and they would still just talk about you taking their guns or 'killing babies'

Run as an 'R' and do whatever you want. Then they might listen to your plans and people like me who are looking for the least evil Republican to vote for since no Dem would win will vote for you

1

Spiritual_Dentist_54 t1_iupnwnx wrote

District 7 is a tough one for a democrat. I’m friends with our current candidate, and she’s not making much progress. She consistently has constituents tell her that they agree with everything she says, but can’t bring themselves to vote for a democrat.

You might do better as a conservative independent, since there’s a lot of people sick of Trumpism, but still would be a losing strategy.

1

willardharrisupvotes t1_iuwmbgp wrote

It’s definitely not about winning my first election cycle. It’s about getting my name and platform out there.

1

[deleted] OP t1_iusdche wrote

[deleted]

1

willardharrisupvotes t1_iut2k7s wrote

Chances of being on the ballot or being elected?

1

[deleted] OP t1_iut2sp9 wrote

[deleted]

1

jttIII t1_iuo0nrm wrote

Explain your 2A stance in more elaborate detail please.

Who in addition to those who are already legally barred from owning firearms would you seek to restrict or impede access to?

Also how do you intend on limiting the constitutional right that is Open carry?

Not loaded questions (pun absolutely intended) but sincere questions that you'll have to address clearly if you want to be taken seriously at all in Missouri.

0

willardharrisupvotes t1_iuo4meu wrote

If I were to run with that issue in my platform (which I’ve been told is a bad bet) I would increase red flag laws to stop those like the St. Louis shooter from being able to get their hands on guns. I also would close the unregistered sale loophole that lets buyers go background check free.

As for limiting open carry, I would leave it up to businesses to decide if someone can open carry in their establishment.

1

jttIII t1_iuo7avi wrote

Okay... so really nothing in regards to addressing open carry... just reminding business owners of their already existing rights to restrict open carry on their private property.

In regards to "Increasing red flag laws" Specifically when does the government get to come take your 2nd amendment away? by what committee? based on what non already existing crietea or crime should one be barred from their 2nd amendment right? Why not also extend that to the first amendment? Some peoples speech is just too dangerous...

Also Orlando in St. Louis he was literally blocked by the FBI during his background check and had to buy that piece of garbage with no hand guard from a private individual.

0

willardharrisupvotes t1_iuofz78 wrote

There are limits on free speech. The Supreme Court has already ruled that. He bought the gun privately and that needs to stop happening. You can lose constitutional rights; most felons cannot vote or carry guns. But I can see you have an issue with updating an amendment written by men who believed people could be property and thought a musket rifle was a powerful weapon.

2

jttIII t1_iuohnvj wrote

Attacking the person and not the argument is not a good look when speaking to potential Constituents...

besides that and going back to the substance of the argument with my question that has not yet been answered is the following... What mechanism specifically, that does not currently exist, (I'm aware felons cannot vote or own firearms legally.) would exist to determine when an individual gets their rights restrained or revoked by committee? what criteria? again why shouldn't that apply to other rights?

AND I actually have no problem with updating Amendments... that's specifically how our government has been set up and we've done it MULTIPLE times... I do have a problem with any elected egomaniac wannabe tyrant trying to circumvent a process designed for, by and of the people just to fit their short term political whims because their position actually ISN'T strong enough to be fulfilled or realized through the intended process.

Also... specifically what is the purpose of the second amendment?

−1

willardharrisupvotes t1_iuoq1lg wrote

I’m sorry but isn’t the right famous for attacking potential voters? As for you being a potential voter, it was clear with your question that you wouldn’t be keen to vote for me.

There is a court to decide what can take away a persons freedoms. If that court decides that someone saying they were so tired of the world and wanted to load up and end things was enough to put a red flag on them and not allow the purchase of firearms then that would be common sense. If they decided that, just like vehicles, you had to report any firearm purchase so be it. I’m not talking about taking guns away from responsible owners. I’m talking about keeping them from people who are struggling with mental issues at the time or have history of disturbing acts.

As for the purpose of 2A, it was originally written to protect the right of self defense and oppression. As other amendments from the Bill of Rights have had amendments to correct them, there is nothing in the constitution that says the right to bear arms cannot be clarified.

2

jttIII t1_iuotsrx wrote

"I’m sorry but isn’t the right famous for attacking potential voters?" what!? I think crazy is as crazy does and doesn't really have a partisan affiliation... But if we really wanna go down that route I'd be more than happy to stack up the damage and loss of life with your January 6th argument against the Chaz/Chop, BLM "mostly peaceful protests" any day of the week to isolate who tends to be more violent on the political spectrum but I digress...

Now in regards to your central argument that there is a hypothetical court that determines who has a valid stand on retaining or having their 2A rights restricted OUTSIDE of committing and being found guilty of an act like a felony or domestic violence that would preclude them from owning a firearm (something we both probably agree is a good thing for at least a period of time) Can you, and this is an honest question, can you fathom any situation or circumstance where this could be abused or bastardised and result in a law abiding citizen being stripped of their ability to defend themselves until a committee of likely unelected bureaucratic officials deem it safe? Could that system be weaponized?

If you agree so, is that just collateral damage you're willing to accept for the greater good?

if not, do you then hold the position that such a court would be somehow foolproof in ensuring NO ONE EVER lost their 2nd amendment rights unjustly?

0

exhusband2bears t1_iup5y19 wrote

> January 6th argument against the Chaz/Chop, BLM "mostly peaceful protests"

This is a tired, old line of bullshit.

> Now in regards to your central argument that there is a hypothetical court that determines who has a valid stand on retaining or having their 2A rights restricted OUTSIDE of committing and being found guilty of an act like a felony or domestic violence that would preclude them from owning a firearm (something we both probably agree is a good thing for at least a period of time) Can you, and this is an honest question, can you fathom any situation or circumstance where this could be abused or bastardised and result in a law abiding citizen being stripped of their ability to defend themselves until a committee of likely unelected bureaucratic officials deem it safe? Could that system be weaponized?

Could you, and this is an honest question, possibly fathom any way to be more pedantic and overly prolix?

> If you agree so, is that just collateral damage you're willing to accept for the greater good?

> If not, do you then hold the position that such a court would be somehow foolproof in ensuring NO ONE EVER lost their 2nd amendment rights unjustly?

Ah yes, the ol' "How long has it been since you last beat your wife, and do you think spousal abuse is wrong?"

Your whole schtick is like a big old grab bag of intellectual dishonesty.

Edit: formatting

1