I will never vote for Todd Young again!

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!
  • Restroyer

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 13, 2015
    1,187
    48
    SE Indiana
    Todd Young just lost 4 votes in my family. He sided with Democrats like Kaine & Schumer to minimize the war powers of the President. While I agree full out war should be approved by Congress at the same time we still need our President whomever they are to be able to call for rapid strikes against terrorists like Iran's Soleimani. I have supported Young and so has my family. Not anymore. I hope the Republicans run someone against him with backbone.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-passes-measure-curb-trumps-war-powers-rare-bipartisan-vote
     

    Kdf101

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 9, 2013
    1,242
    113
    Sullivan County
    I don’t know for sure where I stand on this. The president is CINC, but I don’t think that should be unlimited. Declared wars seem to be rare now, but actual wars are common. He will veto it anyway and they won’t get the votes to over ride it. I will probably still vote for young. This being a gun board, I am continually perplexed by statements like above. What are the other options, in regard to gun rights? Third party? Please. That is the same as voting Democrat. Theoretically I get it isn’t, but in practice it is. If other things outweigh your views on gun rights, then I get it; but not voting for a gun rights candidate because of this seems short sighted to me. Your opinion is different though, and that is okay.
     

    Tombs

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    12,021
    113
    Martinsville
    Reducing the ability of the executive to drag the country into a war without the approval of congress is a GREAT thing.

    And I'm not quite sure how voting for someone who supports infanticide is somehow a principled objection.
     

    Kdf101

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 9, 2013
    1,242
    113
    Sullivan County
    Reducing the ability of the executive to drag the country into a war without the approval of congress is a GREAT thing.

    And I'm not quite sure how voting for someone who supports infanticide is somehow a principled objection.


    i lean towards this, especially the second part.
     

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,796
    150
    Avon
    When Don Rumsfeld was SECDEF he stated that a conventional ICBM capability for time critical targets was needed. A "hit a target on the other side of the Earth in 20 minutes" type of capability. Rummy wasn't wrong, but sometimes that's even too slow.

    There's a difference between the power of the purse and micromanagement.
     

    indyjohn

    PATRIOT
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    77   0   0
    Dec 26, 2010
    7,505
    77
    In the trees
    Reducing the ability of the executive to drag the country into a war without the approval of congress is a GREAT thing.

    And I'm not quite sure how voting for someone who supports infanticide is somehow a principled objection.

    i lean towards this, especially the second part.


    [EDIT]
    I grew up in the 1970s. I completely lean towards giving the executive the ability to wage war, that's why I put him in the office.
     

    Kdf101

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 9, 2013
    1,242
    113
    Sullivan County
    I guess I will clarify. I lean towards not letting a president get us into a new war, Iraq is the example I would use. I do think they should be able to respond to hostile actions, the Iranian general is the example I would use. President is CINC, Congress controls the budget. I get that. I agree with that, but 15 plus year wars, even though it wasn’t declared, should not happen. Your mileage may vary of course.
     

    Dead Duck

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    53   0   0
    Apr 1, 2011
    14,062
    113
    .
    Just 2.

    1- Who initiated this?
    2- Was it meant to make Trump look bad?


    If the 1st answer was a democrat then the 2nd will be yes. Just because of that they can shove it.







    *Disclaimer- I haven't read anything on this yet.
     

    Ingomike

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    28,174
    113
    North Central
    Just another attempt by congress to get back power they voted to give away. Some of the republican votes like Rand Paul are principle votes for an issue they champion no matter the executive. The dems are just trying to buck Trump...
     

    avboiler11

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Jun 12, 2011
    2,950
    119
    New Albany
    Young, being a Marine, has a perspective on this I think is worth consideration.

    For YEARS Presidents from both parties have stretched the limits on this, and I don’t think it is necessarily a bad thing to reign it in a bit.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,161
    113
    Gtown-ish
    I’ve voted for Todd Young since he first won his congressional seat. I’ve never really liked him. My vote for him has always been because his views, though often sharply contrasting mine, line up better than the Democrat running against him. It will be no different next time. If one issue makes you decide never to vote for a candidate, consider the possibility that you may be way more idealistic than is helpful. I’m not saying that it’s wrong to be a primarily one-issue voter. We all pretty much are being that this is a gun forum. But about that, it’s still a spectrum.

    Say Young favored red flag laws similar to Indiana, and was running against a Democrat who also favored a red flaws, but more like California’s, plus an AWB, plus UBC, and pretty much the entire stack of democrat anti-gun wet dream laws. I’m voting for Young even though I don’t like him. The choice is pragmatic. The outcome is objectively better.

    But anyway, good on Young for wanting to limit the President’s power to wage war.
     

    ashby koss

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    18   0   0
    Jan 24, 2013
    1,168
    48
    Connersville
    I guess I will clarify. I lean towards not letting a president get us into a new war, Iraq is the example I would use. I do think they should be able to respond to hostile actions, the Iranian general is the example I would use. President is CINC, Congress controls the budget. I get that. I agree with that, but 15 plus year wars, even though it wasn’t declared, should not happen. Your mileage may vary of course.

    then it’s Congress that needs to stop funding it! Oooh checks and balances.
     

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,796
    150
    Avon
    Young, being a Marine, has a perspective on this I think is worth consideration.

    For YEARS Presidents from both parties have stretched the limits on this, and I don’t think it is necessarily a bad thing to reign it in a bit.

    Senator Young was a Marine? He actually mentioned it? :laugh: I swear that guy says he's a Marine more often than a Fighter Pilot invokes the wings.
     

    drillsgt

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    108   0   0
    Nov 29, 2009
    9,627
    149
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Just another attempt by congress to get back power they voted to give away. Some of the republican votes like Rand Paul are principle votes for an issue they champion no matter the executive. The dems are just trying to buck Trump...

    That's exactly what it was. I didn't see the democrats that concerned about it when obama was President and he loved his drone strikes, it's just an issue now when Trump hits someone from their favorite evil empire lol. This was nothing more than another attempt to go after Trump, and the Republicans that voted for it are fools. I notice Young isn't bragging about this on his FB page and only a tiny blurb on his Senate page.
     

    Trigger Time

    Air guitar master
    Rating - 98.6%
    204   3   0
    Aug 26, 2011
    40,112
    113
    SOUTH of Zombie city
    Todd young meh. Just another worthless drone like most all of Congress.
    The president will veto this. Its a big bag of nothing burgers. A big grandstand and waste of the peoples time and money.
     

    Libertarian01

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 12, 2009
    6,006
    113
    Fort Wayne
    I'm sorry OP but I think I'm going to have to disagree with you here.

    What I don't like from what I read is that this is only limited to Iran.

    Personally, I would like to see much of the [STRIKE]King's[/STRIKE] President's power rescinded to back in about 1938, before the war. We have granted that office too much power out of fear, laziness, and general unwillingness of the Congress to responsibly do their jobs!

    The problem here is that Trump is willing to push everything to its limit - and beyond. Perhaps this is a good thing in a backwards way. It may be showing folks what that office can do with the power it never originally had.

    I like to try to keep an open mind and perhaps it could be changed, but on this issue I think that would take a lot of work.

    Regards,

    Doug
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    Did anyone read the text of the actual Act? Just curious.

    House version referred to Senate here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/83/text

    Seems to note Iran is a threat and sponsors terrorism. Allows for immediate action when required to defend US personnel or interests. Specifically states does not apply to Al-Queda or associates.

    All this uproar over if POTUS makes a strike on Iran without prior Congressional approval he has to explain why?

    (3) In matters of imminent armed attacks, the executive branch should indicate to Congress why military action was necessary within a certain window of opportunity, the possible harm that missing the window would cause, and why the action was likely to prevent future disastrous attacks against the United States.

    What am I upset about?
     

    Ingomike

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    28,174
    113
    North Central
    Did anyone read the text of the actual Act? Just curious.

    House version referred to Senate here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/83/text

    Seems to note Iran is a threat and sponsors terrorism. Allows for immediate action when required to defend US personnel or interests. Specifically states does not apply to Al-Queda or associates.

    All this uproar over if POTUS makes a strike on Iran without prior Congressional approval he has to explain why?



    What am I upset about?

    And if a dem controlled house does not like the explanation the President gives for he's actions, can they impeach him on that?

    Just an exercise in political power...
     
    Top Bottom