Trump is surely a threat to our way of life. But again, I feel the need to remind you that he is running against the 2nd most hated Presidential candidate in modern history. We all know what Trump has/continues to do. But Crooked Hillary is also an egomaniac, has endangered American security and refuses to apologize, has also made disturbing remarks about a large portion of the American population (blacks, jews, etc.), her high level staff has insulted Catholics and Evangelicals, she's got a key advisor with Muslim Brotherhood ties, she's put women in the spotlight because their sons tried to kill cops, others in the spotlight because they're undocumented... the list goes on and on. It's a pick your poison kind of thing at this point.
As long as we're throwing around straight-up conspiracy theories like the Huma Abedin Muslim Brotherhood lie, you might as well include that Hillary's a lizard person.
If Clinton is so bad, why do you feel the need to pad your list with outright falsehoods? Or do you not bother to check?
As long as we're cherry-picking ridiculous things might I point you to all of the Neo-Nazi elements within the Trump campaign such as: support from David Duke that they were unaware of, retweeting an image of Hillary with a Star of David on it (other than it not being a Star of David and Hillary not being Jewish, it was totally anti-semitic) or, say, Laura Ingraham's Heil Hitler salute for der Fuhrer Drumpf?
We both agree that Trump is a problem. Why not judge Crooked Hillary by the same standards, then?
Based on your comments the last year Highroller, I don't think you really agree with the argument Glenn Beck is making, except that you probably don't like Hillary much either and view her as someone the government can manage.
Well, yeah, pretty much. Obviously I don't agree with Glenn Beck's political views. He's still a nutjob. Still, I thought it was at least a fairly reasonable position on his part, which surprised me.
The point is, Trump is just about as textbook of an example of a person who is not only a terrible candidate for president, but also an outright threat to our system of government, as a person can be. In school, you talk about why the Founding Fathers crafted the government with so many checks and balances and so forth. I imagine a lot of High School history and social studies teachers are answering, "Why'd they put that restriction in there?" not with a hypothetical, but with a finger pointing and the news and going, "Because of that guy."
Trump is about as obvious of an incorrect answer as can be. If people are STILL backing him, that means they are putting something else above the country, and that means they are putting something over their duty as citizens to this country and their ethical duty as human beings.
Trump is surely a threat to our way of life. But again, I feel the need to remind you that he is running against the 2nd most hated Presidential candidate in modern history. We all know what Trump has/continues to do. But Crooked Hillary is also an egomaniac, has endangered American security and refuses to apologize, has also made disturbing remarks about a large portion of the American population (blacks, jews, etc.), her high level staff has insulted Catholics and Evangelicals, she's got a key advisor with Muslim Brotherhood ties, she's put women in the spotlight because their sons tried to kill cops, others in the spotlight because they're undocumented... the list goes on and on. It's a pick your poison kind of thing at this point.
So far, my read is that Trump's camp is composed of four groups:
1. People who are indeed racist, sexist, xenophobic, and bigoted, who have found in Trump a mainstream candidate willing to reflect their own bigotry and xenophobia.
2. People who are legitimately news ignorant, OR who actively reject any news that does not fit their biases.
3. People who are so locked in a partisan mindset that they will vote Republican automatically.
4. People who specifically hate Hillary Clinton, and who may or may not think she is actually Satan. (No, I'm being serious, Google it.)
The thing that is important to remember is that these camps definitely have overlap.
To the jab in #4: yes there are some wacky criticisms of her but then there are some who earnestly compare Trump to Hitler, so whatever. These are the two most reviled candidates in modern POTUS history. This is not just about typical partisan bias. Why was Gary Johnson ahead of her in the independent vote as of a couple weeks ago? If it's true that Johnson is a loon then there's really no excuse for a major party nominee to be trailing among independents.
Intercession confuses me because if intercession has power, it seems counter-intuitive that a just God would act differently due to the results of a popularity contest. So for the sake of example, if you take 2 people who are same in almost every respect but one suffers from social anxiety and the other is quite charismatic, then the latter is going to do better with the Almighty?
To be fair, this was going on for years while the CFPB did nothing. It took an LA Times report for this all to begin surfacing. Then it took 3 more years for CFPB to do anything substantive about it after the LA Times got it started.
So the watchdog that the right constantly tries to hamstring didn't act fast enough? Well golly gee gosh, why ever could that be?
Because they're a government entity and because are a government entity, they rely on force and because they rely on force, they both push out alternatives and conduct themselves in a way that is wildly inefficient? (Like the way the FDA created a monopoly for Mylan on epinephrine injectors)
Wells Fargo is a perfect example of a market regulating itself for the better... oh wait.... nope, nope, it just proves that markets cheat the system, keep it secret for years and only regulation and government intervention keeps these organizations honest in the long run since individuals don't have recourse.
To be fair, this was going on for years while the CFPB did nothing. It took an LA Times report for this all to begin surfacing. Then it took 3 more years for CFPB to do anything substantive about it after the LA Times got it started.
I think it's entertaining that the main parties are still grasping at straws and scared as Johnson's popularity goes up and up.
I think it's entertaining that you think this is what's happening. The Democrats and Republicans are no more scared of Johnson than they're scared of Bigfoot. Both have an approximately equal chance of winning the election.
Well, I did post an article earlier about Crooked Hillary trying to take some of his votes and with Johnson leading both of them among independents, it does look like a ripe group to target. Nevermind that he's a megalomaniac and she seriously endangered our national security and can't be bothered to apologize for it for longer than 5 seconds, Gary Johnson one time forgot where Aleppo was and that's what's really important?
Either that or, you know, you're kinda reaching like a trapeze artist because that's literally not what the question was. You're all getting too desperate now.
We're desperate because your boy has now choked twice on national television, AND created his own meme on top of it?
I'll believe that Gary Johnson doesn't know what Aleppo is as soon as we all start believing that Obama thinks there are 57 states. It's absurd.
And as for the world leaders question, would you again re-read/re-listen to it? Because right now I feel like the only one that actually paid attention to what the question was.
"Gary Johnson wants to be the leader of the free world. Can't name any other leaders in the free world," wrote another Twitter user, Aღanda.
Either that or, you know, you're kinda reaching like a trapeze artist because that's literally not what the question was. You're all getting too desperate now.
Hardly a huge leap to suggest that the man who invoked the name of Allah during the attacks in St. Cloud was motivated by radical Islam.
And you responded exactly the way I knew you were going to.
1. At the time of your post, we only had information that one of the attacks was motivated by ISIS, and no information whatsoever on the other two.
2. Even if we knew they were all motivated by radical jihadists, that is not the same as being motivated by Islam. It's similar to the difference between saying an attack was the result of someone subscribing to Irish nationalist terrorism, versus saying an attack was the result of someone being Irish.
The St. Cloud attacker cried out "Allah!" while stabbing people and the bomber responsible for the attacks in Manhattan and New Jersey was Ahmad Khan Rahami, a naturalized citizen from Afghanistan and you expect us to believe that radical Islam has nothing to do with these attacks? Come on man, please don't be disingenuous.
Yet we can't talk about radical Islam. Can't even admit that this has anything to do with Islam at all. Neither can we discuss the U.S.' ridiculous foreign policy that involves bombing whoever and arming whoever else for God only knows what reasons. What's the plan to combat terrorism again? Cross our fingers?
You're putting the cart before the horse. A good chunk of the reason no one votes for 3rd Party candidates is because of the stigma label "3rd Party."
Not even remotely the case. The stigms of the label third party comes from the fact that people very rarely vote for them, and people very rarely voting for them comes from their extremist and alienating viewpoints, and many times detachment from reality.
This has been a demonstrated fact throughout our country. We generally tend to have two dominant parties, with a third party only coming into prominence when the two dominant parties either are not addressing a major issue, or have candidates that are exceedingly unpopular. This is because the two dominant parties tend to be centrist, with the third party occupying an extreme viewpoint and/or based entirely around a single issue.
10%+ can't be that insignificant as crooked Hillary is making a concerted effort to buy their votes. And really, it's no surprise, as it is a more powerful demographic than the Muslims or illegals that she normally panders to.
If this language is indicative of how you really think... quit fooling yourself and just vote for Trump.
That's absurd. Why would I vote for him when we disagree on almost every major issue?
So again, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld both served as Republican governors of Democratic states, are on the ballot in all 50 states and currently carry 10%+ of the vote with very limited media exposure and without the kinds of resources that the big parties have developed over more than a century of exploitation against the people of this country. To suggest that they are comically out of touch with the American people is... comically out of touch.
I love that the two great achievements you hold up are that they got on the ballot (requires a few thousand signatures in most states and the wherewithal to file on time), and that they manage to scrape together a tiny minority of the polls (which has not in the past translated to actual votes - at this point in 2012 Johnson was polling at 6%. He got <1% on election day). 10% is terrible. But apparently we have to use kiddie gloves for the libertarians and give them a pat on the back for it. And also give them an invite to the debates, because while 10% is a great achievement, 15% is apparently impossible.
If getting on the ballot in all states is so easy, why is it that no other third party can do it?
10%+ can't be that insignificant as crooked Hillary is making a concerted effort to buy their votes. And really, it's no surprise, as it is a more powerful demographic than the Muslims or illegals that she normally panders to.
You know how many votes a party that is in touch with American voters earns? 40-50%.
40% * 3 = 120%. Mathematically impossible.
As far as libertarian candidates go, Johnson and Weld are not terribly out of touch.
Exactly.
But their newfound party is. Johnson got booed at the libertarian debates for saying he thinks driver's licences aren't the worst idea in the world (every other candidate on stage vehemently opposed them), and for saying that he would sign the civil rights act. Johnson might even have a political future - not as president, but maybe in congress - but the mere choice to take up the libertarian mantle is comically out of touch. It's not a serious party, and no serious candidate would run under their banner. Johnson surely knows this - when he wanted to be president in 2012, he first ran as a republican, and only joined the libertarian ticket when it was clear the republicans weren't interested.
They are indisputably the 3rd largest political party in this country.
The two party "lock" exists because people aren't voting for anyone else, bLatch.
So again, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld both served as Republican governors of Democratic states, are on the ballot in all 50 states and currently carry 10%+ of the vote with very limited media exposure and without the kinds of resources that the big parties have developed over more than a century of exploitation against the people of this country. To suggest that they are comically out of touch with the American people is... comically out of touch.
Republican offices firebombed in North Carolina.
Clinton and DNC activists inciting violence at Trump rallies, undermining our democratic system.
As long as we're cherry-picking ridiculous things might I point you to all of the Neo-Nazi elements within the Trump campaign such as: support from David Duke that they were unaware of, retweeting an image of Hillary with a Star of David on it (other than it not being a Star of David and Hillary not being Jewish, it was totally anti-semitic) or, say, Laura Ingraham's Heil Hitler salute for der Fuhrer Drumpf?
We both agree that Trump is a problem. Why not judge Crooked Hillary by the same standards, then?
Trump is surely a threat to our way of life. But again, I feel the need to remind you that he is running against the 2nd most hated Presidential candidate in modern history. We all know what Trump has/continues to do. But Crooked Hillary is also an egomaniac, has endangered American security and refuses to apologize, has also made disturbing remarks about a large portion of the American population (blacks, jews, etc.), her high level staff has insulted Catholics and Evangelicals, she's got a key advisor with Muslim Brotherhood ties, she's put women in the spotlight because their sons tried to kill cops, others in the spotlight because they're undocumented... the list goes on and on. It's a pick your poison kind of thing at this point.
To the jab in #4: yes there are some wacky criticisms of her but then there are some who earnestly compare Trump to Hitler, so whatever. These are the two most reviled candidates in modern POTUS history. This is not just about typical partisan bias. Why was Gary Johnson ahead of her in the independent vote as of a couple weeks ago? If it's true that Johnson is a loon then there's really no excuse for a major party nominee to be trailing among independents.
Because they're a government entity and because are a government entity, they rely on force and because they rely on force, they both push out alternatives and conduct themselves in a way that is wildly inefficient? (Like the way the FDA created a monopoly for Mylan on epinephrine injectors)
To be fair, this was going on for years while the CFPB did nothing. It took an LA Times report for this all to begin surfacing. Then it took 3 more years for CFPB to do anything substantive about it after the LA Times got it started.
Well, I did post an article earlier about Crooked Hillary trying to take some of his votes and with Johnson leading both of them among independents, it does look like a ripe group to target. Nevermind that he's a megalomaniac and she seriously endangered our national security and can't be bothered to apologize for it for longer than 5 seconds, Gary Johnson one time forgot where Aleppo was and that's what's really important?
I'll believe that Gary Johnson doesn't know what Aleppo is as soon as we all start believing that Obama thinks there are 57 states. It's absurd.
And as for the world leaders question, would you again re-read/re-listen to it? Because right now I feel like the only one that actually paid attention to what the question was.
https://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/palin-redux-watch-libertarian-candidate-gary-johnson-unable-to-name-one-world-leader-he-admires/
Which of course leads to:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37506311
Either that or, you know, you're kinda reaching like a trapeze artist because that's literally not what the question was. You're all getting too desperate now.
The St. Cloud attacker cried out "Allah!" while stabbing people and the bomber responsible for the attacks in Manhattan and New Jersey was Ahmad Khan Rahami, a naturalized citizen from Afghanistan and you expect us to believe that radical Islam has nothing to do with these attacks? Come on man, please don't be disingenuous.
Yet we can't talk about radical Islam. Can't even admit that this has anything to do with Islam at all. Neither can we discuss the U.S.' ridiculous foreign policy that involves bombing whoever and arming whoever else for God only knows what reasons. What's the plan to combat terrorism again? Cross our fingers?
Hardly a huge leap to suggest that the man who invoked the name of Allah during the attacks in St. Cloud was motivated by radical Islam.
We do have that in common - that neither of us would use the 3 terror attacks in the U.S. yesterday as a reason to whine about 'Islamophobia.'
But we disagree about:
-The wall
-Mass deportation
-War
-Torture
-Economic policies (all of them)
-Taxes
-Personal freedoms (e.g. the drug war, prostitution, etc.)
So no, I'm not going to vote for him.
That's absurd. Why would I vote for him when we disagree on almost every major issue?
If getting on the ballot in all states is so easy, why is it that no other third party can do it?
10%+ can't be that insignificant as crooked Hillary is making a concerted effort to buy their votes. And really, it's no surprise, as it is a more powerful demographic than the Muslims or illegals that she normally panders to.
40% * 3 = 120%. Mathematically impossible.
Exactly.
They are indisputably the 3rd largest political party in this country.
So again, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld both served as Republican governors of Democratic states, are on the ballot in all 50 states and currently carry 10%+ of the vote with very limited media exposure and without the kinds of resources that the big parties have developed over more than a century of exploitation against the people of this country. To suggest that they are comically out of touch with the American people is... comically out of touch.