Obama invaded Afghanistan?

[AUFAN78 4,130]

16 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

And Trump don't lie...

But Hiladabeast does. Daily.

[AUFAN78 4,130]

16 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

Nah, that wasn't me. By no means am I a fan of Hillary Clinton, but if you held a gun to my head and made me choose between Hillary and Trump, I would pull the lever for her in a heartbeat with no stain on my conscience. She's not a good candidate. At all. Trump is far, far worse. He has no business being in the race. He's simply the worst possible individual we could nominate to lead the free world. The sooner we put his awful candidacy in the rear view mirror, the better.

As it stands, I'll probably be voting for Johnson, as I live in a solid red state and my vote is ultimately meaningless except to hopefully get the Libertarians to the 5% mark. Not that I'm a fan of the Libertarians. Like most people, there are a lot of things I agree with them on. Also like most people, I'm freaked out by their batsh*t stances on other issues.

Don't you see that as the real problem? If the MSM would spend a significant portion of their time pointing out obvious flaws in both Hilary's and Trumps history/campaigns and espousing the views of Johnson, maybe, just maybe we could make some real history. Otherwise, we settle for crap.

 

More and more I find myself leaning to Johnson. No, not crazy about everything he stands for, but the alternative sucks! Why settle?

[AUFAN78 4,130]

17 hours ago, Mims44 said:

ooohhh, so we still pretending this trump presidency is serious?

 

ok.

Some here don't yet get it. 

[AUFAN78 4,130]

16 hours ago, NC1406 said:

Feel the same about kankales. That bitch is scary. 

Scary? IDK. Bat sh** crazy I could agree with.

[AUDub 11,784]

7 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Don't you see that as the real problem? If the MSM would spend a significant portion of their time pointing out obvious flaws in both Hilary's and Trumps history/campaigns and espousing the views of Johnson, maybe, just maybe we could make some real history. Otherwise, we settle for crap.

 

More and more I find myself leaning to Johnson. No, not crazy about everything he stands for, but the alternative sucks! Why settle?

 

I don't think Johnson would stand up to intense scrutiny any better than Hillary. They all suck. Johnson and the Libertarians' economic plan makes Trump look left left-wing. Stein and the Greens are batsh*t crazy on medicine and science in general. Hillary and the Dems are viewed as left wing but I would actually argue they're center right. Donald and the Republicans are so far out there that they're dead last in my list of "bite-my-tongue" votes. 

 

But I wouldn't mind more choices. I would love to have 4, 5 or 6 parties to choose from. I'll vote Libertarian because I hope we can get other parties a seat at the table in the future.

[AUFAN78 4,130]

3 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

 

I don't think Johnson would stand up to intense scrutiny any better than Hillary. They all suck. Johnson and the Libertarians' economic plan makes Trump look left left-wing. Stein and the Greens are batsh*t crazy on medicine and science in general. Hillary and the Dems are viewed as left wing but I would actually argue they're center right. Donald and the Republicans are so far out there that they're dead last in my list of "bite-my-tongue" votes. 

 

But I wouldn't mind more choices. I would love to have 4, 5 or 6 parties to choose from. I'll vote Libertarian because I hope we can get other parties a seat at the table in the future.

"I don't think Johnson would stand up to intense scrutiny any better than Hillary."

 

Let's visit that momentarily. What scandal Has Johnson been a part of?

[AUDub 11,784]

3 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

"I don't think Johnson would stand up to intense scrutiny any better than Hillary."

 

Let's visit that momentarily. What scandal Has Johnson been a part of?

You asked about history/campaigns. Between the two, there's no doubt which one has more skeletons in their closet. But as I said yesterday, like most people, there's a lot I agree with the Libertarians on. Also, like most people, their batsh*t position on other issues run me off. The Libertarian party always pops up, but I don't really view them as a viable third option because of their gilded age view on the economy. The more you scrutinize their platform, the crazier they look. 

[AUFAN78 4,130]

32 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

You asked about history/campaigns. Between the two, there's no doubt which one has more skeletons in their closet. But as I said yesterday, like most people, there's a lot I agree with the Libertarians on. Also, like most people, their batsh*t position on other issues run me off. The Libertarian party always pops up, but I don't really view them as a viable third option because of their gilded age view on the economy. The more you scrutinize their platform, the crazier they look. 

I wonder if platform even matters anymore? IKOC, but how much does it?

If you view this forum as a microcosm of the electorate, does it at all?  Would it matter in an election? Would character not be the primary concern?

 

 

 

[AUDub 11,784]

Oh look she's a 9/11 truther too.

 

[AUDub 11,784]

4 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

I wonder if platform even matters anymore? IKOC, but how much does it?

If you view this forum as a microcosm of the electorate, does it at all?  Would it matter in an election? Would character not be the primary concern?

 

To me, certainly.

To me, a lot.

Voters are becoming a lot more "single-issue," if you will, and it's no different here.

It should.

Character should not be the primary concern, but an important one.

[AUDub 11,784]

Oh, and a racist:

 

Anyone want to argue that she isn't a blithering idiot? Her Twitter history is gold. No wonder Trump hired her.

[homersapien 12,172]

12 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

Oh, and a racist:

 

Anyone want to argue that she isn't a blithering idiot? Her Twitter history is gold. No wonder Trump hired her.

 

That's kind of ironic since she herself is obviously not a "purebred".

[AUDub 11,784]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

 

That's kind of ironic since she herself is obviously not a "purebred".

She's like an easy on the eyes Uncle Ruckus.

[telling tiger 156]

OHhhhhhhhhhhhhh, she was run over by the really smart train............a blithering idiot, shilling for a blithering idiot..........Morons.

[Guest NC1406]

On August 14, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Bigbens42 said:

You asked about history/campaigns. Between the two, there's no doubt which one has more skeletons in their closet. But as I said yesterday, like most people, there's a lot I agree with the Libertarians on. Also, like most people, their batsh*t position on other issues run me off. The Libertarian party always pops up, but I don't really view them as a viable third option because of their gilded age view on the economy. The more you scrutinize their platform, the crazier they look. 

 

Please expand upon "gilded age view on the economy". Not arguing just interested in what you really mean by this statement. 

[AUDub 11,784]

5 minutes ago, NC1406 said:

 

Please expand upon "gilded age view on the economy". Not arguing just interested in what you really mean by this statement. 

Because of the fact that the Gilded Age was one of low taxes and tariffs and little to no regulation, this is pretty much the end game of the Libertarian platform.

 

Some libertarians will dismiss it as not a true free market due to the cronyism of the spoils system and political bribery, just as many communists disown Soviet Russia, but that's just the "No True Scotsman" fallacy at work. Others recast the Gilded Age as a golden age, which is certainly was not. Remember how it got its name? The "gilding" is supposed to represent the opulent "golden" facade of the era which hid the rotten core.

[AUFAN78 4,130]

On 8/14/2016 at 2:23 PM, Grumps said:

It still cracks me up that y'all seem to care how many likes someone has. THAT'S why we do it.

It is also why THEY do it. Know that. Kitten and Co. has fooled no one. Laughable at best. 

[Guest NC1406]

Thanks for expanding on the statement. 

[AUDub 11,784]

1 minute ago, AUFAN78 said:

It is also why THEY do it. Know that. Kitten and Co. has fooled no one. Laughable at best. 

I think y'all are exercising some psychological projection here. Our post counts, on the other hand. 

[AUDub 11,784]

2 minutes ago, NC1406 said:

Thanks for expanding on the statement. 

You're quite welcome. For what it's worth, I'm still voting Libertarian. 

[AUFAN78 4,130]

20 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

Oh, and a racist:

 

Anyone want to argue that she isn't a blithering idiot? Her Twitter history is gold. No wonder Trump hired her.

Hello. I can help her with that racism issue. 

[AUDub 11,784]

8 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

She's like an easy on the eyes Uncle Ruckus.

For those that do not get this reference. Caution for language and, well, racism. 

 

[Guest NC1406]

1 minute ago, Bigbens42 said:

You're quite welcome. For what it's worth, I'm still voting Libertarian. 

Excellent. I am actually close myself but probably just can't do it. My vote for johnson would be two votes for Hillary in a swing state. I identify as a libertarian but probably not for most of the same reasons you do. 

[AUFAN78 4,130]

8 hours ago, telling tiger said:

OHhhhhhhhhhhhhh, she was run over by the really smart train............a blithering idiot, shilling for a blithering idiot..........Morons.

 

Trump lite, Trump 2.0, and not just a moron. Any questions?

[Mims44 1,969]

11 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Hello. I can help her with that racism issue. 

Was going to again point out that it's not racism but nationalism.... but she did say pure breeds also.

ughhhh, it's hard to straighten out the screw ups when even the original material is tweeted by an idiot.