PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on May 31, 2016, 07:05:34 PM
-
Are Stan and Jeff on board with the #FrenchRevolution?
-
"Who?"
That's what most people are going to ask when this is brought up. He has zero name recognition and honestly doesn't have a chance. That being said, from what I do know about him he seems like a principled conservative and someone for whom I would consider voting. I need more information on him, though.
-
Don't have enough information about him yet. We'll see.
I have enough information to know that I cannot vote for either Clinton or Trump.
-
Don't have enough information about him yet. We'll see.
I have enough information to know that I cannot vote for either Clinton or Trump.
I don't remember if you voiced your opinion on Gary Johnson. Would you vote for him if it was a 3 way race with Trump and Clinton?
-
I don't remember if you voiced your opinion on Gary Johnson. Would you vote for him if it was a 3 way race with Trump and Clinton?
Another candidate I'm looking at seriously. I take voting very seriously, and tend to look at candidates closely before supporting them, hence my inability to vote for either Trump or Clinton.
Isn't it ironic when the Libertarian Party puts forth the best qualified ticket with 4 terms of gubernatorial experience between them versus zero?
-
I don't remember if you voiced your opinion on Gary Johnson. Would you vote for him if it was a 3 way race with Trump and Clinton?
He can't vote for anyone at this point, that right is reserved for citizens of this country.
-
He can't vote for anyone at this point, that right is reserved for citizens of this country.
Go home, adults talking here.
FYI, as evidence the process is ongoing:
(http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=930.0;attach=175)
-
Another candidate I'm looking at seriously. I take voting very seriously, and tend to look at candidates closely before supporting them, hence my inability to vote for either Trump or Clinton.
Likewise. While I support Johnson, his VP selection causes great pause.
Isn't it ironic when the Libertarian Party puts forth the best qualified ticket with 4 terms of gubernatorial experience between them versus zero?
Experience does not equate to success or knowledge. You can have 20 years experience or one year experience repeated 19 times. There's a huge difference between the two. Not that I'm implying this is the case with those being discussed.
-
Go home, adults talking here.
FYI, as evidence the process is ongoing:
Let me know when you'll next be in Nashville and I'll let you buy me a cold drink ;D
Seriously, I'm close enough to make it into town.
-
Let me know when you'll next be in Nashville and I'll let you buy me a cold drink ;D
Seriously, I'm close enough to make it into town.
I'm a mere 160 ish miles east of Nashville on a daily basis. My next immigration related trip will be to Memphis for my interview and, I hope, oath, unless I can get USCIS to let me have a US Magistrate Judge I know in Nashville administer the oath to me in a private ceremony.
-
He can't vote for anyone at this point, that right is reserved for citizens of this country.
Even if he can't actually vote in a US election, he can still wield a valid and educated opinion.
Even if he is wrong. ;)
-
I'm a mere 160 ish miles east of Nashville on a daily basis. My next immigration related trip will be to Memphis for my interview and, I hope, oath, unless I can get USCIS to let me have a US Magistrate Judge I know in Nashville administer the oath to me in a private ceremony.
Good luck Jeff!
-
Good luck Jeff!
Last I ran the Civics questions that they ask, I was 100 for 100 on them, so I'm not worried, just waiting for FedGov to set a date!
Only problem is that the damned interview is all the way in Memphis. Atlanta would be much closer for me, but nooooo. People don't realize how long TN is. I'm close to the cut-off, and those east of me in Tennessee are closer to Canada than they are to Memphis.
-
Last I ran the Civics questions that they ask, I was 100 for 100 on them, so I'm not worried, just waiting for FedGov to set a date!
I wonder what the average would be if "Natural Born" citizens were required to take that test this afternoon.
:-[ :-[ :-[
-
I'm a mere 160 ish miles east of Nashville on a daily basis. My next immigration related trip will be to Memphis for my interview and, I hope, oath, unless I can get USCIS to let me have a US Magistrate Judge I know in Nashville administer the oath to me in a private ceremony.
I ride the scooter out that way from time to time. Was in Cookeville a couple weekends ago. Will let you know the next ride which takes me further east. I assume from the mileage you're in Anderson, Roan or Knox county?
If the Nashville magistrate comes to fruition I'll buy you your first congratulatory cold drink of choice.
-
I wonder what the average would be if "Natural Born" citizens were required to take that test this afternoon.
:-[ :-[ :-[
https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/naturalization-test
-
Even if he can't actually vote in a US election, he can still wield a valid slanted and educated biased opinion.
FTFY
Even if he is wrong. ;)
Which is most of the time.
-
I ride the scooter out that way from time to time. Was in Cookeville a couple weekends ago. Will let you know the next ride which takes me further east. I assume from the mileage you're in Anderson, Roan or Knox county?
If the Nashville magistrate comes to fruition I'll buy you your first congratulatory cold drink of choice.
Anderson, Oak Ridge to be precise.
-
FTFY
Which is most of the time.
I said pipe down, adults talking.
-
I'm a mere 160 ish miles east of Nashville on a daily basis. My next immigration related trip will be to Memphis for my interview and, I hope, oath, unless I can get USCIS to let me have a US Magistrate Judge I know in Nashville administer the oath to me in a private ceremony.
Congratulations. That's awesome. Where will the exclusive Pilot Spin naturalization party be held? I vote for Oshkosh, say late July.
-
FTFY
Which is most of the time.
Aren't you clever.
-
Congrats, Jeff!
-
Congrats, Jeff!
Not there yet. But the process is moving along nicely.
-
Not there yet. But the process is moving along nicely.
Are you going to consummate the deal if Trump wins? ;)
-
Are you going to consummate the deal if Trump wins? ;)
Or if Trump wins, are you one of those who would move to, say, Canada? :)
-
Or if Trump wins, are you one of those who would move to, say, Canada? :)
God no, not while PM Selfie remains in office.
-
Are Stan and Jeff on board with the #FrenchRevolution?
I like the guy, and I think I quoted him a few months ago. That being said, I'd be surprised if 1% of the population knew who he was.
-
I saw a news segment last night with Jonah Goldberg and Erik Ericson which was spot on. First, David French hasn't even said if he wanted to run independent or not. Second, both Goldberg and Ericson said that he faces ballot challenges with getting onto the ballot in many states and may have to go to court to see if he even could get on the ballot. Then you have the obvious money and exposure challenges. Essentially it boils down to the fact that French could be used as someone who could possibly stop Trump and keep him from winning be White House but he has no chance of actually winning.
He may be an option for those of us who don't want to vote for Trump but also will not and refuse to vote for Hilary.
-
He may be an option for those of us who don't want to vote for Trump but also will not and refuse to vote for Hilary.
The other thing someone like him provides is a draw for the "Neither" folks.
The Neither Trump Nor Hillary crowd can just stay home in November. That would be colossally bad. It would likely result in a Clinton presidency, and Democrat control of at least the Senate, but also likely the House as well.
Having another option on the ballot gives the Neither crowd a reason to come out and vote, and while they're there, they can vote on the down-ballot races at the same time.
-
The other thing someone like him provides is a draw for the "Neither" folks.
The Neither Trump Nor Hillary crowd can just stay home in November. That would be colossally bad. It would likely result in a Clinton presidency, and Democrat control of at least the Senate, but also likely the House as well.
Having another option on the ballot gives the Neither crowd a reason to come out and vote, and while they're there, they can vote on the down-ballot races at the same time.
There are some here that will tell you that by voting for anyone other than Trump, you're voting for Hilary. Principles don't matter right now.
I agree with the down ballot races though. Staying at home altogether would be a bad thing all the way around.
-
There are some here that will tell you that by voting for anyone other than Trump, you're voting for Hilary. Principles don't matter right now.
I agree with the down ballot races though. Staying at home altogether would be a bad thing all the way around.
So, just curious, how is voting for French different than staying home with respect to Trump v. Hillary?
If there's a contingent, and there is, that will not vote for Trump but will also not vote for Hillary, I'd rather them come out and vote for French and the down-ballots than sit on their hands at home.
-
The other thing someone like him provides is a draw for the "Neither" folks.
The Neither Trump Nor Hillary crowd can just stay home in November. That would be colossally bad. It would likely result in a Clinton presidency, and Democrat control of at least the Senate, but also likely the House as well.
Having another option on the ballot gives the Neither crowd a reason to come out and vote, and while they're there, they can vote on the down-ballot races at the same time.
If by the time November comes around and it looks like Trump isn't going to win, I am going to vote a straight Democratic ticket. If Hillary is president, even with a Republican Congress, she will get what she wants anyway when the Rs cave in, after the Rs get blamed for shutting down the government and tearing country apart.
I'll give the Ds enough rope to do anything they want and see if they hang themselves. Hell, even if they turn us into a true socialist state, I'm old enough that it won't bother me for too long. And maybe they will take care of me in my old age.
Actually voting for Hillary would only be a half vote worse than not voting, or voting 3rd party.
-
So, just curious, how is voting for French different than staying home with respect to Trump v. Hillary?
You would at least be voting for someone who matches your views the closest. It shows that you do care about the system and the country enough to vote and to send a message that you don't agree with Trump. But again, and you've seen it, any vote that's not for Trump is de facto a vote for Hilary.
If there's a contingent, and there is, that will not vote for Trump but will also not vote for Hillary, I'd rather them come out and vote for French and the down-ballots than sit on their hands at home.
Agreed.
-
any vote that's not for Trump is de facto a vote for Hilary.
Any vote that's not for Hillary is a de facto vote for Trump.
-
Any vote that's not for Hillary is a de facto vote for Trump.
I'm only repeating some of the lines that have been used here. I've said several times that I don't think I can vote for Trump and that I'd consider David French.
-
I'm only repeating some of the lines that have been used here. I've said several times that I don't think I can vote for Trump and that I'd consider David French.
And I'm simply extending the Trumpkin logic to the analogous situation.
A vote for a third party is just as much a vote for Hillary as it is for Donnie-boy.
-
And I'm simply extending the Trumpkin logic to the analogous situation.
A vote for a third party is just as much a vote for Hillary as it is for Donnie-boy.
True. I've said that several times.
But the determinant factor is who the person not voting would have voted for if the individual representing their party wasn't such a disaster.
I've been registered Republican for decades (around 4 of them) and have always voted R. If the only reason I don't vote R this time is that I don't like Trump, then I am giving half a vote to Hillary.
On the other hand, my wife is a life-long Democrat that hates Hillary, but she would not vote for Trump. I am encouraging her not to vote at all, thus giving Trump the advantage of her non-vote.
Why is that so hard to understand?
-
-
True. I've said that several times.
But the determinant factor is who the person not voting would have voted for if the individual representing their party wasn't such a disaster.
I've been registered Republican for decades (around 4 of them) and have always voted R. If the only reason I don't vote R this time is that I don't like Trump, then I am giving half a vote to Hillary.
On the other hand, my wife is a life-long Democrat that hates Hillary, but she would not vote for Trump. I am encouraging her not to vote at all, thus giving Trump the advantage of her non-vote.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Holy confusion, Batman. Now a vote not for Trump is a de facto half a vote for Hillary if the voter might have voted for a candidate other than Trump in an alternate universe wherein Trump was not the presumptive nominee? :o
Why don't we simplify this: if you vote for a candidate, that's who you're voting for. If you don't vote for a candidate, you haven't voted for that candidate.
-
Holy confusion, Batman. Now a vote not for Trump is a de facto half a vote for Hillary if the voter might have voted for a candidate other than Trump in an alternate universe wherein Trump was not the presumptive nominee? :o
Why don't we simplify this: if you vote for a candidate, that's who you're voting for. If you don't vote for a candidate, you haven't voted for that candidate.
In any contest, scoring points is only half the game. You hav to keep the othe team from scoring too. That is why football teams have a defense. The idea isn't just to get points. It is to get the most points.
If I don't vote for Trump I'm giving Hillary an advantage. If you don't vote for Hillary you are giving Trump an advantage.
-
I'll give the Ds enough rope to do anything they want and see if they hang themselves. Hell, even if they turn us into a true socialist state, I'm old enough that it won't bother me for too long. And maybe they will take care of me in my old age.
The only trouble that I can see with your plan is that they're likely to hang all the rest of us right along side themselves.
-
The only trouble that I can see with your plan is that they're likely to hang all the rest of us right along side themselves.
Damn. You're right. I guess we all need to vote for trump then.
-
In any contest, scoring points is only half the game. You hav to keep the othe team from scoring too. That is why football teams have a defense. The idea isn't just to get points. It is to get the most points.
If I don't vote for Trump I'm giving Hillary an advantage. If you don't vote for Hillary you are giving Trump an advantage.
In your analogy, Trump and Hillary are the opposing football teams. If Trump doesn't score enough points, that's on him. Likewise for Hillary. Don't try to blame the fans.
-
In your analogy, Trump and Hillary are the opposing football teams. If Trump doesn't score enough points, that's on him. Likewise for Hillary. Don't try to blame the fans.
"Fans" don't vote for their teams to decide the winners in football. But you already knew that.
-
Any vote that's not for Hillary is a de facto vote for Trump.
I'm only repeating some of the lines that have been used here. I've said several times that I don't think I can vote for Trump and that I'd consider David French.
I think we're on the same page.
-
Holy confusion, Batman. Now a vote not for Trump is a de facto half a vote for Hillary if the voter might have voted for a candidate other than Trump in an alternate universe wherein Trump was not the presumptive nominee? :o
Why don't we simplify this: if you vote for a candidate, that's who you're voting for. If you don't vote for a candidate, you haven't voted for that candidate.
If Bernie runs as an independent, would a vote not for Trump be a quarter vote for Bernie and a quarter vote for Hillary? I'm just trying to keep this straight.
-
If Bernie runs as an independent, would a vote not for Trump be a quarter vote for Bernie and a quarter vote for Hillary? I'm just trying to keep this straight.
At least that argument is better than that one where you claimed that football fans can score, or defend against opposing points thus influencing the outcome of the game.
But you know you are not trying to keep this straight. You are trying to confuse the argument altogether. That's what I would do if I was debating an invalid point.
edit: oops. That comment about the fans should have been aimed at Asechrest.
-
One thing I've continually asked for, and have yet to receive, (in all fairness we still aren't officially in the general election campaign yet) is a reason to vote for Trump other than "to stop Hilary". So far nobody has been able to provide a solid reason. Whenever counter points are brought up about his previous stances on the first, second and fifth amendments and other positions it always defaults to "because Hilary".
I don't think it's a lot to ask to be given reasons to vote for someone other than to stop someone else from winning. We've been doing that since 2008 and it hasn't worked. I get that the RNC has screwed up and they put themselves into this position but when are we ever going to move onto conservative candidates if we don't start somewhere? When do we start? In 2020 if Trump loses? Doubtful. Then it'll be "Hilary can't have another 4 years!" and we'll be right back to where we are now.
-
One thing I've continually asked for, and have yet to receive, (in all fairness we still aren't officially in the general election campaign yet) is a reason to vote for Trump other than "to stop Hilary". So far nobody has been able to provide a solid reason. Whenever counter points are brought up about his previous stances on the first, second and fifth amendments and other positions it always defaults to "because Hilary".
I don't think it's a lot to ask to be given reasons to vote for someone other than to stop someone else from winning. We've been doing that since 2008 and it hasn't worked. I get that the RNC has screwed up and they put themselves into this position but when are we ever going to move onto conservative candidates if we don't start somewhere? When do we start? In 2020 if Trump loses? Doubtful. Then it'll be "Hilary can't have another 4 years!" and we'll be right back to where we are now.
I've answered that question several times. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you are not getting an answer.
-
I've answered that question several times. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you are not getting an answer.
I don't remember seeing it but I'll take your word that you have. There's been so much "because Hilary" nonsense that I don't remember.
-
"Fans" don't vote for their teams to decide the winners in football. But you already knew that.
Granted it is a poor analogy, but it's not mine. The "team" is responsible for scoring points to win, whether football or politics. Trump and Hillary are the teams.
-
At least that argument is better than that one where you claimed that football fans can score, or defend against opposing points thus influencing the outcome of the game.
But you know you are not trying to keep this straight. You are trying to confuse the argument altogether. That's what I would do if I was debating an invalid point.
edit: oops. That comment about the fans should have been aimed at Asechrest.
An invalid point...like how voting for one candidate is actually a vote for another candidate...or was it half a vote?
-
An invalid point...like how voting for one candidate is actually a vote for another candidate...or was it half a vote?
It is giving the "other guy" an advantage.
If I vote for Trump and you vote for Hillary, it is a tie.
If I don't vote, and you vote fore Hillary; Hillary wins by one.
If you don't vote and I vote for Trump; Trump wins by one.
Complicated; I know. But you can understand it if you try.
-
his previous stances on the first, second and fifth amendments
Also the 10th (seems he wants to control everything, not states), 14th (Renegotiate debt), I'm waiting, I expect him to demand quartering of soldiers anytime.
-
An invalid point...like how voting for one candidate is actually a vote for another candidate...or was it half a vote?
It's 1/e^x where x is the number of candidates that are involved.
-
It is giving the "other guy" an advantage.
If I vote for Trump and you vote for Hillary, it is a tie.
If I don't vote, and you vote fore Hillary; Hillary wins by one.
If you don't vote and I vote for Trump; Trump wins by one.
Complicated; I know. But you can understand it if you try.
Your proof of fact is woefully inadequate. You have missed scenarios that invalidate it. But at least we've moved on from the silly falsity that a vote for x is actually a vote for y. Now you're asserting that it is merely an "advantage" for a candidate. Unfortunately, discovering for whom it will be an advantage requires lots of suppositions and a crystal ball.
-
Your proof of fact is woefully inadequate. You have missed scenarios that invalidate it. But at least we've moved on from the silly falsity that a vote for x is actually a vote for y. Now you're asserting that it is merely an "advantage" for a candidate. Unfortunately, discovering for whom it will be an advantage requires lots of suppositions and a crystal ball.
One thing that can be inferred is this: If you vote for Trump, you are explicitly supporting his policies and temperament, and have made a value judgement that he is the kind of person you want to occupy the Oval Office. All the BS about "I'm voting for Trump just to vote against Hillary" is just that. A vote FOR Trump is a vote FOR Trump, so own your assessment of his fitness for office.
-
Back to David French; nobody but political wonks have any idea who he is which will be the biggest problem with him achieving more than 10k votes nationally. Ask 100 people on the street "who is David French?" or "do you read National Review?" and the stare into space will be the answer to both questions.
-
Back to David French; nobody but political wonks have any idea who he is which will be the biggest problem with him achieving more than 10k votes nationally. Ask 100 people on the street "who is David French?" or "do you read National Review?" and the stare into space will be the answer to both questions.
That'll be a matter of fundraising and advertising.
Seems Trump's campaign is broke now, and given that the media has picked him as their candidate, they'll now shut off the free media spigot
-
That'll be a matter of fundraising and advertising.
Seems Trump's campaign is broke now, and given that the media has picked him as their candidate, they'll now shut off the free media spigot
I'm not convinced there is enough time or money to achieve a respectable run. That said, I've been wrong before, earlier today as a matter of fact.
-
I'm not convinced there is enough time or money to achieve a respectable run. That said, I've been wrong before, earlier today as a matter of fact.
Even if there was there's still the matter of the getting on the ballots in the states where the deadline has already passed.
-
Even if there was there's still the matter of the getting on the ballots in the states where the deadline has already passed.
I've heard this in other places and I'm not sure I understand it. Let's take Trump for instance, how can he be on a ballot at this point if he has not even been nominated? How can there be deadlines before the conventions take place?
-
I've heard this in other places and I'm not sure I understand it. Let's take Trump for instance, how can he be on a ballot at this point if he has not even been nominated? How can there be deadlines before the conventions take place?
That's the issue...
I think that an independent candidate will have an excellent "equal protection" argument in those states. It's inappropriate for states to have different ballot access deadlines for R&D vs. others. If the deadline for R&D is in July or August, it should be the same for everyone.
How does one justify that difference? It's not like they can print the ballots before the R&D candidates officially submit.
-
I've heard this in other places and I'm not sure I understand it. Let's take Trump for instance, how can he be on a ballot at this point if he has not even been nominated? How can there be deadlines before the conventions take place?
The RNC (and DNC, Libertarian Party, etc) file all the necessary paperwork with each state well in advance to place a candidate, not named, on the state ballot. The filing is essentially a place holder.
The Bill Kristol Stop Trump Party should have done the same thing but are late getting in the game.
-
The RNC (and DNC, Libertarian Party, etc) file all the necessary paperwork with each state well in advance to place a candidate, not named, on the state ballot. The filing is essentially a place holder.
The Bill Kristol Stop Trump Party should have done the same thing but are late getting in the game.
So, what justification is there for a long deadline?
Any deadline is basically so that they can print the ballots. With a "Placeholder", they can't print. It's effectively a barrier to entry that the establishment (like Trump) have built to protect their status.
-
One thing that can be inferred is this: If you vote for Trump, you are explicitly supporting his policies and temperament, and have made a value judgement that he is the kind of person you want to occupy the Oval Office. All the BS about "I'm voting for Trump just to vote against Hillary" is just that. A vote FOR Trump is a vote FOR Trump, so own your assessment of his fitness for office.
And this is why I can't vote for Trump. He would be an awful president and I want no part of it.
-
And this is why I can't vote for Trump. He would be an awful president and I want no part of it.
And the alternative is Hillary. She will win if people stay home or vote 3rd party. Do you want another eight years of Obama?
-
And the alternative is Hillary. She will win if people stay home or vote 3rd party. Do you want another eight years of Obama?
You're not voting against Hillary. You're voting FOR Trump. You explicitly support all of Trump's Trumpiness. You are saying Trump is the type of person YOU want for the Presidency.
-
You're not voting against Hillary. You're voting FOR Trump. You explicitly support all of Trump's Trumpiness. You are saying Trump is the type of person YOU want for the Presidency.
Not true at all. I don't like Trumps classlessness when he speaks. His demeanor is rude, and arrogant. He is saying the right things about the 2A, illegal aliens, and the economy, and they are the highest issues on my list.
-
Not true at all. I don't like Trumps classlessness when he speaks. His demeanor is rude, and arrogant. He is saying the right things about the 2A, illegal aliens, and the economy, and they are the highest issues on my list.
It is literally true.
You will go into the voting booth and mark beside Trump's name. You will literally give him your vote, and that is absolutely an endorsement by you of Trump and all he stands for. Own it.
-
It is literally true.
You will go into the voting booth and mark beside Trump's name. You will literally give him your vote, and that is absolutely an endorsement by you of Trump and all he stands for. Own it.
Whatever. I voted for Bush also, and mostly because I hated Gore, and Kerry. You're not a mind reader, so don't ty to tell what I think.
-
Whatever. I voted for Bush also, and mostly because I hated Gore, and Kerry. You're not a mind reader, so don't ty to tell what I think.
Hmmm...you feel perfectly comfortable telling people who have said that they wouldn't vote for Hillary with a gun to their head that they are voting for Hillary, yet you refuse to accept that you literally voting FOR Trump is not endorsing Trump. Good luck with those mental gymnastics.
-
Lesser of two evils Jeff. Get over it.
-
Lesser of two evils Jeff. Get over it.
You're voting for Trump and explicitly endorsing all of it.
You don't get to say "I'm voting for Trump, but I hate everything about him". You vote for Trump, you vote FOR Trump.
You keep saying that a vote for a 3rd Party is a vote for Hillary, when that is literally false, but you won't acknowledge a a vote FOR Trump is a vote for TRUMP.
-
You keep saying that a vote for a 3rd Party is a vote for Hillary, when that is literally false, but you won't acknowledge a a vote FOR Trump is a vote for TRUMP.
A third party is a vote for Hillary it has happened before. Remember Ross Perot?
-
A third party is a vote for Hillary it has happened before. Remember Ross Perot?
But a vote for Trump isn't a vote for Trump. GMAFB
-
A third party is a vote for Hillary it has happened before. Remember Ross Perot?
Ross Perot put Clinton in the White House, no doubt.
-
I am not beating this dead horse any longer. You have heard of the lesser of two evils Jeff? Well that is what I am doing. If it were Reagan, different story. Yes I will vote for Trump, but is because I despise Hillary that much. Yes it is a sad state of affairs.
-
I am not beating this dead horse any longer. You have heard of the lesser of two evils Jeff? Well that is what I am doing. If it were Reagan, different story. Yes I will vote for Trump, but is because I despise Hillary that much. Yes it is a sad state of affairs.
Your vote for Trump is a vote for Trump.
It's funny how anything else is a vote for Hillary, but you're not willing to accept that you are voting for all Trump represents.
-
Ross Perot put Clinton in the White House, no doubt.
Bush didn't do himself any favors either with the whole tax increase.
-
You're not voting against Hillary. You're voting FOR Trump. You explicitly support all of Trump's Trumpiness. You are saying Trump is the type of person YOU want for the Presidency.
Bullshit.
-
Bush didn't do himself any favors either with the whole tax increase.
True, but if it hadn't been for Ross Perot there wouldn't have been a President Clinton. Ross Perot siphoned off the republican vote and gave the election to Clinton.
Clinton won with 43% of the vote and Bush lost with 37.4%. Perot got 18.9%.
Do the math.
-
A third party is a vote for Hillary...
No it's not, and to keep repeating it is retarded.
I'm disappointed in the current level of discourse here, but by all means keep telling us what our votes are "for".
-
No it's not, and to keep repeating it is retarded.
Especially when they won't admit that a vote FOR Trump is a vote for TRUMP.
-
No it's not, and to keep repeating it is retarded.
I'm disappointed in the current level of discourse here, but by all means keep telling us what our votes are "for".
Well I am not going to respond to Jeff's taunts anymore. So, I'm retarded, huh? You guys don't see the obvious. A conservative or libertarian candidate will syphon off votes from the Republican nominee, just like Ross Perot did. I can't help if it won't sink in. Your a closet liberal anyway, so will probably love voting for Hillary.
-
Well I am not going to respond to Jeff's taunts anymore. So, I'm retarded, huh? You guys don't see the obvious. A conservative or libertarian candidate will syphon off votes from the Republican nominee, just like Ross Perot did. I can't help if it won't sink in. Your a closet liberal anyway, so will probably love voting for Hillary.
I asked this in the "had a scary thought" thread and you didn't answer (it wasn't directed at you specifically) but I'll repost it here as well, because I really would like an answer.
Something else I've asked before and haven't gotten a satisfactory response is this: everyone seems to be in agreement that Trump isn't the ideal candidate, but he's the lesser of two evils this time around. Just like Romney was the lesser of two evils last time and McCain before him. At what point do we say that we've had enough of the "lesser of two evils" and get behind someone that we do support? Because it won't happen in 2020 if Trump loses, instead it'll be the exact same argument that's being used now: "We can't let Hilary have another 4 years!" At what point do we get behind someone who is the candidate we want? Why do we have to continually suffer through the "lesser of two evils"?
-
Levelwing, that's a good question in which I don't have an answer. The GOP needs to run an ELECTABLE true conservative Republican.
-
Your a closet liberal anyway, so will probably love voting for Hillary.
There comes a point when a decision has to be made whether to just close that tab and move on, when there's so little meaningful dialog on a forum that it's simply not worth one's tine.
And I'm at that point with this forum. The tab's getting closed.
Have fun in my absence. Keep me in mind if you're ever in or around Copperhill, TN and want to get together.
-
There comes a point when a decision has to be made whether to just close that tab and move on, when there's so little meaningful dialog on a forum that it's simply not worth one's tine.
And I'm at that point with this forum. The tab's getting closed.
Have fun in my absence. Keep me in mind if you're ever in or around Copperhill, TN and want to get together.
Sorry to see you leave if that's what you decide. I enjoyed the conversation while you were here, even if we didn't agree on everything. Hopefully you decide to stick around.
-
Well I am not going to respond to Jeff's taunts anymore. So, I'm retarded, huh? You guys don't see the obvious. A conservative or libertarian candidate will syphon off votes from the Republican nominee, just like Ross Perot did. I can't help if it won't sink in. Your a closet liberal anyway, so will probably love voting for Hillary.
You're*
-
Back on topic a little bit, it appears that David French will not be making an independent run for president:
I’m not the right person to challenge Trump and Hillary, but the path remains open for others.
...
I gave it serious thought — as a pretty darn obscure lawyer, writer, and veteran — only because we live in historic times. Never before have both parties failed so spectacularly, producing two dishonest, deceitful candidates who should be disqualified from running for town council, much less leader of the free world.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436222/david-french-not-running-president
https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2016/06/05/david-french-nope-im-not-running-for-president-n2173986
-
Back on topic a little bit, it appears that David French will not be making an independent run for president:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436222/david-french-not-running-president
https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2016/06/05/david-french-nope-im-not-running-for-president-n2173986
Bill Kristol must be going suicidal about now.
-
Bill Kristol must be going suicidal about now.
I used to like Bill Kristol. Now, I just think he's an idiot. Maybe this was just a ploy for attention in a media world where commentators are tripping over themselves to get air time, and remain relevant.
-
French 2020