Move over Gary Johnson...

[War Eagle!!!]

Explain how this is not "JUST WHAT THE GOP WANTS", and how not voting for Biff from Back to the Future Part II is "playing into their hands".

The GOP wanted to do everything they could to keep Trump out. Hell, they were praying for a contested convention to get someone of their choosing in there.

[AUChizad]

The GOP wanted to do everything they could to keep Trump out. Hell, they were praying for a contested convention to get someone of their choosing in there.

So loyally vote GOP even if you don't like who they're running.

That'll show 'em.

[Kaos]

If the shrew can't beat back the Aardvark and keeps getting stunned in places she expected to win, what really makes you think she will "landslide" Trump? 

Aardvark should have been a warmup, quickly gutted and stuffed.  And she's such a hateful, awful waste of human skin she can't even do that.  Trump is 10 times the politician Cryptkeeper is.  His personal magnetism is much greater than The Old Man And the Sea. 

I know there was a map posted somewhere.  I've seen other maps that contradict it. 

I've felt all along that only someone seen as "non establishment" and "not part of the current political circle" could knock Clinton out.  Whether Trump IS that or just pretends to be doesn't matter.  That's how the people who can block Hitlary's path to the White House see him. 

It's why, despite all his faults, Trump is palatable to me. 

[Kaos]

So loyally vote GOP even if you don't like who they're running.

That'll show 'em.

Vote

Against

Hitlary


/end topic

[GH2001]

If the shrew can't beat back the Aardvark and keeps getting stunned in places she expected to win, what really makes you think she will "landslide" Trump? 

Aardvark should have been a warmup, quickly gutted and stuffed.  And she's such a hateful, awful waste of human skin she can't even do that.  Trump is 10 times the politician Cryptkeeper is.  His personal magnetism is much greater than The Old Man And the Sea. 

I know there was a map posted somewhere.  I've seen other maps that contradict it. 

I've felt all along that only someone seen as "non establishment" and "not part of the current political circle" could knock Clinton out.  Whether Trump IS that or just pretends to be doesn't matter.  That's how the people who can block Hitlary's path to the White House see him. 

It's why, despite all his faults, Trump is palatable to me.

I thought the kstate coach was the crypt keeper?

On another note (again, not endorsing or indicting any candidate here), I did see Scott Rasmussen on someone's show yesterday before the polls even closed in Indiana, and his latest poll had Trump up over Hillary by 3/4 which was a 10 point swing from his earlier poll in the year. He seemed to think trump would outkick his coverage like he has been doing so far. And it would only get better for him once the nomination was clinched.

This just caught my eye because I highly value Rasmussen and his polls. He nails every election. He's scientific as hell and has no bias in his polling or outcomes. He and Larry sabado are the best at what they do. So I think the fact that he said this was very notable.

[War Eagle!!!]

So loyally vote GOP even if you don't like who they're running.

That'll show 'em.

Vote

Against

Hitlary


/end topic

[WiregrassTiger]

So loyally vote GOP even if you don't like who they're running.

That'll show 'em.

I can't understand why you can't seem to understand that many of us seem to dislike Trump but we dislike Hillary or Bern even more.

It's that simple with me.

And, your little Johnson is like a fart in a hurricane. Wasted vote.

So, I go with the best available room.

Haven't seen your intellect or class being challenged over this. Some people seem to assume a lot about Trump supporters when I often think the accuser has more hat than cattle.

[AUChizad]

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/05/04/trump-clinton-gary-johnson-austin-petersen-best-choice-president/

As Between Trump and Clinton, Gary Johnson (or Austin Petersen) is the Best Choice for President
Posted by Leon H. Wolf on May 4, 2016 at 12:30 pm
As Between Trump and Clinton, Gary Johnson (or Austin Petersen) is the Best Choice for President

I've said this a million times and I'll say it again: I don't owe Donald Trump, the Republican party, or anyone else my vote. Every election cycle, they have to earn it. I never signed a loyalty oath or a contract to always vote for the Republican, and even if I did, such a contract would be void as a matter of law, as it should be.

I'm a free person living in a Democratic Republic, and I only vote for candidates who deserve the office they are running for. That's how this works. Granted, I ordinarily only vote for Republicans - and often, I vote for them not because they deserve it on their own merits, but because the Democrat alternative is so much worse. This election, I don't even have that luxury presented to me; I genuinely believe that Hillary Clinton would be a better President than Trump, and it's not close.

That said, Hillary would also be a terrible President, there's no doubt about that. Her tenure at State department was an unmitigated disaster and pretty much everything she has touched in her adult life has been either an abject failure or a major disappointment. Voting for Hillary isn't a good option, or one that would even be considered in the absence of the direst of circumstances.

The best choice remaining for President (at present) is clearly whatever Libertarian Party option emerges from their fray. I gather (although I'm very new at following their party - as in, less than 24 hours into it) that the race is between former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, and Austin Petersen, who I know little or nothing about.

Under normal circumstances, Johnson would never get my vote because he is pro-choice, but there isn't a functionally pro-life option on the ballot at present. Hopefully someone will come up with one, but at the moment one does not exist. Trump himself is actually worse than pro-choice - as his horrible series of answers on jailing women shows, he would actually harm the pro-life movement worse than Hillary would.

Aside from being pro-choice, Governor Johnson's record as governor of New Mexico was actually rather exemplary. For whatever his faults, he legitimately believes in reducing the size and scope of the Federal government, which places him head and shoulders above either Clinton or Trump. He failed to gain traction as a GOP candidate because he's not the most charismatic person in the world, but making decisions based on charisma is what got us in the mess we are in as a country in the first place. And I'll certainly give this Petersen guy a look, and I gather from his website that he is pro-life, which certainly gives him a leg up in my book.

My hope at present is that some pro-life, small government conservative will run and get on the ballot in Tennessee, and I will vote for him or her. As a second best option, I suppose I will vote for Gary Johnson or (preferably, if he really is pro-life, Austin Petersen). If it actually looks like Trump might get close to winning, I might have to vote for Hillary, because I can not and will not accept that I haven't done all I can to keep the dangerous and unstable Donald Trump from the office.

I will say the author is overstating Johnson's "Pro Choice" position. His position is basically mine, which is I don't like it, but I also don't like the government getting involved one way or another, and if anything it's a state's right. He is also strongly against federal funding for Planned Parenthood or even stem cell research (the latter puts him to the right of me on this). He signed a late term abortion ban as governor and also advocates overturning of Roe v Wade (another position to the right of me).

[GH2001]

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/05/04/trump-clinton-gary-johnson-austin-petersen-best-choice-president/
I will say the author is overstating Johnson's "Pro Choice" position. His position is basically mine, which is I don't like it, but I also don't like the government getting involved one way or another, and if anything it's a state's right. He is also strongly against federal funding for Planned Parenthood or even stem cell research (the latter puts him to the right of me on this). He signed a late term abortion ban as governor and also advocates overturning of Roe v Wade (another position to the right of me).

Where I may disagree with you and Gary slightly. I'm for govt not getting involved but there are times when they should. And to me one of those times is when it involves a life. And it's semantics so I guess it's when you deem life begins. But just me, babies in the womb are living things. And being so, I think they deserve basic rights to life. To at least be born. Even Ron Paul takes that stance when he said "when has a woman ever had any right to kill another human being?" 

[RottenBottom]

Where I may disagree with you and Gary slightly. I'm for govt not getting involved but there are times when they should. And to me one of those times is when it involves a life. And it's semantics so I guess it's when you deem life begins. But just me, babies in the womb are living things. And being so, I think they deserve basic rights to life. To at least be born. Even Ron Paul takes that stance when he said "when has a woman ever had any right to kill another human being?"

Why does any man who runs in government have the right to say I don't have the right to do something? I don't agree with abortion but like you said, the government shouldn't be involved.

The sad part is this thread has turned into 4 pages of bitching about who the next slave master is going to be; because in their eyes, that's all we are.

[War Eagle!!!]

Why does any man who runs in government have the right to say I don't have the right to do something? I don't agree with abortion but like you said, the government shouldn't be involved.

Agreed. I think I am going to go shoot my neighbor because his dog keeps shitting in my yard. Whose to say I can't do that?

[GH2001]

Why does any man who runs in government have the right to say I don't have the right to do something?

When it involves the violation of the rights of another. That's govts main duty. To protect the rights of its citizens.

[RottenBottom]

Agreed. I think I am going to go shoot my neighbor because his dog keeps shitting in my yard. Whose to say I can't do that?

Government is not stopping you from doing it.  You would still be punished by the police state, but who's to say you still wouldn't be punished without government?

I agree with GH that the government's sole reason of existence is to protect our liberty and borders.  That's it.  We don't need the government for roads, telling people what is legal to do with their bodies, and regulate business.  The fact of the matter is the government in of itself is like a god to most people. They wait for it to tell them what to do and who to be mad at.  They believe they could not exist without it.  When in reality, I can govern myself as well as you can you, and things would still get done without government industry.

[War Eagle!!!]

Government is not stopping you from doing it.  You would still be punished by the police state, but who's to say you still wouldn't be punished without government?

So you and Trump agree that women should be punished for having an abortion?

[AUChizad]

Where I may disagree with you and Gary slightly. I'm for govt not getting involved but there are times when they should. And to me one of those times is when it involves a life. And it's semantics so I guess it's when you deem life begins. But just me, babies in the womb are living things. And being so, I think they deserve basic rights to life. To at least be born. Even Ron Paul takes that stance when he said "when has a woman ever had any right to kill another human being?"

I don't completely disagree. It's why I don't have a strong stance one way or another really on abortion. I think it's a more nuanced issue than pretty much anyone is willing to acknowledge. The crux of the debate is "where does life begin", which is where people disagree. It's not even a science vs. religion thing. There is no consensus scientific starting point. I think the status quo of abortion being illegal starting in the third trimester, where technically and scientifically it could survive on its own outside the womb is a reasonable "common sense" compromise to these diametrically opposed arguments. Gary Johnson agrees.

[RottenBottom]

So you and Trump agree that women should be punished for having an abortion?

Where the fuck did I say that?  I said I don't agree with abortion but nobody has the right to say someone can't have one.  As Chizad just said, starting when the baby can live outside the womb (third trimester) that baby has the same Liberty as you and me so it should be illegal.

[GH2001]

Where the fuck did I say that?  I said I don't agree with abortion but nobody has the right to say someone can't have one.  As Chizad just said, starting when the baby can live outside the womb (third trimester) that baby has the same Liberty as you and me so it should be illegal.

But who or what defines that as "life" or a "living thing"? A 1 year old also can't survive very long either outside the womb without constant care by someone. Neither can certain people hooked up to machines that keep them alive whether it's a vegetable or someone on dialysis. So it comes back to, what is defined as a living human? If it's got a heart beat and a brain with activity, then it's alive. It's dna has been built, it's vital organs intact and it's running on auto pilot like an engine. Like Chad said, that's more where the arguments lie. Its never been about religion to me. It's all in where you define life.

[wesfau2]

In your mind. 

I said for the most part.  "most"   This is the height of a bammer argument. It's BG03 personified.  We show you Harvey, the teabagger, top rope momma, Trent's rentals, Julio's boat, Fluker's check, TTown Tom, a coach fired for selling marijuana, two coaches paying players and the four thugs who beat up students and you go:

Yeah but Cam Newton took $180,000.  So it's exactly the same.

Trump has rotted your brain.  Your analogy is so fucking flawed.

Btw...here's another example:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/donald-trump-illma-gore_us_5727b7efe4b0f309baf1a0ed

[RottenBottom]

But who or what defines that as "life" or a "living thing"? A 1 year old also can't survive very long either outside the womb without constant care by someone. Neither can certain people hooked up to machines that keep them alive whether it's a vegetable or someone on dialysis. So it comes back to, what is defined as a living human? If it's got a heart beat and a brain with activity, then it's alive. It's dna has been built, it's vital organs intact and it's running on auto pilot like an engine. Like Chad said, that's more where the arguments lie. Its never been about religion to me. It's all in where you define life.

I agree with you on this more than you know.  I was stating the common sense argument like Chizad was.  At conception, the Fetus or clump of cells, as liberals call it, has its  own DNA.  I believe this makes it a human and that human's rights fall under the protection of the 14th amendment.  If this were the case, abortion would be illegal in all aspects.  Now assisted suicide is a subject I don't know much about so I cannot speak on that.

[Snaggletiger]

Trump has rotted your brain.  Your analogy is so fucking flawed.

Btw...here's another example:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/donald-trump-illma-gore_us_5727b7efe4b0f309baf1a0ed

That portrait is hawt.