If you HAD to Vote for One...

So You HAVE to Vote for ONE of These Characters...

  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 66 26.1%
  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 187 73.9%

  • Total voters
    253
Status
Not open for further replies.
one else have any tie breakers out there? Does Tim Kaine like puppies and babies? Is Mike Pence a closet car nut? Is there anything on this earth that will make them more likable than the other, and thus more deserving of a vote?

My personal tiebreakers are on social issues. I would consider myself a fiscally conservative social progressive. And my social side usually trumps my fiscal side. Most of the reasons that the American Thinker article posted as reasons to vote for Trump were reasons that I will not do so.
 
My personal tiebreakers are on social issues. I would consider myself a fiscally conservative social progressive. And my social side usually trumps my fiscal side. Most of the reasons that the American Thinker article posted as reasons to vote for Trump were reasons that I will not do so.



Funny I'm the exact opposite of you. Social issues to me only matter if they can be properly financed. Since we are in such a ridiculous amount of debt I go for the fiscal side.

We haven't had a fiscal president in almost 28 years. Regan!

The rest just spent it. Either slowly of quickly. But they spent it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm pretty concerned about the emotional response in this thread. The mods are looking at all posts which illicit an emotional response as candidates for deletion.

Mentally prepare yourself to be deleted. Not saying it is going to happen just that there is a lot of emotion in this thread and future posts may qualify for the stated criteria.
 
I'm pretty concerned about the emotional response in this thread. The mods are looking at all posts which illicit an emotional response as candidates for deletion.

Mentally prepare yourself to be deleted. Not saying it is going to happen just that there is a lot of emotion in this thread and future posts may qualify for the stated criteria.

You need to go back and read the rules again. Emotional responses are fine. Emotional responses that are baiting other posters into flame wars are not.
 
You need to go back and read the rules again. Emotional responses are fine. Emotional responses that are baiting other posters into flame wars are not.

Friend its a fine line. I think you will see that the amount of work it takes to dillinate without causing a bunch of people to be pissed off (far more than a few whiners sending pms) is going to make it not worth the effort.

It still seems super subjective.
 
I don't understand when people say things like "Voting for someone with a track record like Hillary Clinton’s is like putting a shotgun to your head and pulling the trigger. " Besides Benghazi and the emails what is so terrible about her that its comparable to shooting yourself in the head?

To me it looks like she is probably the most experienced and one of the most qualified people to ever run for president. AFAIK there has never in US history been another presidential candidate to have already been in the white house for 8 years. To have been married to a president and know first hand what it takes. Not to mention years of experience in public office that her adversary can't claim. In terms of experience I don't think anyone in the history of presidential candidates can claim to have more.
 
I don't understand when people say things like "Voting for someone with a track record like Hillary Clinton’s is like putting a shotgun to your head and pulling the trigger. " Besides Benghazi and the emails what is so terrible about her that its comparable to shooting yourself in the head?

To me it looks like she is probably the most experienced and one of the most qualified people to ever run for president. AFAIK there has never in US history been another presidential candidate to have already been in the white house for 8 years. To have been married to a president and know first hand what it takes. Not to mention years of experience in public office that her adversary can't claim. In terms of experience I don't think anyone in the history of presidential candidates can claim to have more.

Slowly back away from the thread...
 
I don't understand when people say things like "Voting for someone with a track record like Hillary Clinton’s is like putting a shotgun to your head and pulling the trigger. " Besides Benghazi and the emails what is so terrible about her that its comparable to shooting yourself in the head?

To me it looks like she is probably the most experienced and one of the most qualified people to ever run for president. AFAIK there has never in US history been another presidential candidate to have already been in the white house for 8 years. To have been married to a president and know first hand what it takes. Not to mention years of experience in public office that her adversary can't claim. In terms of experience I don't think anyone in the history of presidential candidates can claim to have more.

How much does it hurt that you can't vote for her?
 
How much does it hurt that you can't vote for her?

I certainly wouldn't say it 'hurts' that I can't vote for her. Even if I could vote, it would only be a single vote that wouldn't have all that much effect on the outcome.

What 'hurts' more is the idea of a pervasive ignorance in society in general that allowed things to get to this point. Thats why I participate in these threads. Whether people agree with me or not this type of discussion and the associated research are, IMO, the best bet to get more people engaged and informed about politics. Whether people agree with me or not I would much prefer people be engaged and at least attempting to be informed than apathetic and ignorant.
 
Didn't read the article. Did they discuss option C? The option where we write-in Gunslinger-13?
j/k.

But seriously though... what do you (the commentariat, not you specifically Mr. Gunslinger-13) think of voting 3rd party / write-ins? Do you think it will help Clinton or Trump or neither? Has anyone done a poll [on this site] about that?

"A vote for Gunslinger-13 is a vote for everyone to be left the F alone to do as they wish as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others and the government to be widdled down to the smallest size possible"...

My slogan would be something along those lines.

As to voting 3rd party.

Philosophically a lot of people may align with Johnson, but at the end of the day when it's time to vote they are going to have to think, "Is my vote for Johnson going to result in the Presidency of the person I'd least like to see in office?"

Sanders voters/those on the left dissatisfied with H-bomb likely know a vote for J-rod could result in T-rex getting the nod.

And most of those on the right who are dissatisfied with Trump know a vote for J-rod could result in President H-Bomb.

The ONLY way J-Rizzy has a chance of winning is if he is actually polling higher than one of the other two following the debates.

If he has less than 35% support after the debates, he is simply going to be a spoiler for one of the other two. Count on it.

And given the fact that we actually have Republicans who are going to vote for The Klintonator, I'd say voting for Johnson is a Klintonator vote by proxy.

But again, if he's polling at some insane number like 45% after the debates, I'll get behind him.

And I hope enough others would as well if that's the case.

I think this election has the greatest chance of getting a 3rd party candidate elected in our recent history. J-rock is polling at 17-18%. That shows how hated T-Dog and H-Train are.

I'd rather see Johnsonville in the White House than Klintonator or Trumpasaurus for sure.
 
Last edited:
There is a way we could end up with a President Johnson without the electoral college giving him 270 votes.

The 12th Amendment sets up the system by which state electors are appointed or elected and are supposed to vote for the candidate that wins the popular vote of their state.

The Electoral College requires that in order to be elected President a candidate must win a majority of these votes. Right now, a Presidential candidate has to win 270 electoral votes to be elected President.

If no one candidate is able to achieve an outright majority, then the fate of the election falls to the House of Representatives. The newly elected House decides when they take office in January and each state delegation is granted one vote.

The Congressmen from that state vote among themselves, and then cast their one vote as a whole. Congressmen are not required to vote for who won their state. They are only required to vote for one of the top three finishers.

So if Johnson could get the popular vote in New Mexico and end up with NM's electoral votes, and neither Trump nor Hilary get an outright Majority (270 to win) of electoral votes, it would be up to congress to decide between the "top three" which would be any of them.

It's a long shot, but it is possible.

https://alibertarianfuture.com/2016-election/gary-johnson-elected-president-home-state-new-mexico/
 
Hacked Nancy Pelosi Memo on ISIS

NEW YORK – An internal Democratic Party memo allegedly hacked from Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)’s personal computer and posted by purported hacker *****fer 2.0 seems to agree with Donald Trump’s sentiments that the policies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama helped to create the Islamic State.

“In short: Our invasion created the atmosphere for a Jordanian to start a Muslim sectarian war, which ultimately created ISIS,” states an October 2, 2014 memo from Mike Ryan, policy director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC).

The memo, titled, “ISIS Backgrounder,” was clearly attempting to first blame the creation of the Islamic State on the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq in 2003, a war supported by Clinton. IS did not exist as an organization until about June 2014.

However, the memo details the situation “worsened after U.S. troops left Iraq, helping quickly deteriorate the situation further.” Unmentioned is that the bulk of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq took place under the Obama administration and was completed by December 2011.

The memo further relates IS is armed with U.S.-made weapons seized from Iraq troops. The weapons seizures took place largely after the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

Regarding the “creation” of IS, the memo states:

“When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 we triggered a massive insurgency against our presence,” the memo stated. “Around this time, a Jordanian ex-convict named Zarqawi travelled to Iraq with one goal: to establish a religious state just for Sunni Muslims.”

“…Zarqawi was killed by American forces in 2006. His successors now lead the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).”

The memo further outlines the origins of some of the terrorist group’s weapons:

ISIS owns hundreds of millions of dollars of sophisticated weapons, including vehicles and GPS-equipped weapons. Many of these are American-made and were captured from Iraqi troops.

The memo depicts IS as the “most extreme and powerful Sunni jihadist group worldwide and has rapidly taken control of large parts of Iraq and Syria.”

The descriptions are a far cry from Obama’s classification of IS as “a jayvee team” in a New Yorker interview released January, 2014.

The October 2014 memo details the number of fighters IS was thought to possess at the time:

Fighters: 20,000-31,500 fighters, and as many as 15,000 of them are believed to be foreign recruits. Those 15,000 come from 80 different countries. Reports indicate that approximately 100 are from the United States.



http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2...islamic-state/


^I makes Obama and HC look bad to those who really don't understand how ISIS formed, where they started, etc. For those who know, nothing new to see here...
 
Johnson down in Polls, Trump closing gap on Clinton

attachment.php




Johnson now down to 8.2% in latest RCP Poll

Clinton's lead over Trump reduced to 4.2%
 
Lol, I saw the source and had the same though.



As I tell everybody who asks about a source. Just because it from a side you disagree with doesn't make it wrong or correct. But if you want to know the truth you need to do the work and try to prove it wrong with more than one source. 3 independent sources should be a minimum requirement for proving something right or wrong.

Let's not forget Hillary Clinton actually called for websites like breitbart news to be shut down. That's not the role of president of the United States of America. They swear an oath to uphold and protect the constitution.
Not shut down media that's not nice to them.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/hillary-fundraising-email-promises-destroy-breitbart-com/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States
 
Hey, if you like Wikipedia as a source then have at it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant

2014, my ass. That Breitbart drivel is the most obvious and basic simplistic attempt to conflate ISIS and Hillary/Democrats I've seen - it's so pathetic I can hardly believe people accept it (not really there's worse.)

"ISIS bad > Democrats made ISIS > Democrats bad."

Saving your precious time in response, Dems do it too. Be above it, folks.
 
It's really depressing how Republicans had a real chance to turn things around and they somehow ended up with this bafoon as their spokesperson.

ETA - equally depressed with Hillary for the false equivalence addicts out there.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    120.9 KB · Views: 134
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
278,316
Messages
3,554,120
Members
248,016
Latest member
Advally Service

Trending content

Back
Top