The OFFICIAL Trump/HRC/2016 General Election Thread...

[1DOWN4UP]

Concern Grows Over Soros-Linked Voting Machines | LifeZette

 

[Brad69]

Old man Soros is a straight shooter he would never be involved in anything that would be crooked. He loves America!

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Hey Adam,there is still time to get on the Trump Monster Vote Bandwagon!

 

[Kutnupe14]

Okay, so I think I've pretty much made up my mind on who/what I am going to vote for.

Neither Trump nor Clinton are "qualified" or have earned my vote. However, one of those two--not three, not four--will be president. The best hope for the nation is that neither should be president, and given the circumstances there is only one realistic path to that end. The winner should be immediately impeached and removed from office.

So I'm going to vote for Trump, but no matter who wins, I'm going to continually push my congress critters to impeach the next president. Of course if Hillary wins, there's no way in hell that she's getting impeached. And Kaine would make a horrible president anyway.

There would be much more support for impeaching Trump. And as much as I dislike Pence, he'd be much more competent than Trump. He seems to have a much more comprehensive command of foreign policy issues. And I think he'd **** things up less domestically.

I won't be voting for Al Bundy this time. I'm essentially voting for Trump's running mate.

Here's my pitch. Vote Johnson, with the hopes he get 5% of the popular voter so that the next go round for POTUS, the Libertarian party will be able to get matching funds from the federal govt. Those funds can honestly make the difference between being on the ballot in all 50 states and access to the debates. Kinda ironic given he's a Libertarian, but still, it may break the chains of the 2-party farce we are forced to endure.

 

[jbombelli]

I don't want to see the idiot religion hating pothead fake libertarian who picks severely anti-gun running mates on the ballot next time either.

I hate this election.

[video=youtube_share;NXhR41lsEJY]http://youtu.be/NXhR41lsEJY[/video]

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't want to see the religion hating pothead fake libertarian who picks severely anti-gun running mates on the ballot next time either.

I hate this election.

He won't be on the ballot next go round... so he says. I'm voting for him just so the Libertarian party can hopefully enter the discussion next time.

 

[Brad69]

I truly believe that we need more than two parties. The damage that HRC will do in four years and the "New Americans" she will create that will automatically be Democrats.

Might be too much for any opposition?

 

[jbombelli]

He won't be on the ballot next go round... so he says. I'm voting for him just so the Libertarian party can hopefully enter the discussion next time.

Yeah. So he says. I hope they get their 5%. I wrote my own name on the ballot though I know it won't even be counted. I can't stomach ANY of them. In the words of R. Lee Ermey THEY ARE ALL EQUALLY WORTHLESS.

 

[actaeon277]

I don't want to see the idiot religion hating pothead fake libertarian who picks severely anti-gun running mates on the ballot next time either.

I hate this election.

yup

 

[actaeon277]

 

[mrjarrell]

I truly believe that we need more than two parties. The damage that HRC will do in four years and the "New Americans" she will create that will automatically be Democrats.

Might be too much for any opposition?

We do need new blood and the old guard needs to be replaced. I am not quite so convinced that Clinton will be able to do much damage, if the republicans manage to retain the house and senate, (not a sure thing, given the damage Trump has done to the R brand). If we manage to experience 4 more years of gridlock that's not a disaster, ( for the nation. For the republicans it may well be their bullet to the head). Stymieing Clinton will be their job and, if they do it, we'll all be pretty safe. Executive orders only go so far.

 

[voidsherpa]

If we manage to experience 4 more years of gridlock that's not a disaster,

Oh look at those sexist Republicans! How dare they do this to the first woman president!

 

[mrjarrell]

Oh look at those sexist Republicans! How dare they do this to the first woman president!

Meh. They did it to the first black president and got away with it.

 

[mrjarrell]

Drumpf wants to rein in the 1st Amendment and make the US like the UK, where you can sue anyone in the press who says anything about you. Looks like he's on the same page as Clinton.

Trump: Journalists Have Too Many First Amendment Protections

 

[jbombelli]

Why does it not surprise me to see you supporting news journalists lying to us, committing slander and libel, for political reasons?

 

[2A_Tom]

Here's my pitch. Vote Johnson, with the hopes he get 5% of the popular voter so that the next go round for POTUS, the Libertarian party will be able to get matching funds from the federal govt. Those funds can honestly make the difference between being on the ballot in all 50 states and access to the debates. Kinda ironic given he's a Libertarian, but still, it may break the chains of the 2-party farce we are forced to endure.

I don't want to see the idiot religion hating pothead fake libertarian who picks severely anti-gun running mates on the ballot next time either.

I hate this election.

Now that is a new Libertarian principle I'd not heard of taking money from the government.

 

[jamil]

Here's my pitch. Vote Johnson, with the hopes he get 5% of the popular voter so that the next go round for POTUS, the Libertarian party will be able to get matching funds from the federal govt. Those funds can honestly make the difference between being on the ballot in all 50 states and access to the debates. Kinda ironic given he's a Libertarian, but still, it may break the chains of the 2-party farce we are forced to endure.

He won't be on the ballot next go round... so he says. I'm voting for him just so the Libertarian party can hopefully enter the discussion next time.

I kinda suspect Johnson might get 5% this time. And voting for him just to get to the 5% is somewhat appealing. But I don't think it's going to make any difference. That won't get us any further from a two party system for the reasons I state below. What good did it do this time? He was on the ballot in all 50 states this time, and that 5% won't get a Libertarian anywhere near the debate stage, as we saw this time around. "They" declared that candidates must be polling 15% or better to be on the stage, and Johnson fell short at just under 12%.

I'm not trying to talk you out of voting for Johnson, but for me, the 5% isn't enough draw to get me past his douchebaggery. It's like Jbomb said, I hate this election. It sucks. And given many of the emails between Podesta, Putin, et al, that's exactly what the Clintons wanted. When you have a really suck ass candidate, just run the ***** against another suck ass and let the press do the magic in between.

This election just makes me say naughty stuff.

I truly believe that we need more than two parties. The damage that HRC will do in four years and the "New Americans" she will create that will automatically be Democrats.

Might be too much for any opposition?

We do need more than two parties. That can't happen as long as we have a binary voting system that produces a binary choice by default. And just as a few INGOers who think the two party system is too much like boobs, an extra would just be odd.

Yeah. So he says. I hope they get their 5%. I wrote my own name on the ballot though I know it won't even be counted. I can't stomach ANY of them. In the words of R. Lee Ermey THEY ARE ALL EQUALLY WORTHLESS.

No, they'll count it and just assume you meant Hillary.

 

[mrjarrell]

Why does it not surprise me to see you supporting news journalists lying to us, committing slander and libel, for political reasons?

Current law allows for suing for libel and slander. We do not need to embrace the police state speech tactics of Great Britain. If someone in the press libels you, then sue. Same for slander. Our laws allow for this.

 

[jbombelli]

Current law allows for suing for libel and slander. We do not need to embrace the police state speech tactics of Great Britain. If someone in the press libels you, then sue. Same for slander. Our laws allow for this.

Sure. Until you're an elected public figure. Then all bets are off.

 

[mrjarrell]

Sure. Until you're an elected public figure. Then all bets are off.

Nope. Even they can sue. The fact that they don't is telling, though. My guess is Trump would lose his ass almost every case. He, like Clinton, is a congenital liar and a buffoon to boot.