trump

[bwframe]

But a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Gary Johnson, who is not anti-gun.

Johnson cannot beat the anti-gun/liberal SC judge bringing candidate. Only one candidate can. Not voting for Trump is allowing the anti-gunner to win. Same result.

 

[BugI02]

Johnson cannot beat the anti-gun/liberal SC judge bringing candidate. Only one candidate can. Not voting for Trump is allowing the anti-gunner to win. Same result.

Not quite. Not voting for Trump allows them to feel that their much vaunted, overweening principles are unsullied as they have washed their hands of any responsibility for the outcome

 

[jamil]

Johnson cannot beat the anti-gun/liberal SC judge bringing candidate. Only one candidate can. Not voting for Trump is allowing the anti-gunner to win. Same result.

Is there only one anti-gun candidate? I'm taking a chance with Trump that his word is worth anything.

 

[bwframe]

...I'm taking a chance with Trump that his word is worth anything.

Sure we are.

Not any question about Hillary though, she will do just as she says.

 

[mrjarrell]

Johnson cannot beat the anti-gun/liberal SC judge bringing candidate. Only one candidate can. Not voting for Trump is allowing the anti-gunner to win. Same result.

Yes, Johnson can beat her, hands down, if all of you Trumpers would abandon your loser and back someone with real experience who is not anti 2A. Your blind allegiance to this charlatan will ensure Hillary wins, as all the polls are showing.

 

[bwframe]

Yes, Johnson can beat her, hands down...
...as all the polls are showing.

Uh huh...

 

[jamil]

Sure we are.

Not any question about Hillary though, she will do just as she says.

That's the calculation I'm making. The alternative is Johnson, while he lines up much better with my beliefs, I honestly don't believe, as a Libertarian candidate, that he can gain enough national support to actually contend. I think I've read that 60% of all voters don't like either candidate, but those people are going with the least of 2 evils rather than looking seriously at Johnson.

Yes, Johnson can beat her, hands down, if all of you Trumpers would abandon your loser and back someone with real experience who is not anti 2A. Your blind allegiance to this charlatan will ensure Hillary wins, as all the polls are showing.

See? Now that's the way to sell it. Ridicule people for not buying what you're selling. Of course they'll jump over. I think having thick contempt for your buyers also helps you to sell it. Perhaps that's why the Libertarian party is so successful in getting their candidates elected to offices nationwide, judges appointed, and achieving legislatively.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

"He has an advantage on me, because he can say everything he knows about any subject in 140 characters and I can’t."

Now that's funny!

George Will Slams Trump: 'He Can Say Everything He Knows About Any Subject in 140 Characters' | Fox News Insider

 

[foszoe]

Yes, Johnson can beat her, hands down, if all of you Trumpers would abandon your loser and back someone with real experience who is not anti 2A. Your blind allegiance to this charlatan will ensure Hillary wins, as all the polls are showing.

You would make a perfect Trumper, insults and superior intelligence combined with a surety that your guy can beat her.

 

[Tombs]

Yes, Johnson can beat her, hands down, if all of you Trumpers would abandon your loser and back someone with real experience who is not anti 2A. Your blind allegiance to this charlatan will ensure Hillary wins, as all the polls are showing.

You're really smart, maybe we should just vote for you. After all we're just a bunch of dumb principles conservatives who believe in a nation with borders.

Wooo anarchy and open borders! xD xD xD

 

[Ericpwp]

'Clinton Cash' author on Clinton Foundation money | Latest News Videos | Fox Business

 

[jbombelli]

Yes, Johnson can beat her, hands down, if all of you Trumpers would abandon your loser and back someone with real experience who is not anti 2A. Your blind allegiance to this charlatan will ensure Hillary wins, as all the polls are showing.

Lol

 

[jamil]

From the funny pictures thread. I don't want to carry on this conversation there.

Because if someone regularly espouses the views and policies of a candidate, yet they claim that candidate is horrible, there's not many conclusions left to draw.

Hold on. Don't project your faith in Trump on everyone else. Just because you have blind faith and a sense of fierce loyalty doesn't mean everyone else should. Trump has said enough that makes me nearly certain that he does not actually hold the views I regularly espouse. He proves himself a clown nearly every time he opens his mouth without a teleprompter in front of his face.

You and I may espouse similar political views, but I'm just not so smitten that I'm too blind to see it that Trump is pandering. It's a con. The only reason I'm planning to vote for Trump is because Hillary is a known entity, and at least with Trump there's enough doubt to take a chance on one thing. That is, a hope that he will at least appoint a constitutionalist judge to the SCOTUS. But it's not a sure thing. It's risking him burning down and fleecing the nation just to get a decent SCOTUS pick. When I put it that way, I'm almost talking myself out of it.

So, let's get back to this "fear of disagreement" nonsense.

I'm going to let you in on something I generally keep to myself. And it may come as a surprise to you, because, you know, you've never seen me do this on INGO. But. Here goes.

I like arguing with people I disagree with. There I said it. It's out now.

And guess what? What we're doing now? This back and forth thing? It's called dis-a-gree-ing. You think one candidate is ****ty, and the other is orgasmic. I disagree. I think they're both ****ty and I don't want an orgasmic president. I want a boring president that I don't really notice and doesn't **** anything up.

But then you say I think they're both ****ty because I'm afraid of disagreement? Pah-LEEEZE. I disagree.

 

[T.Lex]

There are plenty of Muslim-majority countries that don't produce terrorism in proportion of places like Syria.

Like Minneapolis?

In the real world, it does.
What is the net effect of constant Trump bashing?

Venting.

Yeah, and what other choice is there? Hittlery? I don't think so.........

Best to dump Trump and vote Johnson. Otherwise Hillary IS going to win. Her numbers keep going up and his are going down. A vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary.

What's with the continued false dichotomy? Is there a poll from Indiana that makes it any sort of close race?

Electoral College, people. In Indiana, a non-vote for Trump is not a vote for Hillary. It only influences his margin of victory. Which is another way of saying, he's going to get the Indiana EC delegates regardless.

Not quite. Not voting for Trump allows them to feel that their much vaunted, overweening principles are unsullied as they have washed their hands of any responsibility for the outcome

Actually, yes. It means, at least for me, I won't compromise what is important to join a bandwagon. That, in itself, is important to me.

I like arguing with people I disagree with. There I said it. It's out now.

Muwhahahahaha. Like a moth to a flame....

 

[printcraft]

Actually, yes. It means, at least for me, I won't compromise what is important to join a bandwagon. That, in itself, is important to Me.

Noble... But... Just remember what you are up against.
The demoncrats have no such standard. They will vote for ANYBODY with a D next to their name. The love that D.

 

[foszoe]

From the funny pictures thread. I don't want to carry on this conversation there.

I like arguing with people I disagree with. There I said it. It's out

And that is where we disagree. While I enjoy arguing with people whom I disagree with, I much prefer arguing with people I agree with, without them knowing, and taking the opposite side.. it's more intellectually stimulating and mentally satisfying.

 

[T.Lex]

Noble... But... Just remember what you are up against.
The demoncrats have no such standard. They will vote for ANYBODY with a D next to their name. The love that D.

Ok.

1) So, we're supposed to emulate that and vote for anyone with an R?

2) Still in Indiana. I haven't seen any prediction that HRC will even make it close here. If there is one, please post it.

 

[jamil]

And that is where we disagree. While I enjoy arguing with people whom I disagree with, I much prefer arguing with people I agree with, without them knowing, and taking the opposite side.. it's more intellectually stimulating and mentally satisfying.

Well, I've done that too. For me it is part mental stimulation but more it is to test arguments against people who disagree with me. If an argument doesn't work, is it a problem with the argument, or is the argument valid but my position is dubious? I don't want my opinion to be based on feelings. I want my opinions to be consistent with the facts and my values. Arguing with people I already agree with can be stimulating. But not as helpful as arguing with a capable debater whose opinions are just as strong as mine, and will test my arguments.

 

[jamil]

Ok.

1) So, we're supposed to emulate that and vote for anyone with an R?

2) Still in Indiana. I haven't seen any prediction that HRC will even make it close here. If there is one, please post it.

He's just saying, noble as it is, some decisions need to be pragmatic. Tell me you've never made a decision that's more pragmatic than principled.

 

[T.Lex]

He's just saying, noble as it is, some decisions need to be pragmatic. Tell me you've never made a decision that's more pragmatic than principled.

I'm a lawyer. And married. Every f'n day.

Pardon me if this election is beyond the pale for me.

Now, if by some snowball's appearance in Hades, HRC makes it close in Indiana, I'm going to be in a real pickle. At this point, though, no amount of pragmatism will make this a close race.