trump

[jbombelli]

You are voting against gun control or you are voting for it. With us or against us, have it your way.

Yup. No matter how you spin it, you're one way or another helping determine who gets to appoint Supreme Court justices, and how the Supreme Court interprets the 2nd Amendment for the rest of our lives.

 

[Route 45]

A vote for Johnson is just that, a vote for Johnson.

No matter how many times we all go through this illogical nonsense, it still seems to be the go-to line to disparage other people's votes.

I'll just leave this here:

Blog: Spoiler alert: Gary Johnson

Johnson bashes Trump, but has nothing bad to say about Hillary.
Says it all, IMO.

 

[jbombelli]

I'll just leave this here:

Blog: Spoiler alert: Gary Johnson

Johnson bashes Trump, but has nothing bad to say about Hillary.
Says it all, IMO.

Yup. He says "I'm not a stone thrower when it comes to Hillary Clinton..." but throws every stone he can at Trump. I've concluded he's trying to help Clinton win, and is the main reason I'm not voting Libertarian this time around.

You gotta be a real jackass Libertarian to chase ME away from voting Libertarian, but Gary Johnson managed to do it by campaigning against Trump instead of for Gary Johnson, which tells me all I need to know. He's helping Hillary.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

You are voting against gun control or you are voting for it. With us or against us, have it your way.

Again, the "with us or against us" mentality is incredibly harmful.

 

[bwframe]

Again, the "with us or against us" mentality is incredibly harmful.

I certainly hope it's harmful to those who would allow our Second Amendment rights to be infringed. It needs to be blunt to get through to some who just won't "get it."

 

[jbombelli]

Again, the "with us or against us" mentality is incredibly harmful.

Harmful to whom?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Sounds familiar. I thought Obama was divisive.

Palin rips Never Trump Republicans: 'You are either with us or against us'


Best of luck flipping those blue states.

 

[JNG]

I certainly hope it's harmful to those who would allow our Second Amendment rights to be infringed. It needs to be blunt to get through to some who just won't "get it."

You lose me at the part where you think Trump is meaningfully better for our Second Amendment rights, or will appoint meaningfully better SCOUTS justices, than Hillary. His history and his recent statements suggest that from a 2A perspective, it's a crap sandwich either way between those two.

 

[jbombelli]

You lose me at the part where you think Trump is meaningfully better for our Second Amendment rights, or will appoint meaningfully better SCOUTS justices, than Hillary. His history and his recent statements suggest that from a 2A perspective, it's a crap sandwich either way between those two.

Donald Trump unveils his potential Supreme Court nominees - CNNPolitics.com

A quote from the article:

Steve Vladeck, a CNN contributor and law professor at American University Washington College of Law, described the list as "red meat to conservatives. These are 11 well-regarded conservative judges with consistent credentials; folks who I think could reasonably be expected to try and follow in Justice Scalia's footsteps."

 

[IndyDave1776]

You lose me at the part where you think Trump is meaningfully better for our Second Amendment rights, or will appoint meaningfully better SCOUTS justices, than Hillary. His history and his recent statements suggest that from a 2A perspective, it's a crap sandwich either way between those two.

His potential justice list notwithstanding, Trump may be lukewarm in support of the 2A, but we already know that Hillary considers its destruction a major driving force in her life.

 

[jbombelli]

Based on what Johnson has been campaigning on, his first priority seems to be gay marriage, followed by illegal immigration. Any justices he appoints are likely to be pro marriage-equality first, pro illegal-immigration second, so take a guess what their stance on guns will be.

 

[JNG]

Donald Trump unveils his potential Supreme Court nominees - CNNPolitics.com

A quote from the article:

Oh, the list is absolutely fantastic. I just have 0% confidence that Trump will choose someone from it. That list, like all of his other campaign promises, is meaningless. And like most of his other campaign promises, he's already made clear he has no intention to honor it. Trump himself makes clear that all of his promises, worded as promises, are just trial balloons or suggestions that he may or may not make some effort to follow later.

I'd love to be wrong about that, but I'll bet you dinner at Elmo's that if he gets elected, his first SCOTUS appointment won't be one of those 11.

 

[mrjarrell]

Based on what Johnson has been campaigning on, his first priority seems to be gay marriage, followed by illegal immigration. Any justices he appoints are likely to be pro marriage-equality first, pro illegal-immigration second, so take a guess what their stance on guns will be.

I'd say you're wrong.

[video=youtube_share;NTQn3chyp9c]http://youtu.be/NTQn3chyp9c[/video]

 

[Route 45]

Best of luck flipping those blue states.

You are certainly doing your part to keep them blue.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'd say you're wrong.

[video=youtube_share;NTQn3chyp9c]http://youtu.be/NTQn3chyp9c[/video]

Sounds about like Todd Young...and about the same as many other 2A "supporters and protectors". Serious question: What legislation is he going to champion and guide through the legislative process?

 

[mrjarrell]

Sounds about like Todd Young...and about the same as many other 2A "supporters and protectors". Serious question: What legislation is he going to champion and guide through the legislative process?

Couldn't say, but I am more than willing to bet good money it will be legislation that increases liberty and minimises government. I'll take that over either of the other two.

 

[jamil]

Yup. He says "I'm not a stone thrower when it comes to Hillary Clinton..." but throws every stone he can at Trump. I've concluded he's trying to help Clinton win, and is the main reason I'm not voting Libertarian this time around.

You gotta be a real jackass Libertarian to chase ME away from voting Libertarian, but Gary Johnson managed to do it by campaigning against Trump instead of for Gary Johnson, which tells me all I need to know. He's helping Hillary.

Jackass? Yeah. I can see that. I prefer douchbag. I think that gets deeper into the character issues.

Now to address everyone else. Think about the position you have now and arguments you make to support it. Now think back to 2012, to the position you had then, either in support of Romney or in support of the third party. Some of you guys are taking the opposite position and making the opposite arguments. So did you "evolve"? Do you now see the error of your ways that caused you to flip arguments?

So you Trump supporting, third party vote is a vote for Hillary guys, you gonna stick to that next time GOP nominates a Romney? Or are you gonna flip back to your position in 2012? And you third party guys who say a vote for Johnson is just a vote for Johnson. You gonna let it go when they want to go third party?

Or, do you just admit now that your position doesn't really depend on the arguments you're making now. You're just picking arguments to suit the outcome you want.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Couldn't say, but I am more than willing to bet good money it will be legislation that increases liberty and minimises government. I'll take that over either of the other two.

I bet he doesn't have a clue. Most politicians (and Gary Johnson is indeed one of those) will use this support as some sort of badge of honor, when in actuality, have no legislation in mind and will not go on record with any they plan on supporting. If he (or Todd Young) had something, they'd be giving us some ideas of what to expect. They don't because they don't plan on taking the lead on any of it. They might sit back and fight off the perrenial calls for assault weapons bans or mag restrictions but that's not leading...that's what passes for a run-of-the-mill-NRA-A-rated politician.

 

[jbombelli]

Jackass? Yeah. I can see that. I prefer douchbag. I think that gets deeper into the character issues.

Now to address everyone else. Think about the position you have now and arguments you make to support it. Now think back to 2012, to the position you had then, either in support of Romney or in support of the third party. Some of you guys are taking the opposite position and making the opposite arguments. So did you "evolve"? Do you now see the error of your ways that caused you to flip arguments?

So you Trump supporting, third party vote is a vote for Hillary guys, you gonna stick to that next time GOP nominates a Romney? Or are you gonna flip back to your position in 2012? And you third party guys who say a vote for Johnson is just a vote for Johnson. You gonna let it go when they want to go third party?

Or, do you just admit now that your position doesn't really depend on the arguments you're making now. You're just picking arguments to suit the outcome you want.

My sole issue this election is who will be appointing Supreme Court justices. It won't be Gary Johnson. I've seen who Trump is considering, and I know what to expect with Hillary. SCOTUS is where the fight will be. You don't need to pass new laws if you have SCOTUS on your side.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Jackass? Yeah. I can see that. I prefer douchbag. I think that gets deeper into the character issues.

Now to address everyone else. Think about the position you have now and arguments you make to support it. Now think back to 2012, to the position you had then, either in support of Romney or in support of the third party. Some of you guys are taking the opposite position and making the opposite arguments. So did you "evolve"? Do you now see the error of your ways that caused you to flip arguments?

So you Trump supporting, third party vote is a vote for Hillary guys, you gonna stick to that next time GOP nominates a Romney? Or are you gonna flip back to your position in 2012? And you third party guys who say a vote for Johnson is just a vote for Johnson. You gonna let it go when they want to go third party?

Or, do you just admit now that your position doesn't really depend on the arguments you're making now. You're just picking arguments to suit the outcome you want.

OK, but how do you deal with Romney being sold to us on the platform of 'punish Obama for ObamaCare by voting for the guy who introduced it to this country'? Romney may also have had somewhat of a chance had he campaigned against Obama as hard as he campaigned against Trump when he wasn't even running. At the end of the day, Hillary, Obama, and Romney are all globalists and all establishment hacks. Trump has demonstrated a consistent pattern over decades of being pro-US. He may have plenty of flaws, but being a doppelganger of the same thing we have had every. damned. election. for. decades. is not one of them. Johnson has proven himself to be, well, selectively libertarian. When he wants to use the force of government to make me participate in things I don't want to participate with, he can go do something anatomically impossible.