Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: Snaggletiger on October 14, 2016, 04:36:56 PM
-
Ultimately, what you mark on the ballot next month is between you and your maker, or Maker's Mark if you're not into the maker thing. But after a bajillion pages of very civil discourse, I'm curious as to who you're actually going to cast your all-important vote for.
It's funny how there's been tons of vitriol poured out towards both Trump and Clinton, but very few have actually said what they'll do. Unless I've totally missed something, CCTAU is a Trumper and thinks the man needs the opportunity to give his plans a chance. K is not so much in Trump's camp as he is anti-Hillary and feels The Donald is the lesser of two evils. I believe Wes said some time back that Hillary's views more closely align with his. Fuck me if I'm wrong. Chad is in the anti-Trillary camp and will throw his lot in with Johnson.
Prowlie was feeling the Bern but not sure I've seen him pledge his allegiance to anyone else. GH...no clue. Dallas? We'll all hate who he votes for. Token? AU1? AUTailgating?
Me? When it was narrowed down to 2 viable candidates, I was in the Trump not as evil camp. Now, I've packed up my tent, put out the fire and broke camp. I know this may be viewed with the old saying, "A vote for Johnson is a vote for Hillary". Not going there. I'm writing in Pence.
Anyone care to show their hand?
-
TRUMP! As a deplorable, I can only vote for one candidate. As much as I would love to vote for Johnson, he just isn't the Libertarian he thinks he is. Plus, he doesn't know what the fuck is going on in the world. I believe he lives in a bubble.
Killary is the polar opposite of what this country needs in a leader. She, and her family, all belong in prison or in front of a firing squad.
-
Trump
-
I voted Rubio in primary. Really like the guy and identified mostly with him. Then I liked the idea of Trump and his tax plan after he defeated everyone else. When he started to say stupid shit and refused to listen to his campaign manager I decided to look at Gary. I probably lean more toward Gary than I do Hillary or Trump, but then Trump brought Pence on who I really like. In the last few weeks I realize that Trump is bull headed, refuses a caddy tip which leads me to believe he won't take any advice from Pence. On top of that, he just makes stupid decisions when it comes to politics.
I'm back to Rubio. It'll be a write in.
-
I am still entrenched in the Huckabee camp. You might say I heart Huckabee.
As for this election...
(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/14470439_512244498972542_1808320582249708502_n.jpg?oh=72e3cd51640be1b81b111288af6ff153&oe=58A610F2)
I'm not convinced that there is a lesser of the two evils running for the big parties.
-
Trump, but he will carry Texas without any problem.
-
I appreciate the write-ins as a protest vote, but let me just say that for as much as I was told voting for Johnson is a complete throw-away, at least I'll see an actual percentage number on the map for how he did. At least I'm actually contributing to the legitimacy of the idea of a third party.
If you're looking for someone to protest vote for, and you think Johnson's a total buffoon (I think the media actually did do a directive hit job on him and intentionally postured him to look that way, but I get it if you don't buy that excuse), then why not at least cast your vote for Evan McMullen?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-evan-mcmullin-could-win-utah-and-the-presidency/
In fact, Johnson aligns much more with my views than he does, but if on election day it looks like he's actually the third most likely person to put a dent in the election, then I may "throw my vote away" on him. I'll decide that in November.
-
Trump. But not because I like it.
-
Trump. But not because I like it.
It ain't gonna matter, this elections was decided long ago. The republicans could have dug up Ronald Reagan. Washington, (Republicans and Democrats alike) MSM, want them some Hillary.
-
Clinton/Not Trump
-
Clinton/Not Trump
As much as I give Chad a hard time about being like prowler, I know it's not true.
But this is very telling.
-
Ultimately, what you mark on the ballot next month is between you and your maker, or Maker's Mark if you're not into the maker thing. But after a bajillion pages of very civil discourse, I'm curious as to who you're actually going to cast your all-important vote for.
It's funny how there's been tons of vitriol poured out towards both Trump and Clinton, but very few have actually said what they'll do. Unless I've totally missed something, CCTAU is a Trumper and thinks the man needs the opportunity to give his plans a chance. K is not so much in Trump's camp as he is anti-Hillary and feels The Donald is the lesser of two evils. I believe Wes said some time back that Hillary's views more closely align with his. Fuck me if I'm wrong. Chad is in the anti-Trillary camp and will throw his lot in with Johnson.
Prowlie was feeling the Bern but not sure I've seen him pledge his allegiance to anyone else. GH...no clue. Dallas? We'll all hate who he votes for. Token? AU1? AUTailgating?
Me? When it was narrowed down to 2 viable candidates, I was in the Trump not as evil camp. Now, I've packed up my tent, put out the fire and broke camp. I know this may be viewed with the old saying, "A vote for Johnson is a vote for Hillary". Not going there. I'm writing in Pence.
Anyone care to show their hand?
I am pro Trump because he is the only one on the ticket with a chance to beat hitlary.
If it had been Cruz, I would have been pro Cruz. I just happened to realize early that Trump was going to be the guy.
And anybody that votes for hitlary would never even get me to piss on them of they were on fire!
-
I am pro Trump because he is the only one on the ticket with a chance to beat hitlary.
If it had been Cruz, I would have been pro Cruz. I just happened to realize early that Trump was going to be the guy.
And anybody that votes for hitlary would never even get me to piss on them of they were on fire!
Well now, let's be real about this. If I'm on fire, I would probably ask you to maybe turn on the water hose....throw a bucket of water on me...something of that nature. Most likely, I'd holler "Shit" and "Fuck" and "Oww" a lot. However, I really don't think asking you to pull out your Gary Johnson and take a leak on me would be something I'd say in that particular situation.
-
Still not sure. The only reason I'm going to the polls here in Florida is to vote for medical marijuana. We're going to need it whoever is elected. :facepalm:
-
Straight up, I'm writing in Ham Sandwich.
or Ken Bone.
-
Evan McMullin.
The people that I've voted for president in the past, while flawed, were people that if my children grew up to become like, I would have considered the job I did raising them to be a good one. I can't say that with either Hillary or Trump.
I'm voting my conscience.
-
Some of you are allowing the media to do to Trump what they did to Cain. Turns out Cain was right. And we lost a viable candidate.
Just remember that any vote not for Trump is for her. And there is NO logical excuse EVER for helping her.
-
I am so surprised at you people. I baited the hook and you gulped it down. Then I reeled you all in. Come on, people. Have you not been paying attention? The only alternative here is....
https://youtu.be/OR9uqBbatSQ
-
I have no idea what I'm gonna do. I'm in AL so it doesn't matter. I have an idea for strategic long term reasons not because of ideology ie - to get a 3rd party a dent in the popular and get some notice for the future. It's gotta start somewhere.
But I'm just so sickened by all this. I wanted to like trump. My brain tried to. My heart can't. I just can't get on board. I have no faith in his ability to know anything worth a damn. I have no faith in him being able to navigate this political process. I was afraid of this. This is where having some experience matters. Kellyanne Conway has kept him alive and gave his campaign a slight pulse. I know deep down being honest with myself that unless some miracle at jhs type event happens, this election is over. I've moved on to looking to hold the senate and house. And then on to 2020 where several of the 2016 guys will be prime candidates.
I don't know if the senate can hold up her rogue court picks for 2/4 years but here is to hoping they try.
Whatever happens the landscape of this country and its people has been changed for the worse. Just look at the threads on here. Butscale that out to an entire country. And that's where we're at right now. It sickens me.
-
Damn it, son. RIF!!! A vote for Deez Nuts is a vote for GOT HIM!!!!
-
Neither is good, but I'm casting my vote for Trump.
-
TRUMP! As a deplorable, I can only vote for one candidate. As much as I would love to vote for Johnson, he just isn't the Libertarian he thinks he is. Plus, he doesn't know what the fuck is going on in the world. I believe he lives in a bubble.
Killary is the polar opposite of what this country needs in a leader. She, and her family, all belong in prison or in front of a firing squad.
I am actually in agreement with bottomfeeder. Christ on a cruth, cat laying with dogs and such....
I was going to write in Mickey and Donald. Both fictional characters, yet still more believeable than anything that comes from the mouths of Trump and Hillary. I really wanted to got Libertarian, but they went the way of the Repubs and Demos and nominated a shitty choice as well.
I still haven't made up my mind but more than likely it will be a write in vote.
-
Just remember that any vote not for Trump is for her. And there is NO logical excuse EVER for helping her.
Just remember that polls show Gary Johnson taking votes away from Hillary not the other way around, but keep chanting that mantra.
-
Guess what came in the mail today?
-
Guess what came in the mail today?
A scratch off ad with a fake key glued to it from your local ford dealership?
-
Guess what came in the mail today?
The three foot black jelly dong?
-
I am pro Trump because he is the only one on the ticket with a chance to beat hitlary.
If it had been Cruz, I would have been pro Cruz. I just happened to realize early that Trump was going to be the guy.
And anybody that votes for hitlary would never even get me to piss on them of they were on fire!
Anybody voting for Trump will get me to piss on them even if they were on fire, just not enough to put out the fire...so they'd be burning and pissed on.
-
I am actually in agreement with bottomfeeder. Christ on a cruth, cat laying with dogs and such....
I was going to write in Mickey and Donald. Both fictional characters, yet still more believeable than anything that comes from the mouths of Trump and Hillary. I really wanted to got Libertarian, but they went the way of the Repubs and Demos and nominated a shitty choice as well.
I still haven't made up my mind but more than likely it will be a write in vote.
Yes.
Austin Peterson would have been much better.
-
I'm probably going to just write my own name in the spot for president and concentrate on local elections. I can't see myself voting for either the Turd Sandwich or the Doosh. One is a pathalogical liar that abuses women, belongs in jail for multiple offenses, and is only in this for personal enrichment. And so is the other. I understand each of you picking the side, that in your opinion, is the lesser of two evils. But I just don't understand anyone who is all in for either candidate.
-
I'll be writing in Evan McMullin. I've been #nevertrump since the day he descended down the escalator, and #neverhillary since the 90s. Thanks America for giving us this turd sandwich.
-
I'm writing in Bernie Sanders.
I can't, in good conscience, vote for Hillary or Trump.
-
Just remember that polls show Gary Johnson taking votes away from Hillary not the other way around, but keep chanting that mantra.
Never in recent history has a third party taken votes away from the left. Eat it up.
-
Never in recent history has a third party taken votes away from the left. Eat it up.
Well, welcome to this year and a new first. Because Aut1 is correct. Trump does better with Johnson in the race. It's a double digit blow out without him in it. I know several dems voting for Johnson or stein. Who would otherwise prob vote for Hillary. Most right or center leaning people I know voting for Johnson have said to me they would sit home if he weren't in it.
-
Never in recent history has a third party taken votes away from the left. Eat it up.
It's almost like everything you say is the opposite of true.
Again, this is something that can very easily be verified if you're not a functioning idiot and know how to use teh googles. Or if you would actually read things that have been presented in this thread 20 times before already.
And have you seriously never heard of Ralph Nader??
-
I just can't vote for Trump or Clinton.
IMO the best future candidate to come from all this is Donald Jr.
-
Anybody voting for Trump will get me to piss on them even if they were on fire, just not enough to put out the fire...so they'd be burning and pissed on.
You gotta actually have a dick to aim it. That leaves you out!
-
It's almost like everything you say is the opposite of true.
Again, this is something that can very easily be verified if you're not a functioning idiot and know how to use teh googles. Or if you would actually read things that have been presented in this thread 20 times before already.
And have you seriously never heard of Ralph Nader??
Nader was an outlier in which his votes were about 50\50. We will never know because the people voting had three choices and of his votes it was almost even. Unless you actually believe the 20+% that said they would have stayed home. Still not a clear advantage for the right on him.
That being said, he did cause a bit of trouble for both parties. But typically the libertarianstake votes from the right. BTW, Nader was the green party.
-
If you are military or former military and you allow Clinton to win, you have done a disservice to your fellow vet.
-
If you are military or former military and you allow Clinton to win, you have done a disservice to your fellow vet.
Read this and tell me that this isn't what America needs.
https://www.evanmcmullin.com/principles
-
Nader was an outlier in which his votes were about 50\50. We will never know because the people voting had three choices and of his votes it was almost even. Unless you actually believe the 20+% that said they would have stayed home. Still not a clear advantage for the right on him.
That being said, he did cause a bit of trouble for both parties. But typically the libertarianstake votes from the right.
All of this is factually fucking wrong. Every word of it.
BTW, Nader was the green party.
Is that not a third party?
Never in recent history has a third party taken votes away from the left. Eat it up.
-
If you are military or former military and you allow Clinton to win, you have done a disservice to your fellow vet.
You are that televangelist pastor telling people they'll go to hell for murder if they don't vote for for Trump.
No reason or logical explanation needed. Agree with you or else.
Shitty.
-
Doesn't bother me. You're the one going to hell.
-
If you are military or former military and you allow Clinton to win, you have done a disservice to your fellow vet.
If you are military or former military and you allow Trump to win after what he said about POWs...you have done a disservice to your fellow vet.
-
You gotta actually have a dick to aim it. That leaves you out!
Have you ever seen a fire hose? I'll stop there, you can imagine the rest...which I'm sure you will.
-
Read this and tell me that this isn't what America needs.
https://www.evanmcmullin.com/principles
I'm interested.
-
I would like to see more of Evan McMullin.
-
I would like to see more of Evan McMullin.
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/10/evan-mcmullins-kamikaze-mission?utm_source=social&utm_campaign=crfb&utm_medium=facebook&utm_content=101516mcmuffin
-
All of this is factually fucking wrong. Every word of it.
Is that not a third party?
I should have said libertarian. That was what most people think of today when you mention third party. My bad.
-
You are that televangelist pastor telling people they'll go to hell for murder if they don't vote for for Trump.
No reason or logical explanation needed. Agree with you or else.
Shitty.
You don't have a son who is a vet, prick. These things are important to those who are affected. Go sit with the women.
-
I would like to see more of Evan McMullin.
Some think he has a slight chance in Utah.
Some think Johnson has a slight chance in Nm and Col.
If Any of those happen, and the other states fall right along blue red lines, no one would have 270. Then it's goes to Congress to decide. Interesting.
-
Some think he has a slight chance in Utah.
Some think Johnson has a slight chance in Nm and Col.
If Any of those happen, and the other states fall right along blue red lines, no one would have 270. Then it's goes to Congress to decide. Interesting.
Shit. Nothing interesting about that, they all on the status quo train.
-
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/10/evan-mcmullins-kamikaze-mission?utm_source=social&utm_campaign=crfb&utm_medium=facebook&utm_content=101516mcmuffin
"A quick glance at his resume shows that he has zero experience in elected office, no experience in governance at a level that would prepare him to be president, and no public record of political accomplishments."
Sounds like Trump.
-
Some think he has a slight chance in Utah.
Some think Johnson has a slight chance in Nm and Col.
If Any of those happen, and the other states fall right along blue red lines, no one would have 270. Then it's goes to Congress to decide. Interesting.
Actually it goes to the electoral college. Not all of their votes are bound. Though I doubt any would cross the line.
And if it were to go to congress...
-
Actually it goes to the electoral college. Not all of their votes are bound. Though I doubt any would cross the line.
And if it were to go to congress...
When I said 270 what did you think I was talking about? We're talking after the electoral college here.
-
I have no idea honestly.
I do only want to vote for someone who is actually running for president, so just writing in someone's name doesn't seem worth it to me.
I will not vote for Trump. I think there's plenty of threads and arguments on this board to explain why people decide to be #NeverTrump.
But I really can't vote for Clinton either.
I also would rather not vote for someone who has religious beliefs that I don't respect, but Evan McMullin seems like someone I should check out. Too bad he's only a write-in for the state of Alabama, so again, why waste my time?
I would like to vote for a third party candidate but who? I know Chad will say Johnson, but the Aleppo comment, his not-so-long-ago stance on vaccines, and his climate change policy don't mesh well with me. I also am not a fan of some of the policies and values supported by libertarians.
Jill Stein is bold but has some outlandish, radical, and dangerous views.
So who else is there? How bad is it to protest vote by leaving the president spot empty?
-
Obama-Biden 2016.
Keep America the Same!
-
I have no idea honestly.
I do only want to vote for someone who is actually running for president, so just writing in someone's name doesn't seem worth it to me.
I will not vote for Trump. I think there's plenty of threads and arguments on this board to explain why people decide to be #NeverTrump.
But I really can't vote for Clinton either.
I also would rather not vote for someone who has religious beliefs that I don't respect, but Evan McMullin seems like someone I should check out. Too bad he's only a write-in for the state of Alabama, so again, why waste my time?
I would like to vote for a third party candidate but who? I know Chad will say Johnson, but the Aleppo comment, his not-so-long-ago stance on vaccines, and his climate change policy don't mesh well with me. I also am not a fan of some of the policies and values supported by libertarians.
Jill Stein is bold but has some outlandish, radical, and dangerous views.
So who else is there? How bad is it to protest vote by leaving the president spot empty?
There isn't dude.
Which is exactly why the country has to get more involved in the primaries going forward.
-
Here's a guy who gets it:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1183204405100487&id=111938618893743
-
Here's a guy who gets it:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1183204405100487&id=111938618893743
If the senate has/had balls you wouldn't have to worry about the scotus.
-
If the senate has/had balls you wouldn't have to worry about the scotus.
If a frog had wings....
Therefore this election is NOT about SCOTUS appointments?
-
I have no idea honestly.
I'm not going to reply to everyone's response, and I'm not going to try to persuade everyone to vote any particular way. But I found Townhallsavoy's response particularly interesting and wanted to wade through it. Maybe it'll help.
I do only want to vote for someone who is actually running for president, so just writing in someone's name doesn't seem worth it to me.
The more protest votes the better from where I'm sitting, but I agree that voting for someone with at least an actual chance of showing up on the ticker on election night is much less "throwing your vote away". Even if they choose not to show the percentages on election night, if a significant chunk of the vote is going to neither major party candidate, that is in and of itself newsworthy and should spark a national conversation.
I also would rather not vote for someone who has religious beliefs that I don't respect, but Evan McMullin seems like someone I should check out. Too bad he's only a write-in for the state of Alabama, so again, why waste my time?
So, two things here.
1) I agree and it's a shame that Alabama (and many other states) excluded him from the ballot. The more legitimate candidates on the ballot, the better for democracy, IMO. That's one of the main things you're fighting for when you "throw your vote away" on a third party. Legitimizing the fact that we need other options. That said, if you are going to write someone in, McMullin's the guy to do that for. He is the most likely of anyone not on your Alabama ballot to leave a significant mark on the election.
2) What don't you respect about his religious beliefs? He's the only candidate who has been consistently pro-"religious freedom" in regards to de-funding Planned Parenthood and opposing laws like those that required the bakers to bake gay wedding cakes and businesses to allow men in women's locker rooms.
Is it because he's a Mormon? Did that preclude you from voting for Mitt Romney in 2012? Odd to me that that only becomes a disqualifier when he doesn't have an (R) after his name.
I would like to vote for a third party candidate but who? I know Chad will say Johnson, but the Aleppo comment, his not-so-long-ago stance on vaccines, and his climate change policy don't mesh well with me. I also am not a fan of some of the policies and values supported by libertarians.
I've defended these statements from him in the past so I won't waste too much time here, but I will try to be as brief as I can. But brace yourself cause I'll probably fail at that goal.
1) The Aleppo comment was a deliberate attack by the media as directed by Hillary Clinton and her staff. This is established fact. I had read a whole lot about the Syrian refugee crisis before and after that "gotcha" moment and had never once heard that Aleppo was the city at the center of it. I'd never heard of it either and neither had you or 99.9% of anyone else.
What everyone else saw as "OMG WHAT AN IDIOT!" I saw as refreshing honesty. Trump people talk a big game about wanting someone who doesn't "think and talk and lie like a politician" and then when someone like Johnson is completely honest and just says "I don't know what that is" instead of bullshitting and changing the subject and giving a non-answer to confuse the issue, like any other politician, including Trump, he gets universally bashed for it. Subsequent appearances on MSNBC twisted the knife. They asked him to name a leader he respects and he came up blank. Not "name a foreign leader". Name one you respect. Those are two very different questions and I 100% agree with him when he tweeted the next day "It's been 24 hours and I still can't name a foreign leader that I respect." But the headlines were all "OMG what a dummy, he can't name a single foreign leader". That is just a gross misrepresentation of what took place in that interview. Then they put the nail in his coffin asking him who the leader of North Korea was, and he just goes "Seriously? I'm not answering that." If you actually watched it, it was clear he was just pissed off at that point for condescending him. I 100% know that he knows Kim Jong Un is the leader of North Korea, because I've heard him talk about the specific danger he poses time after time after time. Doesn't matter, the media used it to push Hillary's directive to disqualify him as a serious candidate and it apparently worked.
2) His "old" stance on vaccines was that he emphatically recognized their importance and everyone's civic duty to get them. He never, ever pushed any unscientific bullshit like they cause autism. His stance was that it's not the government's place to force people to take injections against their will, but up to individuals, parents, and doctors instead to decide that. Like you said, he has since changed that stance to thinking they should be government mandated, and I have to say I agreed more with his old stance.
His position on climate change is simpatico with mine, which is heaven forbid, nuanced. He believes it's real and scientifically proven to be so, but also is not hysterical about it and doesn't think much can or should be done to quell it, especially at the expense of government waste and damage to the economy. He (and I) thinks we probably should slowly and conservatively turn to some new forms of energy where it is reasonably efficient to do so, but also isn't trying to get everyone on Teslas and windmills ASAP like a goddamn hippie.
Additionally you mentioned "some policies and values" of libertarians in general, you didn't agree with. Since you weren't more specific, I won't speculate as to what those "policies and values" are, but I'd be curious to know.
Sorry, that was me trying to be brief.
Jill Stein is bold but has some outlandish, radical, and dangerous views.
She makes Bernie Sanders look like Ronald Reagan. She may be pulling some of the most radical leftists of the disaffected Bernie voters, but nothing significant.
So who else is there? How bad is it to protest vote by leaving the president spot empty?
IMO voting for Johnson > voting for McMullin > voting for Stein > any other write in > leaving it blank > Hillary > Trump.
-
IMO voting for Johnson > voting for McMullin > any other write in > leaving it blank > Hillary > Trump.
Opinion. BAD opinion in millions of people's eyes.
-
As if that wasn't long enough, to elaborate a little bit on these two points:
2) What don't you respect about his religious beliefs? He's the only candidate who has been consistently pro-"religious freedom" in regards to de-funding Planned Parenthood and opposing laws like those that required the bakers to bake gay wedding cakes and businesses to allow men in women's locker rooms.
and
Additionally you mentioned "some policies and values" of libertarians in general, you didn't agree with. Since you weren't more specific, I won't speculate as to what those "policies and values" are, but I'd be curious to know.
My problem with McMullin is that he isn't Libertarian enough for me, personally. He said that Johnson (http://reason.com/blog/2016/09/09/9-state-contender-evan-mcmullin-says-gar) "spends his time advocating for legalized prostitution and for a drug culture here in America, rather than dealing with problems that are really big, like our economy and national security and government reform". I mean, that's just laughably false, but whatever, the main point he's demonstrating here is that unlike Libertarians, he wants the government to keep marijuana and prostitution illegal. He wants to legislate morality. I won't waste more space going into my reasoning here, but I disagree with that. However I would suspect that the majority of you here do agree with him. That seems to be in line with your "religious beliefs" if I'm not mistaken. He also has said very un-libertarian things like (https://twitter.com/Evan_McMullin/status/786743329333522432) "We're at war, we need a place to send terrorists, & Gitmo's as fine a place as any."
Again, these are the reasons that I personally still prefer Johnson. I would think most people here disagree and like this kind of rhetoric.
-
2) What don't you respect about his religious beliefs? He's the only candidate who has been consistently pro-"religious freedom" in regards to de-funding Planned Parenthood and opposing laws like those that required the bakers to bake gay wedding cakes and businesses to allow men in women's locker rooms.
Is it because he's a Mormon? Did that preclude you from voting for Mitt Romney in 2012? Odd to me that that only becomes a disqualifier when he doesn't have an (R) after his name.
For one, I don't want Planned Parenthood to be defunded nor do I want businesses to be able to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation.
But yeah I had issues with Romney's religion in 2012. I actually voted for Gary Johnson in 2012 as a "I want a third voice at the debates" vote.
People are free to practice whatever religion they want. As I've moved further and further away from religion over the years, I've found it hard to respect and support those that practice easily debunked belief systems. It's willful ignorance to not see the problems in Mormonism based on simple scientific and historical inquiries.
But if I knew more about the guy and he aligned with me politically, I'd vote for him. The Mormonism thing isn't a final nail or anything.
-
For one, I don't want Planned Parenthood to be defunded nor do I want businesses to be able to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation.
But yeah I had issues with Romney's religion in 2012. I actually voted for Gary Johnson in 2012 as a "I want a third voice at the debates" vote.
People are free to practice whatever religion they want. As I've moved further and further away from religion over the years, I've found it hard to respect and support those that practice easily debunked belief systems. It's willful ignorance to not see the problems in Mormonism based on simple scientific and historical inquiries.
But if I knew more about the guy and he aligned with me politically, I'd vote for him. The Mormonism thing isn't a final nail or anything.
Im not a fan of organized religion either but it is a basic fundamental right and basing my vote off the candidates religion seems to be doing exactly what we espouse to get away from with types of discrimination. You may see what they believe in as fuzzy but they don't. I don't get Mormonism either. It's seems strange. But Romney likes it. And as long as it doesn't affect him as a leader I dont really care. Where I do have an issue is with types like Mike Huckabee who seek to actively push their religious beliefs into their legislation historically
-
nor do I want businesses to be able to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation.
Why do we need government in this? If you want a cake made, and the baker won't make it, go find another baker.
I think Ogre put it best when he said if he went to a Muslim artist, and wanted a picture of Mohammad to be drawn, would he be able to sue this artist? We already know the answer to that.
-
Why do we need government in this? If you want a cake made, and the baker won't make it, go find another baker.
I think Ogre put it best when he said if he went to a Muslim artist, and wanted a picture of Mohammad to be drawn, would he be able to sue this artist? We already know the answer to that.
This ^
-
For one, I don't want Planned Parenthood to be defunded nor do I want businesses to be able to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation.
But yeah I had issues with Romney's religion in 2012. I actually voted for Gary Johnson in 2012 as a "I want a third voice at the debates" vote.
People are free to practice whatever religion they want. As I've moved further and further away from religion over the years, I've found it hard to respect and support those that practice easily debunked belief systems. It's willful ignorance to not see the problems in Mormonism based on simple scientific and historical inquiries.
But if I knew more about the guy and he aligned with me politically, I'd vote for him. The Mormonism thing isn't a final nail or anything.
Then I misread that thinking you were to the right of me culturally and religiously, but apparently you're saying you're to the left of me on those things.
For what it's worth, I see both of those things as very gray areas that I can't take a hard stance on one way or another. I think Planned Parenthood should exist and operate, but I don't think it should come out of our tax dollars any more than the NRA should get government funding to offer free gun safety clinics. It's controversial and roughly 50% of the populace don't agree it should even exist. I think it's fair to say they can exist, but it's not coming out of your wallet if you don't want it to be. As for the "religious liberty" debate, I also see both sides. Like you, I don't think people should be discriminated against for their sexual orientation or whatever else. But see the argument AUJarhead just made as completely valid as well.
So now I gotta ask. What are the "policies and values" you don't like about Libertarians?
-
Then I misread that thinking you were to the right of me culturally and religiously, but apparently you're saying you're to the left of me on those things.
For what it's worth, I see both of those things as very gray areas that I can't take a hard stance on one way or another. I think Planned Parenthood should exist and operate, but I don't think it should come out of our tax dollars any more than the NRA should get government funding to offer free gun safety clinics. It's controversial and roughly 50% of the populace don't agree it should even exist. I think it's fair to say they can exist, but it's not coming out of your wallet if you don't want it to be. As for the "religious liberty" debate, I also see both sides. Like you, I don't think people should be discriminated against for their sexual orientation or whatever else. But see the argument AUJarhead just made as completely valid as well.
So now I gotta ask. What are the "policies and values" you don't like about Libertarians?
Egg-Zellent post. :thumsup:
-
If you are military or former military and you allow Trump to win after what he said about POWs...you have done a disservice to your fellow vet.
John McCain, being the traitor that he was during Vietnam, has more blood on his hands than Hillary. And Hillary has more on her hands than Trump (that's if Trump has any at all). I'm VOTING DONALD TRUMP FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. All of the other candidates pale in comparison to the man who wishes to root out the criminals in Washington DC. We'll see, but he IS the a lesser of all the evils.
-
Don't forget Joe Exotic as a possible write in candidate. This is not a joke, by the way. I mean, it is, but he's a real person who's actually running.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc-_7RCFArM
-
John McCain, being the traitor that he was during Vietnam, has more blood on his hands than Hillary. And Hillary has more on her hands than Trump (that's if Trump has any at all). I'm VOTING DONALD TRUMP FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. All of the other candidates pale in comparison to the man who wishes to root out the criminals in Washington DC. We'll see, but he IS the a lesser of all the evils.
This is with the assumption that you are taking trump for his word. And he means what he says.
Do you think he means everything he is saying? Or do you think he is saying what you want to hear to get your vote?
-
Then I misread that thinking you were to the right of me culturally and religiously, but apparently you're saying you're to the left of me on those things.
For what it's worth, I see both of those things as very gray areas that I can't take a hard stance on one way or another. I think Planned Parenthood should exist and operate, but I don't think it should come out of our tax dollars any more than the NRA should get government funding to offer free gun safety clinics. It's controversial and roughly 50% of the populace don't agree it should even exist. I think it's fair to say they can exist, but it's not coming out of your wallet if you don't want it to be. As for the "religious liberty" debate, I also see both sides. Like you, I don't think people should be discriminated against for their sexual orientation or whatever else. But see the argument AUJarhead just made as completely valid as well.
So now I gotta ask. What are the "policies and values" you don't like about Libertarians?
I also think there is a difference in refusing service PERIOD vs refusing to make a specific product.
Also a difference is refusing service because someone else is gay versus refusing service based on your own personal belief in the subject matter or product being requested. Just refusing to sell a product you find personally offensive isn't discriminating based off sexual orientation.
Refusing them service because of sexual orientation would be saying "oh you're gay? Sorry but get out. You aren't welcome in here. Because we don't like gays". Refusing to make a product doesn't necessarily mean you refused to make or sell it because the person was actually gay.
Can a retailer not refuse to carry any product they want based off their discretion? I'm sure wal mart wouldn't want to carry shirts that say certain things. It may offend certain groups but at the end of the day they can offer to sell or refuse to sell any product they want.
-
And many are falling for it:
(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14705903_1149692918472241_2002111846766129881_n.jpg?oh=4265cfa9aeaebaed82bed05c1d6d95cf&oe=58A34782)
-
Don't forget Joe Exotic as a possible write in candidate. This is not a joke, by the way. I mean, it is, but he's a real person who's actually running.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc-_7RCFArM
What's your take on the hit piece John Oliver did on Gary Johnson?
-
John McCain, being the traitor that he was during Vietnam, has more blood on his hands than Hillary. And Hillary has more on her hands than Trump (that's if Trump has any at all). I'm VOTING DONALD TRUMP FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. All of the other candidates pale in comparison to the man who wishes to root out the criminals in Washington DC. We'll see, but he IS the a lesser of all the evils.
McCain a traitor, because he praised the North Vietnamese doctors for fixing his legs and arm? More blood on his hands, because he was a bomber? In that case, we have men and women, in the military now, with more blood on their hands than Hillary.
-
What's your take on the hit piece John Oliver did on Gary Johnson?
I hadn't seen it until just now.
Cliche'ed ad-hominems about him "looking goofy". I addressed the Allepo and "not being able to name a world leader he admires" things.
The tongue thing, I've made fun of. I don't know WTF that was. I mean, I do, he was making a point that he could bite his tongue for the whole election, not saying a word, and would still be considered the "winner" of the debates if they let him on the stage. But it was a super weird way of expressing that. I understand that most people aren't going to give him the benefit of the doubt in even trying to understand the point you're making when you do something weird like that.
Never saw the clip of him saying of Mount Everest that he "lifted her skirt" and he "got in there and got a peek". Yup, that also was weird. All I can say to those two things is I don't really care. I understand he's kooky. But not worse than things Trump has said on on hot mics or at rallies, and not weirder than Hillary convulsing or getting startled by balloons.
He opposes having a minimum wage? I believe in the free market. If people pay shitty wages, they won't have employees. Employers will pay what the job's worth. If a retarded 17 year old middle school dropout can do the work, and will take the job for less pay than you, then you should either accept what they offer you or look for a job that requires more skill. Given that, I don't see much use for a minimum wage. I sure as hell don't want to see it raised to $15 an hour as Bernie proposed, and Hillary got on board with as well.
He would do away with the departments of education, commerce, and housing and urban development? Good. They have all been bureaucratic wasteful bloats.
Education:
On his campaign website, Johnson called for giving more control over education to state and local government and for eliminating the Department of Education. He said, "Most importantly, Governor Johnson believes that state and local governments should have more control over education policy. Decisions that affect our children should be made closer to home, not by bureaucrats and politicians in Washington, D.C. That is why he believes we should eliminate the federal Department of Education. Common Core and other attempts to impose national standards and requirements on local schools are costly, overly bureaucratic, and actually compromise our ability to provide our children with a good education."[4]
In 2012, Gary Johnson supported abolishing the Department of Education. He said, "I don't think people recognize that the the [sic] Department of Education was established in 1979 under Jimmy Carter. So if you measure educational performance since 1979 there is nothing to suggest that the federal government has added any value. The federal government gives eleven cents out of every school dollar that every state spends but it comes with 16 cents of strings attached, and I found this as governor of New Mexico. ... There is so much education that is being distorted by Washington. Give it up to the states and in my opinion there will be some fabulous successes that will be emulated."
Commerce:
Wasteful. Fuels crony capitalism. More here:
http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/16/department-of-cronyism
HUD:
Romney wanted to abolish it as well. Here are reasons why.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/16/romney-is-right-abolish-hud/
Then he goes on to criticize him for saying he would keep parts of them if he deemed them necessary and valuable. Seems like he's having his cake and eating it too. Bottom line he wants to drastically cut the fat. This is a good thing, IMO.
He rips into his consumption tax proposal that he would do if he could "wave a magic wand". This is the one part of his argument that I grant him making some valid points, but it seems to me that when Gary says he would do that if he could "wave a magic wand", it's not something he's very seriously proposing, but is instead going theoretical. If that's the one thing that's too ideological to be practical, I'm fine with the realization that congress would never let any proposal like that pass in a million years, so I'm not particularly worried about it.
He grossly mischarecterized Johnson's stance on climate change. He said basically exactly what I said in this thread, as well as others. It's real, it's happening, and we should "take the long-term view" in taking it seriously. Certainly better (to Oliver and his audience) than the standard GOP stance that it's all made up bullshit and we should ignore it entirely. I don't understand what's wrong with the position of "We should address it gradually and in a measured reasonable way and not fear monger and set our hair on fire."
Here's his full quote:
https://youtu.be/F8K3XvxeL8U
-
McCain a traitor, because he praised the North Vietnamese doctors for fixing his legs and arm? More blood on his hands, because he was a bomber? In that case, we have men and women, in the military now, with more blood on their hands than Hillary.
[/b]
Our military could learn a thing or two about killing folks from her.
-
I hadn't seen it until just now.
Cliche'ed ad-hominems about him "looking goofy". I addressed the Allepo and "not being able to name a world leader he admires" things.
The tongue thing, I've made fun of. I don't know WTF that was. I mean, I do, he was making a point that he could bite his tongue for the whole election, not saying a word, and would still be considered the "winner" of the debates if they let him on the stage. But it was a super weird way of expressing that. I understand that most people aren't going to give him the benefit of the doubt in even trying to understand the point you're making when you do something weird like that.
Never saw the clip of him saying Mount Everest "lifted her skirt" and he "got in there and got a peek". Yup, that also was weird. All I can say to those two things is I don't really care. I understand he's cooky. But not worse than things Trump has said on on hot mics or at ralleys, and not weirder than Hillary convulsing or getting started by balloons.
He opposes having a minimum wage? I believe in the free market. If people pay shitty wages, they won't have employees. Employers will pay what the job's worth. If a retarded 17 year old middle school dropout can do the work, and will take the job for less pay than you, then you should either accept what they offer you or look for a job that requires more skill. Given that, I don't see much use for a minimum wage. I sure as hell don't want to see it raised to $15 an hour as Bernie proposed, and Hillary got on board with as well.
He would do away with the departments of education, commerce, and housing and urban development? Good. They have all been bureaucratic wasteful bloats.
Education:
Commerce:
Wasteful. Fuels crony capitalism. More here:
http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/16/department-of-cronyism
HUD:
Romney wanted to abolish it as well. Here are reasons why.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/16/romney-is-right-abolish-hud/
Then he goes on to criticize him for saying he would keep parts of them if he deemed them necessary and valuable. Seems like he's having his cake and eating it too. Bottom line he wants to drastically cut the fat. This is a good thing, IMO.
He rips into his consumption tax proposal that he would do if he could "wave a magic wand". He makes some valid points in there, but it seems to me that when Gary says he would do that if he could "wave a magic wand", it's not something he's very seriously proposing, but is instead going theoretical. If that's the one thing that's too ideological to be practical, I'm fine with the realization that congress would never let any proposal like that pass in a million years, so I'm not particularly worried about it.
He grossly mischarecterized Johnson's stance on climate change. He said basically exactly what I said in this thread, as well as others. It's real, it's happening, and we should "take the long-term view" in taking it seriously. Certainly better (to Oliver and his audience) than the standard GOP stance that it's all made up bullshit and we should ignore it entirely. I don't understand what's wrong with the position of "We should address it gradually and in a measured reasonable way and not fear monger and set our hair on fire."
Here's his full quote:
https://youtu.be/F8K3XvxeL8U
I've sat here laughing my ass off as you backfill for Doobie Johnson as he endures the same (to a lesser degree) treatment from the Clinton-Media cabal.
Oh, John Oliver made fun of him for "looking goofy." Oh NOES! See Trump's hair.
Oh, the Clinton campaign "came after him. But the things they said about him weren't true. Only the things they say about Trump.
Oh, he was mocked for doing something weird with his tongue. Not as bad as Hillary looking at balloons!
Oh, you clarified his dumbass comments. YOU clarified them. Awesome.
Exactly. The. Same. Too. Blinded. To. See. It.
-
I've sat here laughing my ass off as you backfill for Doobie Johnson as he endures the same (to a lesser degree) treatment from the Clinton-Media cabal.
Oh, John Oliver made fun of him for "looking goofy." Oh NOES! See Trump's hair.
Oh, the Clinton campaign "came after him. But the things they said about him weren't true. Only the things they say about Trump.
Oh, he was mocked for doing something weird with his tongue. Not as bad as Hillary looking at balloons!
Oh, you clarified his dumbass comments. YOU clarified them. Awesome.
Exactly. The. Same. Too. Blinded. To. See. It.
I didn't clarify them. I provided the full context that he provided that Oliver didn't afford him. Intentionally.
-
I hadn't seen it until just now.
Cliche'ed ad-hominems about him "looking goofy". I addressed the Allepo and "not being able to name a world leader he admires" things.
The tongue thing, I've made fun of. I don't know WTF that was. I mean, I do, he was making a point that he could bite his tongue for the whole election, not saying a word, and would still be considered the "winner" of the debates if they let him on the stage. But it was a super weird way of expressing that. I understand that most people aren't going to give him the benefit of the doubt in even trying to understand the point you're making when you do something weird like that.
Never saw the clip of him saying of Mount Everest that he "lifted her skirt" and he "got in there and got a peek". Yup, that also was weird. All I can say to those two things is I don't really care. I understand he's kooky. But not worse than things Trump has said on on hot mics or at rallies, and not weirder than Hillary convulsing or getting startled by balloons.
He opposes having a minimum wage? I believe in the free market. If people pay shitty wages, they won't have employees. Employers will pay what the job's worth. If a retarded 17 year old middle school dropout can do the work, and will take the job for less pay than you, then you should either accept what they offer you or look for a job that requires more skill. Given that, I don't see much use for a minimum wage. I sure as hell don't want to see it raised to $15 an hour as Bernie proposed, and Hillary got on board with as well.
He would do away with the departments of education, commerce, and housing and urban development? Good. They have all been bureaucratic wasteful bloats.
Education:
Commerce:
Wasteful. Fuels crony capitalism. More here:
http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/16/department-of-cronyism
HUD:
Romney wanted to abolish it as well. Here are reasons why.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/16/romney-is-right-abolish-hud/
Then he goes on to criticize him for saying he would keep parts of them if he deemed them necessary and valuable. Seems like he's having his cake and eating it too. Bottom line he wants to drastically cut the fat. This is a good thing, IMO.
He rips into his consumption tax proposal that he would do if he could "wave a magic wand". This is the one part of his argument that I grant him making some valid points, but it seems to me that when Gary says he would do that if he could "wave a magic wand", it's not something he's very seriously proposing, but is instead going theoretical. If that's the one thing that's too ideological to be practical, I'm fine with the realization that congress would never let any proposal like that pass in a million years, so I'm not particularly worried about it.
He grossly mischarecterized Johnson's stance on climate change. He said basically exactly what I said in this thread, as well as others. It's real, it's happening, and we should "take the long-term view" in taking it seriously. Certainly better (to Oliver and his audience) than the standard GOP stance that it's all made up bullshit and we should ignore it entirely. I don't understand what's wrong with the position of "We should address it gradually and in a measured reasonable way and not fear monger and set our hair on fire."
Here's his full quote:
https://youtu.be/F8K3XvxeL8U
Sometimes a lot of sense is made with posts here. This is one of them ^^ not a huge fan of Johnson but stance wise you're spot on with yours and why they're right (aside from the climate change where we differ a bit, but not a big deal really).
Although it is apparent that trump and Johnson may be strange bed fellows here. The common thread is that the media shills for Hillary regardless of who the enemy of the day is. Right now it's actually Johnson since they figured out he was hurting Hillary more than helping her. It's strange but it's true.
-
[/b]
Our military could learn a thing or two about killing folks from her.
Lol...did Americans kill them? Nope, most of them died of painful natural causes or two shot suicides.
-
I didn't clarify them. I provided the full context that he provided that Oliver didn't afford him. Intentionally.
Because that NEVER happens to Trump.
Same thing.
-
Just read this this morning.
http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/17/progress-john-oliver-mocks-third-party-c
Progress! John Oliver Mocks Third-Party Candidates Because They Are as Awful as Trump and Clinton
As Election Day nears, even the alt-MSM starts slagging choices beyond Dem/Rep duopoly.
Nick Gillespie|Oct. 17, 2016 11:00 am
On Last Week Tonight, HBO's John Oliver laid into third-party candidates Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, mocking them for being basically as silly and stupid as...well, not Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, but Joe Exotic, who runs a big-cat park and is given to statements such as "current politicians...rape you of your rights."
To his credit, Oliver openly grants that he is only talking about Stein and Johnson because between them they are pulling close to 10 percent in national polls, more than enough to cover the spread in an election where the winner is likely to get less than 50 percent of the popular vote. Unlike, say, Carl Hiaasen, he also grants that folks voting for someone other than a Democrat or Republican might actually be doing something more than making a childish protest by voting third party. Oliver says that you might be actively embracing an alternative set of politics.
But of course, the main point is to delegitimize third-party candidates by showing them to be fundamentally unserious. Stein is written off as an anti-vaxxer and, if not quite a 9/11 truther, then close enough to disqualify her for government work. She also, Oliver demonstrates, doesn't seem to understand that the Federal Reserve does quantitative easing, not the Treasury Department.
Johnson gets slapped around for getting angry when, in a scene from the excellent documentary Rigged (watch online here), he goes off on a Bloomberg reporter who asks whether he's just a spoiler. The Great Aleppo Gaffe and (truly disturbing) The NBC Tongue-Biting Debacle make appearances, of course, as they should.
Then Oliver gets more serious. When it comes to policy, Oliver admits that "there's a lot to like there. He supports marijuana legalization and opposes the death penalty, civil forfeiture, and police militarization. But scratch beneath the surface and there are some positions you may be less comfortable with. For instance, he opposes having a minimum wage and when he says he's for smaller government, he's not kidding around." Oliver plays a clip of Johnson calling for the abolition of the federal Departments of Education, Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development and then stumbling over a follow-up question about whether these departments do anything that should be continued after their dissolution. More substantively, Oliver says that Johnson's proposed consumption tax is "overly simplified" and would hurt poor people by levying up to a 28 percent bite on everything we purchase. Citing a 2005 report, Oliver says that for Johnson's plan "to work, [the report concluded] the sales tax would have to be way more than 28 percent...and to avoid all that there might have to be savage government cuts. But rather than honestly admit that, Johnson tries to wriggle out of the problem."
Well, no. While you can argue that he's way off or that it's difficult to hit such a target, Johnson has geared his plan to be revenue neutral with current receipts of about $3.2 trillion a year. More important, at every mention of government spending, the former two-term governor of New Mexico recites that his top order of business would be to submit a balanced budget to Congress within 100 days of taking office and that the balancing would be accomplished via spending cuts (such as eliminating whole departments of the federal government). Johnson is totally up front about his desire (and, he would argue, the mathematical need) to cut government spending year over year. There's no need to "scratch beneath the surface" about that at all.
And if the litmus test is whether a candidate is serious about spending and taxes, Johnson comes out looking less delusional than either Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, both of whom increase spending while walling off entitlement programs from any sort of reform needed to keep ever-rising and job-killing national debt in check.
But such attacks on third-party candidates sometimes work out in funny ways, often throwing publicity rather than shade in the direction of non-traditional candidates. In fact, several times during the writing of this post, I tried to call up Joe Exotic's official website, but the site apparently can't handle the traffic coming its way courtesy of Oliver's treatment from last night. In a similar way, the more that the media (and the major parties) must engage third parties (if only to dismiss them), they often achieve a very different end than the one they intend.
Here's the segment.
https://youtu.be/k3O01EfM5fU
-
I didn't clarify them. I provided the full context that he provided that Oliver didn't afford him. Intentionally.
I am only attempting to provide the full context of your level of gayness but I'm incapable.
-
If your religion tells you to kill people for its sake, then your religion is messed up and you deserved to be vaporized into whatever hereafter you think is waiting on you. That may make me a Jethro but so be it.
-
If your religion tells you to kill people for its sake, then your religion is messed up and you deserved to be vaporized into whatever hereafter you think is waiting on you. That may make me a Jethro but so be it.
(http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u1/miked0003/auto-family-guy-bomb-suicide-1973661_zps0fe03e0e.jpg) (http://s164.photobucket.com/user/miked0003/media/auto-family-guy-bomb-suicide-1973661_zps0fe03e0e.jpg.html)
-
One quick comment about one of Trump's statements, it's not that big of a correction...unless it is.
Everyone remembers this...
Trump: "We're gonna build a huge wall and Mexico will pay for it, believe me, believe me, I guarantee it, believe me."
Mexico: "We aren't paying for it, fucking moron."
Trump: "It's going to be 100 feet higher."
Mexico: "Don't care, still not paying for it."
Now Trump says this today...
Trump: "The Illegal Immigration Act will fund the wall across the border and Mexico will reimburse the United States fully, believe me."
Yup, the tax payers will be paying for it, just not that much from the upper class, their taxes will be cut to begin with, because Trump believes that the trickle down effect works great...smh.