Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Donít fear Trump

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
    As undemocratic as it is, it will never change. What we need to focus on is getting more than two candidates in the Presidential debates. Our only true anti-establishment picks would have to come from a third party, which is why they're not allowed on the stage.
    There was such party in 1860.

    Leave a comment:


  • Salinator
    replied
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
    Just following your lead.
    My lead? Find something I said today against Hillary that is comparable to your anti-Trump tirades.

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    You should address him and not be so partisan.
    Just following your lead.

    Leave a comment:


  • Salinator
    replied
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
    IF,IF,IF!!!!

    IF is for building day dreams.
    If what? I didn't start this. Bob said Bill had majority in both elections. He was wrong in both cases. You should address him and not be so partisan.

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    Originally posted by Salinator View Post
    Bill Clinton had majority in neither of those election cycles: 1992: 43% 1996: 49% Don't want to research the state results, but there according to the popular vote, if we take away Ross Perot, Bill might have lost either if not both of those elections.

    IF,IF,IF!!!!

    IF is for building day dreams.

    Leave a comment:


  • holly6
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
    So the constitution is safe then? Is that the bar? If so, you're setting it pretty low.
    EDIT MINE

    If someone feels the opposite party is a danger to the Constitution, then yes. It's the bar, the meat, the end all of your vote.

    I would ask you what possible item you would rate more important?

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
    How can you pull significant votes without being in the debates? Johnson doing around 5 million votes without any coverage is pretty impressive and says a lot.
    It says that we have 5 million headcases in this country. No surprise there.


    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
    So the constitution is safe then? Is that the bar? If so, you're setting it pretty low.
    What oath did you take when you joined the military?


    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
    I'm not so sure about that as detailed in the other thread. Trump said he thinks there should be additional measures against guns so we'll see. Pro-religion? lol. Are you still talking about the constitution there?
    Check out Trump's published platform. He is firmly pro-gun. And the GOP in Congress has prevented any anti-gun bill from reaching the President under Bobo.

    Hate all you want-your candidate lost.

    Leave a comment:


  • Salinator
    replied
    Originally posted by R. Evans View Post
    His post is misleading. Clinton had a majority of votes cast in 1992 and again in 1996.
    Bill Clinton had majority in neither of those election cycles: 1992: 43% 1996: 49% Don't want to research the state results, but there according to the popular vote, if we take away Ross Perot, Bill might have lost either if not both of those elections.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by R. Evans View Post
    His post is misleading. Clinton had a majority of votes cast in 1992 and again in 1996.
    In 1992 Clinton won with 43% of the votes cast.
    He had a plurality. He did not have a majority of the votes cast, only the most votes.
    I Only looked at the 1992 results.

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    No, they don't.

    And they won't, because as usual they didn't pull enough votes.
    How can you pull significant votes without being in the debates? Johnson doing around 5 million votes without any coverage is pretty impressive and says a lot.

    As to adhering to the Constitution, we once again changed power without troops in the street.
    So the constitution is safe then? Is that the bar? If so, you're setting it pretty low.

    Trump is pro-gun and pro-religion. The USSC appointment is in good hands, maybe one or two more in the next couple years.
    I'm not so sure about that as detailed in the other thread. Trump said he thinks there should be additional measures against guns so we'll see. Pro-religion? lol. Are you still talking about the constitution there?

    Leave a comment:


  • Trung Si
    replied
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
    MAYBE!

    The Doctor had a list that included Palin and Rudy for cabinet post.
    That's the Doctor, not Trump, I don't give a shiete about Trump, I am glad he got elected all I care about is that she can't screw up the Supreme Court for decades to come and if you think she wouldn't you have another think coming.
    Last edited by Trung Si; 13 Nov 16, 20:08.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
    I'm well aware that actually wanting to adhere to the constitution and shrink the size of government have become crazy ideas for both Republicans and Democrats alike. Only nutjubs would want such a thing in modern day America. However, if you don't want to vote for third party, then don't. They still deserve to be on the stage.
    No, they don't.

    And they won't, because as usual they didn't pull enough votes.

    As to adhering to the Constitution, we once again changed power without troops in the street. Trump is pro-gun and pro-religion. The USSC appointment is in good hands, maybe one or two more in the next couple years.

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    I'm well aware that actually wanting to adhere to the constitution and shrink the size of government have become crazy ideas for both Republicans and Democrats alike. Only nutjubs would want such a thing in modern day America. However, if you don't want to vote for third party, then don't. They still deserve to be on the stage.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
    As undemocratic as it is, it will never change. What we need to focus on is getting more than two candidates in the Presidential debates. Our only true anti-establishment picks would have to come from a third party, which is why they're not allowed on the stage.
    Third parties are for nutjobs.

    Hillary spent over half a billion dollars this time. Adding a third candidate would simply mean that anyone elected would be exponentially deeper into special interest pockets.

    Leave a comment:


  • R. Evans
    replied
    Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post
    He doesn't understand the difference between voters and the people.
    His post is misleading. Clinton had a majority of votes cast in 1992 and again in 1996.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X