I'll Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Yeah man, it looks like I wasted my time replying to you.

Live and learn I suppose

Typical of this leftist mindset.

"You can only have a discussion with me if you agree with what Im saying. If you dont agree with me, I'm wasting my time."

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Nope. You missed again.

It would help if your posts made sense. It would also help if you wouldn't cherry pick a piece of my post and not respond to the whole thing. It would help if you didn't twist the meaning of my words to fit your straw man.

Your post wasted my time not because you disagree but because you cannot communicate and because you didn't respond to my actual post.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Nope. You missed again.

It would help if your posts made sense. It would also help if you wouldn't cherry pick a piece of my post and not respond to the whole thing. It would help if you didn't twist the meaning of my words to fit your straw man.

Your post wasted my time not because you disagree but because you cannot communicate and because you didn't respond to my actual post.

I apologize douchebag for not responding how you demand.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

JPB wrote:
but I don't intend to vote for HRC in November. I'll be happily voting for Gary Johnson, just like I did in 2012.

wondering if this is still the case

Good question. I'm wondering too. You can definitely scratch "happily" off of that statement. Nothing brings more information than more contact and exposure, which is why it's good that he's been in the media and should be in the debates. He's clearly uninformed on the international stage, which one could (should?) expect from a low-gov't Libertarian.

Mr B and I were discussing this very thing yesterday. I've never agreed with everything he's said or advocates, but given the choices of voting for Hillary who is currently given a 98.6% chance of carrying IL by Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight, voting for Trump (not in this lifetime), or voting for someone who may get enough support to lift an alternative party over the threshold for federal campaign financing support next go-round, I'm still leaning towards the later.

Also, if someone's litmus test is who should have access to the nuclear code, then I'd still go with Gary Johnson. Trump wants to use it, Hillary might use it, and Johnson never would, imo.

I'm definitely voting against both incumbent Rs who are running for Senate and House in my district, whereas I've voted for both of them in the past. I'm undecided on how/if I'll vote in the Presidential election.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

I don't see how anyone can be for Johnson and Bernie Sanders. Isn't Johnson a libertarian who believes government should be out of everything and Bernie is a social democrat who believes government should help everyone equally?

Emphasis added.

Both of these are hyperbole. Words like "everything" and "everyone" are the reason why we get stuck in the status quo. No, Johnson doesn't believe that the government should be out of everything, and I've never heard Bernie say that government should help everyone equally.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

I do like that he turned the Dems upside down in the primaries and showed them that they've moved a lot further right than their base is willing to support. We now have a center-right democratic party and a far-right republican party. Those on the left have spoken quite clearly that they are dissatisfied with the status quo.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

In your opinion. The majority of democratic voters disagreed with you.

So what? I'm not a Democrat. Why should I care?

RABEL222 wrote:

But by all means vote for tRump if you really believe he is the better candidate.

Has anyone mentioned how devastatingly witty that whole "tRump" thing is? Really, that must have taken you ... what, like, weeks to come up with that? But it was totally worth it, as I'm sure it will be the thing that will tip the election. You -- you are the winner!!!

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quit being such a conservative prat joefromchicago. I can't believe that someone actually accused you of wanting to vote for Trump. *snrk*

0 Replies

@Krumple,

*Sigh*

0 Replies

@JPB,

We're watching a realignment of neocon establishment Dems and neocon establishment Republicans forming a major national party.

I predicted there would be a sea change in American politics over a year ago.

I hope people will pay attention and push it away from a powerful, unaccountable national party led by the Clinton machine.

I appreciate the forward thinking in your voting deliberations.

0 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

No, Johnson doesn't believe that the government should be out of everything,

It doesn't really matter what he believes the guy is a moron, he didn't know what Aleppo was, couldn't name one world leader and spoke of East and West Korea. Only in America could someone so woefully ignorant be running for high office.

It's a joke.

3 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

It doesn't really matter what he believes the guy is a moron, he didn't know what Aleppo was, couldn't name one world leader and spoke of East and West Korea. Only in America could someone so woefully ignorant be running for high office.

I resent that. I bet Idi Amin couldn't tell you what Aleppo was either, and he wasn't American.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

... and spoke of East and West Korea.

That was a comedy spoof.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

The democrats backed a winner. That's enough for me.

Indeed. The Democrats picked such a winner that her supporters are worried she'll lose to the guy in the orange wig who drives the GOP clown car. Anybody else would be beating Trump by 20 percentage points by now. It took Hillary Clinton to do the impossible - unite the bickering, disunited elements of the Republican Party into a nice, tidy basket of deplorables. The GOP couldn't have picked a better opponent.

4 Replies

@engineer,

Thanks, I was just going by the thread. The fact remains he did not know what Aleppo was and he could not name one World leader. He's slightly less ignorant than I thought.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

maporsche wrote:
The democrats backed a winner. That's enough for me.

Indeed. The Democrats picked such a winner that her supporters are worried she'll lose to the guy in the orange wig who drives the GOP clown car. Anybody else would be beating Trump by 20 percentage points by now. It took Hillary Clinton to do the impossible - unite the bickering, disunited elements of the Republican Party into a nice, tidy basket of deplorables. The GOP couldn't have picked a better opponent.

As long as she wins by 1 electoral college vote, she's a winner. That's enough for me.

And Bernie would have been a much better opponent. No one but Hillary is capable of winning this election in this polarized political world we live in.

The democratic party winning a 3rd presidential term hasn't happened in a VERY long time. Bernie would have been toast and no one else in the party even has the name recognition to run.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Actually, Johnson couldn't name one world leader he admired. William Weld, his somewhat more highly regarded VP candidate, mentioned that he knew Putin but doesn't admire him, so he couldn't say that.

Even as we speak, there are 10 year olds in sitting in fifth grade who are learning about various countries around the world, who is running them and what the problems are. They will have to take a test in a few weeks and write down those leaders' names, or at least some of them.

9% of the voters in the USA are willing to support a candidate who couldn't pass a fifth grade social studies test. Where do we get these people to run?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote joefromchicago:

Quote:

Anybody else would be beating Trump by 20 percentage points by now. It took Hillary Clinton to do the impossible - unite the bickering, disunited elements of the Republican Party into a nice, tidy basket of deplorables. The GOP couldn't have picked a better opponent.

And yet the GOP spent ALL of their time bashing Hillary, and virtually NONE of their time bashing Bernie. Why would they do that if Hillary was the weakest candidate?

The answer, of course, is that they wanted Bernie to get the nomination-then out come 15 different scandals at once, first being promoted by Fox and the Talk Radio guys, then eventually working themselves into the normal media outlets. The GOP knew they could chew up Bernie in two weeks and then spit out the bones. Hillary was going to be something else, and if they could get the Democrats to put up Bernie instead of the tough Hillary, the GOP's prayers would be answered.

Of course, you won't recognize this fact, that Bernie received almost no criticism from the Republicans, so you won't have to deal with it. Believe me, the GOP was not happy when it was Hillary who nailed down the nomination.

2 Replies

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Seriously? You don't think either Johnson or Stein would be worse? Johnson is woefully under-informed and Stein is honestly a Socialist. How well do you think either will function with an overwhelmingly hostile Congress, let alone the fact that neither of them are attracting the votes required to win????

2 Replies

I'll Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know