or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trump is #2 in GOP Field - Page 422

post #6316 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

And I would have to stand in line with people I'd rather not be around.

Nope, passing this cycle.

I know you are new at this...but you know it's the small elections that actually matter the most in your day to day life, right? And you can leave the president field blank.
post #6317 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

I know you are new at this...but you know it's the small elections that actually matter the most in your day to day life, right? And you can leave the president field blank.

My vote is not going to change what happens in those elections, and the only local thing I'm really worried about, will happen in the city proper and I'm outside the city. There's really no reason I should subject myself to this.
post #6318 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

My vote is not going to change what happens in those elections, and the only local thing I'm really worried about, will happen in the city proper and I'm outside the city. There's really no reason I should subject myself to this.

You do realize that there are a bunch of locations where you can vote early between now and the election and there's never any line or just get online and request an early ballot and you can fill it out at home and mail it in.
post #6319 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradford View Post

You do realize that there are a bunch of locations where you can vote early between now and the election and there's never any line or just get online and request an early ballot and you can fill it out at home and mail it in.

I thought early ballot requests were over? I'll look into an early voting location though and stop by if it's convenient. Honestly, there's nothing I could vote for that one vote is going to change and I refuse to vote for either major party candidate.
post #6320 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

And I would have to stand in line with people I'd rather not be around.

Nope, passing this cycle.

You're an affluent white male. Your polling place will have no wait at all.
post #6321 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nil View Post

You're an affluent white male. Your polling place will have no wait at all.

#Don'tForgetYourPrivilege.
post #6322 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I thought early ballot requests were over? I'll look into an early voting location though and stop by if it's convenient. Honestly, there's nothing I could vote for that one vote is going to change and I refuse to vote for either major party candidate.

You have until 11 days before the election to request an early ballot... and vote for Evan McMullin if you want, or skip the Presidential. There's no shame in that.
post #6323 of 8748
McMullin seems like the ideal conservative candidate. I can respect his viewpoints even though I still disagree with him.
post #6324 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

#Don'tForgetYourPrivilege.

The difference in waiting times between my precinct (affluent also) and my friends' who live in poorer or more minority heavy areas is hilariously sad. I can typically walk right into the voting booth without waiting, at worst when I showed up in 2008 right after work it was like a 4-5 minute wait.
post #6325 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nil View Post

McMullin seems like the ideal conservative candidate.

 

Here's what voting for McMullin gets you:

 

McMullin wins Utah.

Johnson wins New Mexico.

Clump fails to reach 270.

McMullin shuts Johnson out of House race (Utah 6 EV vs. NM 5).

One neocon rogue Republican state tilts election to HRC.

WWIII.

post #6326 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Is it really all that clear? "My dream is to see a unified hemisphere at some point in the future" is pretty fucking vague. "Dream" and "in the future" don't exactly point to that being a policy proposal.

I think we can reasonably expect Clinton to continue the free trade agenda of the last couple decades. Open borders, though? Can't imagine. Clinton's way too much of a pragmatist to propose that, especially since it would be political suicide. Certainly Obama didn't push for "open borders," hysterical rhetoric to the contrary.

The discovery of that open borders comment was in an email exchange within her organization between campaign research director Tony Clark and her campaign chairman John Podesta - someone was pointing to that speech and that phrase specifically as something that could be an issue. So yes, it is very clear, because Hillary's own campaign were the first ones to realize that this statement was going to cause issues. I'm going to go out on a limb and say they weren't concerned about it being taken out of context (it wasn't), they were concerned it would expose her desire for open borders, which is sort of funny because honestly who doesn't realize that liberals want open borders by now?

Your post is just a flat out denial of everything liberalism stands for. I can't tell if you're just being dishonest, or you really believe that liberals aren't incrementally working toward open borders just like they incrementally work toward gun control and everything else on their agenda.

My favorite is politfact. Truly amazing:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/12/donald-trump/trump-ive-been-proven-right-about-clinton-wanting-/
Quote:
The leaked excerpt does contain the words "open borders," but that alone doesn't make Trump's claim correct. Experts suggested Clinton could have been talking about free travel or open trade, or immigration policy. It's just not clear. What's more, Clinton's official immigration position does not contain a proposal for an open border.

lol8[1].gif



Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post

I can't believe Krauthammer wrote that. Everything was so reasonable

I read so much of his work in college and admired him until I found out how firmly almost blindly entrenched he is in republican doctrine. Like he called the first debate a tie on national tv cuz apparently trump wasn't a complete douchebag just kind of one

Glad to see you guys agree with this:
Quote:
This is not to say that the investigation into the Clinton emails was not itself compromised by politics. FBI Director James B. Comey’s recommendation not to pursue charges was both troubling and puzzling. And Barack Obama very improperly tilted the scales by interjecting, while the investigation was still underway, that Clinton’s emails had not endangered national security.

What's going to be really interesting is what happens a year or two from now. Investigative reporters are being told by sources within the FBI that the agents and attorneys working the case wanted charges, and were basically stonewalled by Comey and the DOJ.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/13/fbi-doj-roiled-by-comey-lynch-decision-to-let-clinton-slide-by-on-emails-says-insider.html
Quote:
“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute -- it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.

A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, “It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked.”

“It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.”

Right now it's anonymous source for obvious reasons, but if there's any truth to it, agents and attorneys who leave the FBI will eventually come forward. It's only a matter of time. The same source said that morale is at an all time low and many agents are seeking other opportunities as they feel the organization has been corrupted, at least in this sense.
post #6327 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

The discovery of that open borders comment was in an email exchange within her organization between campaign research director Tony Clark and her campaign chairman John Podesta - someone was pointing to that speech and that phrase specifically as something that could be an issue. So yes, it is very clear, because Hillary's own campaign were the first ones to realize that this statement was going to cause issues. I'm going to go out on a limb and say they weren't concerned about it being taken out of context (it wasn't), they were concerned it would expose her desire for open borders, which is sort of funny because honestly who doesn't realize that liberals want open borders by now?
.

The gap between "could be a political issue" and "actual real things the candidate is going to try to implement as President" is pretty big.


If Clinton personally believes in open borders, but doesn't do anything to implement them, does it matter? There's exactly zero chance that Congress would pass such a thing, even a Democratic Congress. Clinton assuredly knows that, and wouldn't expend political capital even proposing it. It's basically a philosophical question.
Quote:
Your post is just a flat out denial of everything liberalism stands for. I can't tell if you're just being dishonest, or you really believe that liberals aren't incrementally working toward open borders just like they incrementally work toward gun control and everything else on their agenda.
Oh right, the "liberal agenda." I forgot about that. Ought to look up this clause in my handbook. All "liberals" have the same priorities and are following the same script, after all.
post #6328 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by greger View Post

It is terrible what Trump has done. All those women coming forward are right to come forth and accuse him of the abuse he did to them. If he did do those things they should stand up and tell the world how ugly he is. Of course, all those aborted people, when babies in the womb, don't get to exercise their right to tell how much bigger a monster that Hillary is. She made it very clear in the second debate that she will break the law by appointing others who intend to break the law for supreme court justices to keep the murder going on.

At least when comparing the two we know one is a mass murderer and the other one groped women.

The left media is doing its best to distract the simple minded from thinking like adults so they will not vote as responsible adults.

That is some pivot, man. Really impressive. Five stars. You should apply to be a Trump surrogate.
post #6329 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Veen View Post

That is some pivot, man. Really impressive. Five stars. You should apply to be a Trump surrogate.

From the forum meta consideration, it's kind of interesting how basically none of the usual crop of arch-conservatives really supported Trump earlier in the process. They all kinda quietly came around, and only as he's been imploding have they gotten loudly supportive.


Maybe it's just proximity to the election.
post #6330 of 8748
I'd like to know how exactly Hillary would break the law by appointing Supreme Court Justice who will uphold Roe v. Wade? Is this the same type of logic that says Presidents in the last year of their term don't get to appoint Supreme Court Justices?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field