A 'no vote' is a vote for the 'other guy'?

[Highlander]

In many ways even this is speculation, based on the assumption that the founding principles from 240 years ago will make the country great in today's times.

The founding principles that human beings deserve to live free, can worship whatever religion they choose, should own their own property, etc., "One Nation Under God," are timeless principles. And they do indeed make the country great in today's times. It is the growing absence of these principles -- thanks to the Dems -- that has the country floundering so badly in today's times.

Sadly the idea that "socialism is bad" is as flawed as a universal assertion as the idea that "guns are bad". If socialism were a universal good places like Venezuela would be paradise. If socialism were a universal bad places like Norway would be awful places to live.

As Margaret Thatcher once said, "Socialism works great -- until you run out of other people's money." Many socialist nations have very little overhead -- compared to the USA -- in that many do not have huge military budgets because other nations, such as the USA, provide protection for them. And, even in these nations, the economy is bad or the nationalist healthcare system is a disaster, etc.

For the rest of this century? There are 84 years left in this century. Unless she finds an elixir of youth that lets her find people to appoint as justices to the Supreme Court that not only have the experience to have any credibility but can also live for another 84 years I think that's a bit of an exaggeration.

Thanks for the math. But if a scheming president were to appoint socialists who are only in their 30s, they could very well go into their 80s, or longer, on the bench. And, as the socialist ball continues rolling through the years, additional young leftists can be appointed to replace them. The growing tide of socialism may be far too powerful to reverse by then. So where is the exaggeration???

Don't get me wrong, I don't want Hillary in the White House, I just don't like overstated rhetoric given as a reason not to vote for her. I think there are enough reasons not to vote for her without making them up.

Fortunately, I do not overstate myself and, with all of the crimes of the left, there is no need to make anything up. You need to understand that all of these things are REAL. And the USA truly is at a historic benchmark in its history -- this election will determine if we return to our founding values or if we continue dragging off the rails toward a socialist nightmare state.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

...helped create ISIS...

How did Hillary Clinton help create ISIS?

 

[psalms 91]

You do overstate since you ignore the fact that Bush increased of nartional debt quite a bit, Republicans allowed wall street to create the atmosphere that produced our greatest depression since the 30's, among many other things, neither party is innocent

 

[tango]

The founding principles that human beings deserve to live free, can worship whatever religion they choose, should own their own property, etc., "One Nation Under God," are timeless principles. And they do indeed make the country great in today's times. It is the growing absence of these principles -- thanks to the Dems -- that has the country floundering so badly in today's times.

Sure, it is concerning how it seems to be mostly those on the left who want to remove God from everything. At the same time I find those on the right who want to use the force of law to impose God and Godly lifestyles (or at least their interpretation of Godly lifestyles) upon everyone else to be comparably worrying. I don't want to live in a regime where someone else's interpretation of what their chosen holy book says is the law. If we allow that we shouldn't surprised if one day the Quran replaces the Bible and we end up looking like Iran. Ironically the very people who seek to grant the government power to enforce a religious standard would typically be the first to complain what that power turns sour.

The loss of freedom isn't a purely Democrat issue. Was the Patriot Act introduced by a Democrat?

As Margaret Thatcher once said, "Socialism works great -- until you run out of other people's money." Many socialist nations have very little overhead -- compared to the USA -- in that many do not have huge military budgets because other nations, such as the USA, provide protection for them. And, even in these nations, the economy is bad or the nationalist healthcare system is a disaster, etc.

Sure, although that begs the question of why the USA provides protection for countries without receiving anything in return. Socialist societies like Venezuela aren't working at all, while other socialist societies like Norway are actually doing pretty well. Norway's Sovereign Wealth Fund grew so large it had to be split in two, for example.

Thanks for the math. But if a scheming president were to appoint socialists who are only in their 30s, they could very well go into their 80s, or longer, on the bench. And, as the socialist ball continues rolling through the years, additional young leftists can be appointed to replace them. The growing tide of socialism may be far too powerful to reverse by then. So where is the exaggeration???

The exaggeration is firstly that someone in their early 30s would have the credibility to sit on the Supreme Court, and secondly because it's based on the assumption that a left-leaning justice would automatically be replaced by a left-leaning justice based on the speculation that the growing tide of socialism would be too powerful by then. If socialism universally causes countries and economies to implode then by the time the new left-leaning justices left the Supreme Court (presumably through death or incapacity) the new-look socialist USA would have imploded and people would be crying out for a return to something more sensible, just like what happened in 1979 when Margaret Thatcher rode a tidal wave of public opinion to a landslide victory because people were sick of the broken UK.

If socialism were as universally bad as you make out there would be no "growing tide" because it would have imploded and people would want a change. Even the recipients of governmental largesse would grow weary of the state if their handouts ceased to have any value where it mattered - it's all very well to have this benefit and that benefit but if they don't put food on the table they become worthless.

Fortunately, I do not overstate myself and, with all of the crimes of the left, there is no need to make anything up. You need to understand that all of these things are REAL. And the USA truly is at a historic benchmark in its history -- this election will determine if we return to our founding values or if we continue dragging off the rails toward a socialist nightmare state.

It's just a shame that, when faced with Hillary as a likely Democrat contender, the Republicans couldn't find anyone with a more universal appeal than Trump.

 

[Highlander]

How did Hillary Clinton help create ISIS?

The same way that Obama did. As Secretary of State, Hillary strongly supported Obama's plan to hastily withdraw our forces from Iraq. This was after we had stabilized Iraq under GWB. GWB warned that a strong American military presence would be needed there for a long time to keep things relatively peaceful.

But, after running on a campaign promise to pull our troops out of Iraq, Obama did this without regard for the consequences. Hillary also stated that we should move our forces out of Iraq. After this was done, ISIS was formed as terrorist forces began quickly moving back into Iraq since the USA was no longer there to hold things at bay.

And, of course, the inept Obama made his infamous comment shortly afterward in saying that ISIS was nothing more than the "JV team." Obama is mostly responsible for the ISIS threat that has infested Iraq and spread into over a dozen other countries, including the USA. And Hillary, as secretary of state, helped create this situation.

And THAT is how Hillary Clinton helped create ISIS.

 

[Chloe]

I'm a conservative Republican (one could call me a "tea party" Republican). And while it KILLS ME to think of Hillary as president of anything (and especially the folks she'd appoint to the Supreme Court).... while I think Hillary should be in prison rather than the White House.... while I think it is ABSURD to have a president who is an "extremely bad security risk" and therefore cannot be told anything secret..... it equally KILLS ME to think of The Donald as president..... an unstable, loose-cannon, egomaniac who admits he can't control what he says and thus is on record for some of the most offensive, stupid comments ever said. IMO, they are BOTH (rather equally) disqualified (albeit for different reasons). The only part of "lesser of two evils" I agree with is that we are dealing with EVILS here.... it's not really an issue of whom I most agree with on issues (that would be Trump, by far), it's not an issue of right and wrong, it's an issue of evil. Disqualification.

I think Hillary is the most repulsive woman ever to seek the Presidency (worse than John Edwards) so the GOP had to nominate the one person who would alienate all the sane wing of the party, didn't they? Everyone who has called for "less establishment", "more grassroots", "a third party" needs to realize what it brought this time round - the worst set of candidates in the history of the Republic. Never has being a British colony looked so good.

I have TRIED (I really have!) to find SOME reason to vote for Trump.... if ONLY for Supreme Court appointments. But I've found none. The national campaign has only proven he's terribly disqualified and truly dangerous and embarrassing. To vote is to endorse. I can't endorse either of these folks..... only be AMAZED that somehow our "system" has given us these two, proving there is something very, very, very wrong - something we better identify and fix before 2020.

High court nominees? Look at his gene pool as example / choice for the cause - his sister is in favor of partial birth abortion and if the Dems win back the Senate he will give them what they want - just to hold leverage over the GOP in the House. Ryan doesn't sing to Trump's tune and the court will shift 5 to 4 to the left. (Assuming he wins of course).

I've left either not voting the top of the ticket (my father's choice, my wife's choice) as I think MANY will do (probably equally Republicans and Democrats perhaps cancelling each other).... or voting for some third party candidate (NONE of which is catching on or getting any attention) ONLY because I don't fear them or feel embarrassed by them and consider them personally qualified (even if I don't agree with them).

Would I be "throwing away" my vote? Well, in the sense of such doesn't have a chance, yes. But it will get registered (I hope) as a protest vote. If all the "others" get 10 or 20 percent of the vote (and I'm not sure they will), THAT will indicate many of us have noted the brokenness that resulted in these two being the primary nominees. It's the closest we have to voting, "None of the above."

Okay so when this is "thrown" at me (staying at home = a vote for Hillary) I have lashed out and snapped at conservatives and retorted with "nope, a vote for Trump in the primaries was a vote for Hillary in the fall"...I get angry at them - irate even. I pushed back so hard against Trump, warning that this would happen. A ton of nationalist RINO's just figured that everyone would get behind Trump because we all hate Hillary so much ; but my soul belongs to Christ. No way would I give it to the devil (which is what a vote for Trump is, IMO).

 

[Chloe]

I get to vote in Oz, If I move to Canada I get to vote in Canada, if I move to England (UK may not be a country for long ) I get to vote in England, and the same with Sweden. But even if I could vote in the USA I would not vote for Donald Trump. Voting for him would be like voting for Damian in the Omen ...

The UK should survive a while lol - once we get rid of Scotland anyway. OZ just about got it right in the end (barely) with Turnbull but your chief election architect (Crosby) does a lot of good for the Tories in the UK. Trump is...wow. I don't even know where to begin with what the GOP did.

 

[Chloe]

The democrats put up what is likely the most easily beaten candidate ever, and somehow the republicans rose to the challenge managed to put up someone even worse. Go figure. :sadwavey:

Wow I should have read this thread through - you already made my point!

You had the best candidate in the world in JEB, from your state. The Party base was beyond stupid to do what it did - it kills me to say it but it is better that Hillary wins so a GOP run House can grind the government to a halt for the next 4 years and just keep running against her. Knowing Trump he will run again - just as a spoiler. Perot was the Clinton's ticket to get in, in the first place. He got them re-elected in 96, now they need another useful little pawn. Who better than Trump.

 

[Chloe]

You guys have seen the meme with Voldemory and Delores Umbrage, right? That about sums up my thoughts on this election.

The people against Umbrage want me to vote for Voldemort so Umbrage doesn't get control and vice versa.

Clinton and Trump play for the same team, and it's not the team I root for.

Hillary does indeed bear an awful lot of the hallmarks to Delores - I don't know why I didn't see it until you pointed it out!

I got so annoyed with the continual garbage of "No more Bushes, No More Clintons" as if they were one and the same. The two closest candidates in this race are Hillary and Trump.

 

[MarkFL]

Wow I should have read this thread through - you already made my point!

You had the best candidate in the world in JEB, from your state. The Party base was beyond stupid to do what it did - it kills me to say it but it is better that Hillary wins so a GOP run House can grind the government to a halt for the next 4 years and just keep running against her. Knowing Trump he will run again - just as a spoiler. Perot was the Clinton's ticket to get in, in the first place. He got them re-elected in 96, now they need another useful little pawn. Who better than Trump.

You know what's funny? I stole that post from you at EP... :rofl3:

When I read what you had posted the other day about the "Republicans rising to the challenge" I thought it was brilliant, and knew I had to use it here.

 

[Chloe]

/Blush

I need to pay closer attention to all this - again, just the laugh I needed at the end of the day to keep my spirits up!

FWIW, When you said that you listed me as "moderate" for political leaning, Curt all but fell over, laughing so hard.

 

[MarkFL]

/Blush

I need to pay closer attention to all this - again, just the laugh I needed at the end of the day to keep my spirits up!

FWIW, When you said that you listed me as "moderate" for political leaning, Curt all but fell over, laughing so hard.

I kind of averaged your social and political stances...what would you prefer it to be?

 

[Chloe]

I don't think there is an option of the 3, you might have to code on, add me into it, then delete it as a profile option and I am not even sure what that option would be - socially conservative + fiscally off the wall liberal is about the most unusual combination / anathema you are ever likely to find - even under Canon doctrine! Also you might want to edit my "married" option to "widow", because if he keeps laughing at me...

 

[MarkFL]

...Also you might want to edit my "married" option to "widow", because if he keeps laughing at me...

Now that made me actually LOL! :rofl3:

 

[Chloe]

Okay, so I finally managed to get him to settle down / took the wind out of his sails. You know how I have been bragging about your tech skills / wonderful ability at math? Well, I told him that you got fine wonderful education at Florida state...my God you would have thought that I took away Christmas. I think I went too far. Now I am worried that I might have offended you, too. (If there is one single school he hates, it is FSU - not entirely sure why though...)

 

[MarkFL]

Okay, so I finally managed to get him to settle down / took the wind out of his sails. You know how I have been bragging about your tech skills / wonderful ability at math? Well, I told him that you got fine wonderful education at Florida state...my God you would have thought that I took away Christmas. I think I went too far. Now I am worried that I might have offended you, too. (If there is one single school he hates, it is FSU - not entirely sure why though...)

Well, I didn't attend FSU, although I did once give a presentation there regarding differential equations as an undergrad. I attended a local community college, and then transferred to UNF (University of North Florida) in Jacksonville.

I have both Gators and Noles fans in my family, and they are constantly poking each other...

 

[Chloe]

I think part of it is also coming from the point of view that if you dont vote then you are not countering the vote for the other guy. It actually makes sense from this perspective

That is a lot better than being told / lectured that "staying home", is a vote for ______ (x candidate or y)...at this point we may as well get a room full of Clinton backers, Trump fans alike and sit them down. Then one of us says "hey I am going to stay home come the day of the election". After that we can intake the abusive rant from the Clinton team that it is a vote for Trump and from the Trump team that it is a vote for her. It'll be enjoyable...for some. The problem is, that for those of us who are not pseudo sadist ultra finite masochists (who don't get turned on by unwarranted barrages of unjustified abuse) then what do we do - just let the lunatics keep ranting? They can rant all their hearts out if they want, I will never pull a lever for someone I can't stand, ever, even to stop someone else I can't stand.

 

[Chloe]

Not necessarily so. If you move to England you don't get to cast a vote unless you become a UK citizen. If you move to the US you don't get to vote in federal elections unless you become a US citizen. I don't know about Canada but suspect it's much the same there.

Sadly enough, for certain elections you could vote (like European ones) if you were not a UK citizen. EU Citizen would suffice. Not for Parliamentary elections. Irrelevant now I suppose after the referendum vote.

Given the Boston Tea Party's rallying call was "no taxation without representation" it's rather ironic that non-citizens living and working in the US are expected to pay taxes but don't get a vote.

Even in the UK an awful lot of people had an issue with EU citizens voting in UK elections - even though they paid taxes to the Treasury.

I struggle with the idea of voting for Trump but would still do it before voting for Hillary. As I've said before I think Trump is a narcissistic egomaniac who would be a disaster as President, but still think he'd be less of a disaster than Hillary. The appalling lack of judgment relating to the email server issue alone is enough to rule Hillary out of the running as far as any vote I might have is concerned. Trump shows spectacularly poor judgment as well but as far as I can see it's limited to saying stupid stuff rather than risking national security by bending the rules. And then there's the Clinton Foundation that doesn't seem to be out of general chatter for very long these days either.

:blink:

Really? It is still only "saying" it, but he is threatening to carpet bomb towns, ban entire religions of people, all the while, denigrating dead servicemen and their families and claiming everything to be "a joke" when it doesn't work. that is just in the last month.

The only reason that he has never jeopardized national security is because he is a carnival barker who has never held office. If he had, he would have just about left the free world a nuked mess - somehow by accident knowing him. Then claimed that it was a joke. Kelly Ann Conway seems to be forcing him to straighten up ; but only because he is saying what he needs to, to win. Think if the roles were reversed. If Hillary just "talked" and Trump had been SoS...then what? She would have been two-faced, smarmy and nasty ; he would have destroyed half the world over but her supporters would be saying "look she just talks a bad game, she has poor judgement but she has never risked national security like Trump has!" It is only because of the fact that he has never been in a position to do so.

Or to put it another way: how could he have risked national security in the first place from the high and lofty position...of being a reality TV host??

 

[Chloe]

Howdy,

If you would have voted for Sanders, that certainly makes you a Democrat. In any event, if a supporter of one party refuses to vote for that party's candidate, it is addition by subtraction for that candidate's opponent. No matter how the math is done, removing a vote from one candidate is very effectively a vote FOR the opponent.

So thus far you have made the most eloquent argument yet for the stimulus ; forget the Council of economic advisors, you just explained how to calculate a job that is saved or created. Has zero bearing at all on voting, but close.

If you are a Republican -- and fail to vote for Trump -- you ARE, in effect, allowing Hillary to go one vote up on Trump by your very absence from the voting booth.

If he is not a Republican is he still allowing her to go one up? Seems to me that the easier solution is to just leave the GOP...

As such, a voter in that situation is automatically supporting Hillary's socialist agenda. That may not be their intention, but it is the physical effect that matters as far as reality is concerned.

Trump is more of a socialist than she is - she has been pushed left by Obama (lest Justice indict her) but he is the one who wants no immigrants so that jobs can go to white unionized workers. Unions and higher wages / benefits (bring back manufacturing / no more offshoring / trade deals etc), who is that is turning inwards and building barriers? It is Trump...isolationism and protectionism is not something of the right / free market.

About 5 million Repub voters did this in 2012 by refusing to vote for the inept Romney. This absence of votes, in effect, added 5 million votes to Obama's side.

Nope - that is simple math / a lack of 5 million on one side does not equal 5 million more on the other.

In the upcoming election, Repubs who have temper tantrums by refusing to vote for Trump, are not only helping elect Hillary, but will also be responsible for what she will do to the Supreme Court.

Nope, the GOP base who voted for him in the primary effectively neutered the sane wing of the party and stopped them from being able to vote in the fall. As for the SC, well..they should have thought about that back then - they messed up during the primaries. If they wanted a conservative nominee to the bench, they should have voted for one when they had the chance.

Imagine having 7 or 8 Ruth Bader Ginsbergs stacked on the court. Socialism/communism would permeate the USA for the rest of this century -- and perhaps forever -- and the founding principles of the USA will have been bastardized into opposing principles, including extreme limits on free speech, losing our right to bear arms, etc.

There will not be 7 or 8 of them - there is one vacancy right now. Merrick Garland is not even a fanatic / liberal. The GOP would be wise to consider confirming him through the lame duck session if Hillary does win ; for a start Obama may even withdraw him but even at that, the GOP may lose more seats this fall (in the Senate) so a confirmation may be a lot easier in 2017. Also you kept saying "wait until there is a new President"...what will you do if that new President is named Clinton?

No fantasies on 7 or 8 picks though - no President has ever had that / nor done that to replace justices. Even when FDR tried to stack the bench / courts (and he served longer than anyone else) he failed. Stop fear-mongering, I hate Hillary as much as anyone else but she will not be appointing 7 or 8 SC picks ; that is absurd. Even for there to be 7 or 8 aligned with her, 3 more would have to go from the right and Alito and Roberts were confirmed in the last decade alone. Roberts suffers from seizures but Thomas, too. All replaced and confirmed? Not a chance.

Other negative effects would also happen, such as having hundreds of additional, extreme leftist federal judges. And illegal aliens would be granted citizenship simply because the Dems are aware that most of them will vote for Democrat candidates. Adding 12 million Democrat votes, by illegal aliens, to the presidential election, would make it virtually impossible for a Republican candidate to ever win the presidency again.

It will more than impossible to do it if the GOP carries on like this - the closest they ever got to the Hispanic vote was in 04 ; Bush carried 40+ percent. No need for hysteria though - even Trump is beginning to waver on immigration (something that I warned on months and months back). To grant citizenship though would take an act of Congress - so long as the House stays with the GOP, you should be good on that front. Same with judges - try keep the Senate and you might be okay. The down ticket effect of Trump though, is that vulnerable Senate seats seem up for grabs.

If this is the kind of United States of America that these hardheaded Repubs want to help usher in, they they will get their wish if Hillary is allowed to infest the White House.

Should have thought of that before you nominated Trump...you don't expect the little sisters of the poor to go provide contraception, do you? So why do you want people who will never vote for Trump to compromise their principles instead? Now of course I do not see faith and politics as one and the same - but even though faith is of the utmost principle, the free will of the individual should never be compromised, and if that free will means staying home - then who are you to guilt that person into voting Trump?

 

[Chloe]

A vote FOR Trump or Clinton is a vote FOR them, an endorsement, an affirmation. I can't do that. For either.

It may be that somehow, the Republican Party has nominated a man that many Republicans CANNOT endorse - perhaps many multiples of the number who could not vote for Romney - and perhaps Trump will use that as an excuse for why he - the Sainted One - was stolen the election. But I think the problem lies elsewhere. It is stunning to me - and disturbing - that we had 17 Republicans running, most of whom were highly qualified, uber-conservatives, experienced folks whom every Republican COULD have supported. Some were "tea party" favorites (such as Rubio and Cruz, both promoted and elected by the "tea party" movement within the Republican party). Perhaps because it soon became Trump vs. the World..... and Trump "tapped" negative anger against The World, he came out on top - I don't know. But we ended up with a disqualified man. One I think MANY Republicans in good conscience cannot endorse. I realize Hannity can't understand that, but .... And of course Trump - who may loose in the biggest landslide since '32 and may cause the Republicans to loose both houses with him - will blame some anti-Trump conspiracy and Obama rigging the election for all this: and the "anti-the-world" folks will feel vindicated. What a mess. What a sorrow.

I have pretty much said this ad verbatim for months ; but this is what I think "the excuses" will ring of, if he loses:

"It was the media" (The ones who built up Trump in the first place - they used him, got what they wanted (the easiest candidate for Hillary to run against) and then dumped him).

"The donors never funded him" (He was self funded, a billionaire and now he wants money...he won't spend his own btw).

"The base stayed home"

"The establishment voted for Clinton"

"It is a conspiracy, she stole the election"

There are so many more...the list could go on. The whining will never end.