A vote for Johnson accomplishes the same thing, plus I’d like to see the LP qualify for federal funding in the next election.
Wouldn’t that go against their whole “Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government” ideal?
More like a guideline.
Has anyone 'fessed up to clicking Trump? IIRC, even the Board’s vociferous Trump defender is on record as intending to vote against him.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Johnson may support public financing for federal election campaigns. He also may support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.
(He also wants to continue Social Security and Medicare — though not the associated taxes — and supports the E.P.A. I guess his plan to cut the federal budget by $1.6 trillion per year is based mainly on eliminating items #417 - Waste and #907 - Fraud. 
)
Yep. I also look forward to a good movie about his presidency in a few years time.
It’s too early to say whether it will be an apocalyptic horror story, dark comedy or sympathetic comedy, but it should be entertaining either way.
So you’re taking the same stance with Hillary that Trump is with terrorist families. They didn’t do anything directly but screw them, we need to punish them for their family members deeds. I mean, why not? In what reality is this something to strive for? Wherever it is, I know I don’t want to live there.
Of course, you could supply cites showing exactly what role she has that she should be tarred by except being a family member. I seem to forget what official role she had in the administration, please enlighten me. Do you want to punish Laura Bush for the actions that her husband took while in office? It sure sounds like it.
Hey, how about Chelsea, what punishment should their kids have to take for their parent’s actions. I mean, we can’t punish the parents so why not?
I don’t think I like the world you want to live in very much.
Hillary did have quite a role in the pardons. Her brother represented two of the ones pardoned.
I’ll quote Barack Obama here and say that she can’t claim credit for the good stuff that happened during the Clinton years and say the bad stuff was just Bill.
So, another person who the president knows represented two of the ones pardoned. I’m still not seeing anything that Hillary can call an active role that doesn’t also apply to Chelsea; after all, her uncle’s clients were pardoned by her father. How far down the rabbit hole are you willing to punish?
I agree with the president on his statement. You haven’t yet proven to me that this actually was a bad thing that she did though so it really doesn’t apply. That’s why I asked you for proof of her involvement not her family tree. Actually, I am not really comfortable giving her credit for stuff Bill did. Luckily she has quite a substantial body of work upon which I can credit her. I’m good with not counting anything during Bills reign for or against her. How about you?
Her failed work on health care reform is fair game though since that was her in charge of that. Not sure how that helps though.
How do you do that?
Who is purging whom from whose party? The Trumpers voted and won it, after years when the Teabaggers filled their leadership vacuum. It’s *their *party now, and it’s the relative sanes who are leaving.
It was called Idiocracy. Except President Camacho had a sense of responsibility to his people.
OK, now we have NINE folks who are of the opinion that Trump would make a better POTUS.
Given Trump’s recent disgusting lie today (That the Orlando shooter was born in “Afghan”, rather than where he was REALLY born - Queens NY)…
Any one of you nine care to weigh in with WHY Trump would make a better POTUS? Because he’d ban Muslims from entering the country which would magically make someone born in Queens less likely to hate the LBGT community?
Give us ONE REASON WHY Trump would make a better POTUS. ONE REASON.
My money’s on Nikki Haley.
Sleestak did: apparently hosting state emails on a private server that never got broken into constitutes a national security risk greater than, oh, say, revealing the identity of an undercover operative, or being fundamentally and utterly incompetent in every aspect of the job.
Here, let me offer you another one, to perhaps account for some of those other votes who have yet to offer a reason: “This window tastes delicious!”
I dunno, I think whatever held her back this year (there are infidelity rumors, maybe that’s it) will still hold her back in the future.
2020 will be interesting, that’s for sure. I worry though that even without Trump in the race things might get pretty chaotic. What’s to stop people from just going for Ted Cruz? Ted Cruz is obviously “next”, plus he’s the most conservative candidate in the party. It’s hard for me to see how he gets stopped, and I think his odds of running in 2020 are 99%.
Paul Ryan is “obviously next” for the remaining traditionalists, who would apparently also support him on privatizing Social Security and voucherizing Medicare. :rolleyes: But it’s a party of whackos now, so yes, it will probably be Cruz who gets to lose to President Clinton. If he’s still in the Senate by then, or if it will matter if he is, being in the minority and no longer able to shut the government down.
Hell, you’ve run through Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, and John Kasich (and others?) among your infatuations *this *time around. That’s a whole bunch of losers right there. There isn’t much left in the barrel for you.
I say they should cut out the middleman and just nominate Rush Limbaugh.
. . .
Ummmmm . . .
Colon, followed by a close paren.
If we accept that every negative HRC is being accused of is true.
And if we accept every positive that DT supporters claim for their guy.
Clinton would still, by far, be the better POTUS.