|
2016
Apr 13, 2016 19:07:56 GMT -8
Post by acptulsa on Apr 13, 2016 19:07:56 GMT -8
As soon as I read that, I thought of that bit of film. And watch out for that tree! too!
I used to know how to quote posts in a different thread. I don't seem to any more...
Edit: It can be done! Just cut and paste the BB Code.
|
|
|
2016
Apr 13, 2016 20:00:03 GMT -8
Post by TRP on Apr 13, 2016 20:00:03 GMT -8
at this point, i feel like a spectator about to see 2 trains hit head on. It's kind of like watching Rome smolder, isn't it?
|
|
|
2016
Apr 13, 2016 20:06:04 GMT -8
Post by acptulsa on Apr 13, 2016 20:06:04 GMT -8
And you don't know if it's going to snuff out or burst into an inferno.
|
|
|
2016
Apr 14, 2016 6:14:47 GMT -8
Post by JK/SEA on Apr 14, 2016 6:14:47 GMT -8
yep...thats the one. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Origanalist on Apr 16, 2016 13:36:54 GMT -8
Mcafee?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
2016
Apr 17, 2016 5:12:18 GMT -8
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2016 5:12:18 GMT -8
Mcafee? Yes.
|
|
|
2016
Apr 17, 2016 9:16:36 GMT -8
Post by TRP on Apr 17, 2016 9:16:36 GMT -8
Mcafee? No
|
|
|
Post by TRP on Apr 17, 2016 9:45:19 GMT -8
This cycle is so weird. They seem to be inciting Republicans to riot. Gary Johnson, with his experience and his interesting mix of stances, seems like the perfect candidate to slip in between these two clowns and steal the votes of people feeling disaffected by both parties. Hearing him talking about cakes and whatnot may not be what disaffected Republicans want to hear. But disaffected Democrats have to get over more to vote for him--like their silly pipe dream that this federal government is ever going to do anything for the people but screw us. I think he's about the perfect candidate for the purpose--if people can get over their pet issues and agree to vote for him. The problem is, who is Johnson going to appeal to enough to get them to vote for him? He wants to be seen as the reasonable guy, but how many people really think he is, or even care? Johnson's devils advocate talk about gun control and the "mentally ill" in the Stossel debate shows the problem with him. He's a squish, and nobody wants to vote for a squish. Even when it comes to issues I think he's been good on historically, and still is generally. I don't actually think Johnson would ever do anything anti gun in office, could be wrong, but I just don't think he would. And I'm not even a fan of the guy. But why on earth would he open himself up to that kind of attack? I mean, guns is one of the issues the LP is supposed to be solid on, it's not even supposed to be an issue. Johnson has the unique talent in politics as coming off as if he sucks more than he even does. He's really good at turning people off. Just take his line about libertarians being socially liberal and fiscally conservative, who's he playing for? Maybe a lot of people do hold those views, even though that's not what libertarian means. But I don't, and I agree with Ron on virtually every issue. I'm not saying Johnson should tailor his campaign style to please me, but pointing out that he manages to turn off people who should be automatically in his camp, if he's from the same school as Ron Paul. There are probably more socially liberal/fiscally conservative people out there than there are people committed to the principles of liberty and the Constitution. But those people by and large don't vote 3rd party, they will hold their noses and vote for Clinton/Trump as per usual. Voters lack a backbone even more than candidates do sometimes.
|
|
|
2016
Apr 17, 2016 11:30:02 GMT -8
Post by acptulsa on Apr 17, 2016 11:30:02 GMT -8
Yeah, it's frustrating. Never was the LP in a more promising position, yet not since they nominated Bob Barr has their slate of potential candidates been less promising. Go to the LP website and you find one spot which lists their candidates, complete with links to their websites, including one who has withdrawn from the race. www.lp.org/candidates/presidential-candidates-2016/But elsewhere on the same site you find a 'staff blog' with a list of five names and a claim that these are the LP's officially recognized candiates--a list which does not include Johnson, McAffee or Peterson, and does include two names that aren't even listed on the other page. www.lp.org/blogs/staff/2016-lp-presidential-candidatesWhat a herd of cats! There are some spectacularly unimpressive websites among them. I'm starting to think Darryl Perry of New Hampshire is the most promising of the lot. Interestingly enough, he picked a Muslim as his running mate. On the one hand, he doesn't seem to like doing things the easy way. On the other hand, if the LP nominates a ticket with a Muslim on it, either they get publicity or we expose the MSM for blacking out a seriously newsworthy development. One thing is certain--whoever they nominate is going to have to do something to get attention.
|
|
|
2016
Apr 19, 2016 8:49:25 GMT -8
Post by acptulsa on Apr 19, 2016 8:49:25 GMT -8
|
|
|
2016
Apr 21, 2016 18:29:57 GMT -8
Post by Origanalist on Apr 21, 2016 18:29:57 GMT -8
Mcafee? No Why not?
|
|
|
2016
Apr 21, 2016 19:40:48 GMT -8
Post by TRP on Apr 21, 2016 19:40:48 GMT -8
Well first of all the graphic did not show up at the time I replied. So all I saw was his name, I wasn't bashing the message. I don't plan on supporting a pro abortion candidate. Also at the debate it sounded like he would continue entangling agreements with other countries. Since none of the 3rd party candidates stand a chance anyway I might as well support the one I agree with the most. And I don't think it will be McAfee. Although I certainly do respect those who will support him.
|
|
|
2016
Apr 21, 2016 19:58:52 GMT -8
Post by Origanalist on Apr 21, 2016 19:58:52 GMT -8
I missed that. I can't support that either. Heavy sigh........
|
|
|
2016
Apr 23, 2016 16:49:03 GMT -8
Post by Origanalist on Apr 23, 2016 16:49:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
2016
Jun 23, 2016 15:03:17 GMT -8
Post by acptulsa on Jun 23, 2016 15:03:17 GMT -8
I don't see Trump winning this thing. There are still more than a few sane people in this country.
I know Clinton is awfully well connected, but it's more than possible she could be indicted. I know it would have to happen soon to happen prior to the Democratic convention, but that is possible. If it happens, or if it becomes obvious she will be indicted by the time of the convention, the superdelegates are going to install that crazy-assed old socialist, and if that happens he skunks Trump. And it'll be the biggest disaster since Woodrow Wilson.
Which just may be the best thing we can hope for, because the Wilsonian Disaster is what finally woke people up, and got Harding/Coolidge elected, so we could have the Roaring Twenties.
The Lord moves in mysterious ways.
In any case, Clinton has needed indicting for decades and decades, and I'm way past ready to see it.
|
|