|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by sir_eccles
(Post 11966568)
Now be fair, Trump himself said that first.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by sir_eccles
(Post 11966570)
I think it's a shame Johnson is unlikely to make the threshold to be invited to the debates. It might have been an interesting dynamic.
Oh, and there was a recent poll that showed Johnson at 10% support, so you never know... |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11966575)
I agree. If the Republican "party of small government" nonsense was actually true, then here is a candidate and a party to rally around. Much better idea than Bill Kristol's pathetic attempt.
Oh, and there was a recent poll that showed Johnson at 10% support, so you never know... It's a big jump from 10% to 15% and then maintain it for enough polls to be invited. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11966575)
I agree. If the Republican "party of small government" nonsense was actually true, then here is a candidate and a party to rally around. Much better idea than Bill Kristol's pathetic attempt.
Oh, and there was a recent poll that showed Johnson at 10% support, so you never know... |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by sir_eccles
(Post 11966587)
I think French has formally said no.
It's a big jump from 10% to 15% and then maintain it for enough polls to be invited. I'm not saying it's likely, but there is certainly an appetite for a third choice out there. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by themadpooper
(Post 11966601)
So you don't think small government is a good thing?
Do I think the free market does a good job of handling things like healthcare? No. But you missed my point. The GOP always talks about being the party of small government, so why do they care who marries who, or which bog someone takes a shit in? |
Re: 2016 Election
The GOP are only small party when it comes to social programs to benefit the population, otherwise they're a bunch of interfering busybodies led by moralizing Evangelicals
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by dc koop
(Post 11966618)
The GOP are only small party when it comes to social programs to benefit the population, otherwise they're a bunch of interfering busybodies led by moralizing Evangelicals
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11966608)
Do I think that there could be a lot less spending on defence, and that the government has no place in the bedroom? Yes.
Do I think the free market does a good job of handling things like healthcare? No. But you missed my point. The GOP always talks about being the party of small government, so why do they care who marries who, or which bog someone takes a shit in? |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by themadpooper
(Post 11966732)
I believe I covered this on a previous page, liberals in Washington dictating social policy to the entire country because stuff like gender neutral bathrooms is suddenly a boss idea in their world is unconstitutional, gay marriage similarly so. You neglect the fact it's the public who vote for these nasty right wing legislators and governors, if a majority of people in these states want gender neutral bathrooms and gay marriage, they would surely elect politicians who would deliver them
As for the rest of your spiel, when it comes to civil rights, the federal government can tell the states to do one via the Supreme Court. Otherwise, black folks would still be sat at the back of the bus, or worse. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by themadpooper
(Post 11966732)
I believe I covered this on a previous page, liberals in Washington dictating social policy to the entire country because stuff like gender neutral bathrooms is suddenly a boss idea in their world is unconstitutional, gay marriage similarly so. You neglect the fact it's the public who vote for these nasty right wing legislators and governors, if a majority of people in these states want gender neutral bathrooms and gay marriage, they would surely elect politicians who would deliver them
And none of that is unconstitutional...except in your warped mind. And I guess the Conservatives have not been dictating social policy for years...oh wait...yes they have...right on down to birth control. Liberals are only restoring the rights conservatives have been chipping away at. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by themadpooper
(Post 11966732)
I believe I covered this on a previous page, liberals in Washington dictating social policy to the entire country because stuff like gender neutral bathrooms is suddenly a boss idea in their world is unconstitutional, gay marriage similarly so. You neglect the fact it's the public who vote for these nasty right wing legislators and governors, if a majority of people in these states want gender neutral bathrooms and gay marriage, they would surely elect politicians who would deliver them.
Interesting how you scream "unconstitutional" when it suits you to assert state's rights, but cite the constitution when it's a right you approve of:
Originally Posted by themadpooper
(Post 11965553)
Gun ownership is a right of every law abiding citizen so not sure what you think Clinton is going to do on that score, no president can meddle with the constitution in that way.
|
Re: 2016 Election
So now Trump is sicing his minions on the Judge. I guess his idea of justice is to intimidate the judge.
"Donald Trump ordered his surrogates during a Monday conference call to intensify their criticisms of journalists and the Mexican-American judge presiding over a Trump University fraud case. "We will overcome," Trump said, according to two people who were on the call. "And I've always won and I'm going to continue to win. And that's the way it is." |
Re: 2016 Election
A timely reminder of how petty the GOP is.
Obama nominated this lady as ambassador to the Bahamas. Her nomination was put on hold for 820 days. She recently passed away due to leukemia. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/07/op...smtyp=cur&_r=0 Cotton eventually released the two other holds, but not the one on Butts. She told me that she once went to see him about it, and he explained that he knew that she was a close friend of Obama’s — the two first encountered each other on a line for financial-aid forms at Harvard Law School, where they were classmates — and that blocking her was a way to inflict special pain on the president. |
Re: 2016 Election
Ruh roh.
|
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 12:22 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.