Yes. He's not so bad. I do not like the "fetal viability" position as I think that is a total crock. I might vote for him if I thought he had a chance to win. But he doesn't. It would indeed be a wasted vote.Have you studied where Johnson stands on the issues,
JohnStOnge wrote:My vote is probably not going to count regardless because I live in Louisiana and Louisiana, unfortunately, is almost certainly going to be a Trump State. However, if it did count I would consider it very important to do whatever I could to ensure that Trump does not become President. And that would be based on principle and conscience.The real "wasted vote" is a vote against principle and conscience.
To me, if you are going to vote on the basis of principle and conscience, you look at the reality of the situation and try to do what has the best chance to result in the best outcome.
John, this makes absolutely no sense. Your vote hasn't been in play in a Presidential election in a long time. Louisiana's electoral votes have gone to the Republican candidate and will likely go to the Republican candidate regardless of how you have voted or will vote this year. Voting for a Republican (or Democrat) when your vote is going to have 0% impact on the outcome of the election is a wasted vote. If it doesn't matter then can vote for the candidate whose platform most closely resembles your own and send a message to the party establishment(s).JohnStOnge wrote:Yes. He's not so bad. I do not like the "fetal viability" position as I think that is a total crock. I might vote for him if I thought he had a chance to win. But he doesn't. It would indeed be a wasted vote.Have you studied where Johnson stands on the issues,
Of course my vote is probably going to be wasted regardless because I live in Louisiana and that State is probably not going to be in play.
These last two posts (88's too) are dead spot on.catbooster wrote:Another potential reason to vote for Gary Johnson is that if he gets at least 5% of the popular vote, the Libertarian party will qualify for federal election funds. The republican and democratic parties don't use the federal money, as it limits how much they can spend, but for a third party it would allow them to do much more than they currently can.
I think this would send a much stronger message than voting for the lesser of two evils (whichever you judge that to be). The rep and dem parties don't want anyone else to have a voice.
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/06 ... ntent=linkGreen Party candidate Jill Stein blasted Hillary Clinton as having little difference with Donald Trump, saying that while Trump "says scary things," Clinton actually does them.
“Trump says very scary things—deporting immigrants, massive militarism and, you know, ignoring the climate,” Stein said in an interview with Democracy Now, according to a transcript. “Well, Hillary, unfortunately, has a track record for doing all of those things.
“So, the terrible things that we expect from Donald Trump, we’ve actually already seen from Hillary Clinton,” Stein added. “So I’d say, don’t be a victim of this propaganda campaign, which is being waged by people who exercise selective amnesia.”
bump. What say you JSO?HI54UNI wrote:JSO
You keep saying that Trump is mentally ill but that Hilldog is not. But we know Hilldog is a lesbian so doesn't that make her mentally ill?
https://www.reddit.com/r/HillaryForPris ... n_prove_itHillary Clinton is SICK. Seriously. I can prove it, and the American people need to know about it.
In 2012, Clinton had a cerebral venous thrombosis (blood clot in her brain). The story went like this: Clinton supposedly had an intestinal infection and got severely dehydrated. She fainted, fell, and hit her head, which resulted in a concussion. A few weeks later, she was found to have a cerebral venous thrombosis (blood clot in her brain). Her doctors claimed that she was “making excellent progress” and they were “confident she will make a full recovery.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html
Has she made a full recovery? What are the odds that she truly has no neurological deficits from this injury?
CVT Prognosis: According to a large international study in 2004, after an average of 16 months, 57.1 % of CVT patients had no symptoms or signs, 22% had “mild” residual symptoms, 7.5 % had mild impairments, 2.9% had moderate impairments, 2.2% were severely handicapped, and 8.3% had died. So, 42.9% had difficulties after their CVT, ranging from mild impairments to death. Source
Has Clinton shown any signs of impairment? I submit that she has. I submit that much of her “lying” is actually confabulating (or making things up). Confabulation is believed to result from damage to the right frontal lobe of the brain, including the ventromedial frontal lobe. Clinton’s clot was on the right side.
This Breitbart article has a good summary of her health problems, as well as a neurologist discussing these very issues. It’s long but worth a read: Breitbart
Here's some MORE EVIDENCE:
“She is often confused” - Hillary’s own top aide (and possible lover?) Huma Abedin said in an email, “She’s often confused.” Note the date: Jan 2013, just 1 month after her CVT. Source
Debate Bathroom Breaks and Cheating: In late 2015 at a democratic debate, Clinton returned from the break very late, and joked that “it does take me a little longer.” Source.
Now, there have been reports that she was meeting with campaign staff during these breaks, which was against the DNC debate rules Source.
Why was she meeting with staff against the rules? I submit that she was likely being “refreshed” on talking points because her memory is poor.
Nancy Reagan recast as AIDS hero: Source. Seriously? Anyone alive at the time, knows the Reagans were far from AIDS heroes. They actively denied the health crisis for years and were much maligned by the HIV community for doing so. Why would Hillary say this, unprompted? Memory problems or confabulation. She “misspoke.”
Bosnian Sniper Fire: We’ve all heard this story a hundred times. Why would she make this up in an age where there are cameras and the internet? Again, she’s mis-remembering events. Confabulation. It has been pointed out that this was from 2008. Based on this and her history of inappropriate laughter (see below), I submit that she likely had neurological problems BEFORE her concussion too. Source
No Press Conferences: As Trump hammered her on recently, she hasn’t had a press conference in 6 months. In an election year during a hotly contested primary! Why? It’s because she can’t answer unscripted, impromptu questions appropriately and they’re trying to obscure this fact. Source
“Chill pills”: An anonymous campaign aide, claims Clinton has “been having screaming, child-like tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work.”. A campaign advisor says, “We’re having some success in giving her some chill pills.” This is a serious allegation, which would further explain her memory problems. Benzodiazepines (commonly referred to as "chill pills" can cause serious memory problems like she's been showing signs of. It’s worth noting that these tantrums sound similar to the types of tantrums reported by two different FBI agents. Source
4 days of Gaffes: These are just more recent memory lapses of hers that are worth reading. There are hundreds of these. Source
has reminded me of $hillary's bouts of uncontrollable laughter Source. This can be a sign of "pseudobulbar affect" (PBA) which often accompanies strokes and other neurological conditions. According to PBAINFO.org:
PBA outbursts can be inappropriate The crying or laughing episodes are inappropriate to the situation in which they occur. Sometimes these are spontaneous crying or laughing eruptions that don’t reflect the way a person is actually feeling.
PBA outbursts can be exaggerated Another characteristic of PBA episodes is that though the crying or laughing may be appropriate for a given situation, they’re exaggerated – they’re more intense or last longer than the situation calls for.
Sound like anyone we know? ARF ARF,
I could go on and on, but I think I’ve made my point. This is a big deal and the American people deserve answers to HARD QUESTIONS (not pre-scripted softballs) about these issues, and honestly, I won’t be satisfied without seeing a live memory test on TV.
The American people deserve answers!
If she was mentally short circuited I would have an easier time voting for herSkjellyfetti wrote:Saw this.... and it sounded like JSO's alter ego
https://www.reddit.com/r/HillaryForPris ... n_prove_itHillary Clinton is SICK. Seriously. I can prove it, and the American people need to know about it.
In 2012, Clinton had a cerebral venous thrombosis (blood clot in her brain). The story went like this: Clinton supposedly had an intestinal infection and got severely dehydrated. She fainted, fell, and hit her head, which resulted in a concussion. A few weeks later, she was found to have a cerebral venous thrombosis (blood clot in her brain). Her doctors claimed that she was “making excellent progress” and they were “confident she will make a full recovery.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html
Has she made a full recovery? What are the odds that she truly has no neurological deficits from this injury?
CVT Prognosis: According to a large international study in 2004, after an average of 16 months, 57.1 % of CVT patients had no symptoms or signs, 22% had “mild” residual symptoms, 7.5 % had mild impairments, 2.9% had moderate impairments, 2.2% were severely handicapped, and 8.3% had died. So, 42.9% had difficulties after their CVT, ranging from mild impairments to death. Source
Has Clinton shown any signs of impairment? I submit that she has. I submit that much of her “lying” is actually confabulating (or making things up). Confabulation is believed to result from damage to the right frontal lobe of the brain, including the ventromedial frontal lobe. Clinton’s clot was on the right side.
This Breitbart article has a good summary of her health problems, as well as a neurologist discussing these very issues. It’s long but worth a read: Breitbart
Here's some MORE EVIDENCE:
“She is often confused” - Hillary’s own top aide (and possible lover?) Huma Abedin said in an email, “She’s often confused.” Note the date: Jan 2013, just 1 month after her CVT. Source
Debate Bathroom Breaks and Cheating: In late 2015 at a democratic debate, Clinton returned from the break very late, and joked that “it does take me a little longer.” Source.
Now, there have been reports that she was meeting with campaign staff during these breaks, which was against the DNC debate rules Source.
Why was she meeting with staff against the rules? I submit that she was likely being “refreshed” on talking points because her memory is poor.
Nancy Reagan recast as AIDS hero: Source. Seriously? Anyone alive at the time, knows the Reagans were far from AIDS heroes. They actively denied the health crisis for years and were much maligned by the HIV community for doing so. Why would Hillary say this, unprompted? Memory problems or confabulation. She “misspoke.”
Bosnian Sniper Fire: We’ve all heard this story a hundred times. Why would she make this up in an age where there are cameras and the internet? Again, she’s mis-remembering events. Confabulation. It has been pointed out that this was from 2008. Based on this and her history of inappropriate laughter (see below), I submit that she likely had neurological problems BEFORE her concussion too. Source
No Press Conferences: As Trump hammered her on recently, she hasn’t had a press conference in 6 months. In an election year during a hotly contested primary! Why? It’s because she can’t answer unscripted, impromptu questions appropriately and they’re trying to obscure this fact. Source
“Chill pills”: An anonymous campaign aide, claims Clinton has “been having screaming, child-like tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work.”. A campaign advisor says, “We’re having some success in giving her some chill pills.” This is a serious allegation, which would further explain her memory problems. Benzodiazepines (commonly referred to as "chill pills" can cause serious memory problems like she's been showing signs of. It’s worth noting that these tantrums sound similar to the types of tantrums reported by two different FBI agents. Source
4 days of Gaffes: These are just more recent memory lapses of hers that are worth reading. There are hundreds of these. Source
has reminded me of $hillary's bouts of uncontrollable laughter Source. This can be a sign of "pseudobulbar affect" (PBA) which often accompanies strokes and other neurological conditions. According to PBAINFO.org:
PBA outbursts can be inappropriate The crying or laughing episodes are inappropriate to the situation in which they occur. Sometimes these are spontaneous crying or laughing eruptions that don’t reflect the way a person is actually feeling.
PBA outbursts can be exaggerated Another characteristic of PBA episodes is that though the crying or laughing may be appropriate for a given situation, they’re exaggerated – they’re more intense or last longer than the situation calls for.
Sound like anyone we know? ARF ARF,
I could go on and on, but I think I’ve made my point. This is a big deal and the American people deserve answers to HARD QUESTIONS (not pre-scripted softballs) about these issues, and honestly, I won’t be satisfied without seeing a live memory test on TV.
The American people deserve answers!
I don't think I've ever seen any actual evidence that she is a lesbian. But let's say that she is. Yes, in that respect she is disfunctional. But I don't think that is as much of a concern as having someone who is friggin 69 years old and acts like a middle school kid. It doesn't mean she has emotional maturity and stability problems.HI54UNI wrote:bump. What say you JSO?HI54UNI wrote:JSO
You keep saying that Trump is mentally ill but that Hilldog is not. But we know Hilldog is a lesbian so doesn't that make her mentally ill?
http://theweek.com/articles/629805/misg ... tigun-left"If you're too dangerous to get on a plane," Clinton insisted, "you're too dangerous to buy a gun in America." Later, she also argued that a pending FBI investigation should deprive Americans of a constitutional right. "If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn't be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked," Clinton stated — and felt strongly enough about that point for her team to immortalize it in a tweet.
The terror watch list makes the situation exponentially worse. It lists over a million people, once again without any effective mechanism to challenge that status. And Clinton wants to make that situation even worse. "If there had been a broader list that would have triggered the comprehensive background check required under Brady," she argued, "that might have put a big red flag in the way of [the Orlando gunman] purchasing the assault weapon plus the ammunition." And since it turns out that Mateen had been removed from watch lists in 2014, none of this would have prevented what happened in Orlando anyway.
In this proposal, Clinton and her allies call for an end to due process before denying citizens their constitutional right to bear arms. This is a far more fundamental issue than debating over which firearms to bar from private ownership; it strikes at the fundamental relationship between citizens and the government that exists to serve their liberty interests. Once those principles have been discarded for political expediency on the mere basis of official suspicion, no rights — whether natural or declared — will ever be safe again.
You'll be the 1st hypocrite bitching about the liberal judges Hildacunt nominatesJohnStOnge wrote:Do you think that Trump is concerned about Constitutional rights?
I don't. I think he is an Authoritarian.
She's got 2 on the docket..?BDKJMU wrote:You'll be the 1st hypocrite bitching about the liberal judges Hildacunt nominatesJohnStOnge wrote:Do you think that Trump is concerned about Constitutional rights?
I don't. I think he is an Authoritarian.
It's at the bottom of the "edit post" screen, but it's not available when a newer post appears in the thread.OL FU wrote:Could have sworn at one time I saw a delete button
So you don't think any more will die or retire in the next eight years? I'll take that bet with you.Chizzang wrote:She's got 2 on the docket..?BDKJMU wrote:
You'll be the 1st hypocrite bitching about the liberal judges Hildacunt nominates
I thought Scalia was the only old nutball the kicked the bucket ..?
Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg wants to get her tired old azz off the bench. So does Kennedy, probably.93henfan wrote:So you don't think any more will die or retire in the next eight years? I'll take that bet with you.Chizzang wrote:
She's got 2 on the docket..?
I thought Scalia was the only old nutball the kicked the bucket ..?
I'm not sure how honest this newssite is, so take it FWIW.As MEE notes, the Petra News Agency published on Sunday what it described as exclusive comments from Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman which included a claim that Riyadh has provided 20 percent of the total funding to the prospective Democratic candidate's campaign.
I sure hope - regardless which one wins - that this will be a single term president. Obviously incumbents have a huge advantage and presidents are almost always 2 terms...93henfan wrote:So you don't think any more will die or retire in the next eight years? I'll take that bet with you.Chizzang wrote:
She's got 2 on the docket..?
I thought Scalia was the only old nutball the kicked the bucket ..?
QFFRARJohnStOnge wrote:Check this out.
This is good.
Whassamatta, John? You worried that there might actually be something to that "email crap"? Something that might blow Queen Hildacvnt's campaign out of the water?JohnStOnge wrote:The FBI is really starting to piss me off. Not that they could possibly care. But this thing is ridiculous. We have a friggin' Presidential election going on. You can't tell me they can't go ahead and get done with that e mail crap.
I do think that, more probably than not, she is going to skate. But yes I am worried in the sense that there is some reasonable chance that she could actually get charged. And if that is going to happen the earlier it happens the better. As long as they have time to adjust to the situation I think that just about any decent candidate the Democrats field would beat Trump. In fact it could be a lot worse for Trump because they will have the opportunity to field someone without the baggage and the high negative rating.Ivytalk wrote:Whassamatta, John? You worried that there might actually be something to that "email crap"? Something that might blow Queen Hildacvnt's campaign out of the water?JohnStOnge wrote:The FBI is really starting to piss me off. Not that they could possibly care. But this thing is ridiculous. We have a friggin' Presidential election going on. You can't tell me they can't go ahead and get done with that e mail crap.
