I would vote for you over both.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lol at kanye. The dems aren't that stupid

If I went by the yard signs in my town it would be Trump gets 90% and Johnson 10%.

Did see 2 Clinton signs in a town over..but they were in the same yard.

Spock;1817720 wrote:Lol at kanye. The dems aren't that stupid

I'd hope not after seeing what's happening to the Rs after nominating a reality TV entertainer with no filter nor actual political knowledge. It just doesn't end well.

thavoice;[URL="tel:1817721" wrote:[URL="tel:1817721"]1817721[/URL][/URL]]If I went by the yard signs in my town it would be Trump gets 90% and Johnson 10%.

Did see 2 Clinton signs in a town over..but they were in the same yard.

No kidding rural midwest Ohio. Drive south to Dayton and see how many Trump signs there are.

Edit: i don't know why my quote feature is messed up and I'm too lazy to try and fix it on my phone.

friendfromlowry;1817724 wrote:No kidding rural midwest Ohio. Drive south to Dayton and see how many Trump signs there are.

Edit: i don't know why my quote feature is messed up and I'm too lazy to try and fix it on my phone.

Lol, yeah, the rural area I live in that traditionally votes 2-to-1 R has more Trump signs, too. Not shocking and it's meaningless as far as anything that actually matters, but it is an observation of sorts.

Heretic;1817728 wrote:Lol, yeah, the rural area I live in that traditionally votes 2-to-1 R has more Trump signs, too. Not shocking and it's meaningless as far as anything that actually matters, but it is an observation of sorts.

Much less signage this year. Heard on the radio how they arent giving them away for free much anymore, and social media has taken over instead of yard signs. Just another activity taken away from kids because of social media...no yard signs to take and put them all into a teacher's yard!

I highly doubt Kanye would run as a democrat. The BLM will try to get into the game of putting people into office and wouldn't shock me if Kanye were running for them.

like_that;1817739 wrote:I highly doubt Kanye would run as a democrat. The BLM will try to get into the game of putting people into office and wouldn't shock me if Kanye were running for them.

Do you not think the BLM would try to get democratic candidates elected? Or do you think they will start their own party?

All Kanye would have to do is offer people something free and he'd be in.

Just yesterday I drove past a nice home, with probably 2 acres landscaped frontage, with about 7 or so Trump|Pence signs. I couldn't believe they would mess up what was otherwise a beautifully situated home, no matter who they were voting for.

I live in central pa (Harrisburg area) and I do quite a bit of driving and I've literally seen 3 Hillary signs. And thousands upon thousands of trump signs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just checking in on to see the outrage from BS and isadore over VP Joe Biden's violence inciting comments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

O-Trap;1817695 wrote:Anyone who supports eminent domain is not a capitalist. Corporatist, perhaps. Not capitalist.

Could be a Geolibertarian and support eminent domain in some form IMHO.

http://geolib.pair.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

bases_loaded;1817763 wrote:Just checking in on to see the outrage from BS and isadore over VP Joe Biden's violence inciting comments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Biden kicking Trump's ass would make for great ratings on TrumpTV

Crimson streak;1817758 wrote:I live in central pa (Harrisburg area) and I do quite a bit of driving and I've literally seen 3 Hillary signs. And thousands upon thousands of trump signs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A ton in rural and suburban Ohio too. The wives didn't put out the sign IMHO lol.

sleeper;1817631 wrote:You could argue easily this goes both ways. I can't tell if its Trump but it seems the country is entirely divided. We are long past of the point of people discussing issues, disagreeing if necessary, and trying to understand different belief. It's all about D vs. R; R's are racist, sexist and D's are liars and evil.

It's really quite sad.

Agree. And, I am biased but IMHO conservative media was the catalyst that really drove the game up to 11. I mean for example Rush has 20 million listeners and made a career preaching that the democrat party is evil and that media outlets that are not overtly conservative are liberal propaganda. The libs/dems reacted in kind and you could see them at their worst after Bush beat Gore.

Personally really believe that the dems emphasis on minority-identity problems really makes things worse too. Rather than a broad New Deal style message or what have you it's all about turning out enough minorities and women to win. It's crazy to me. You've got to win to be able to govern but it is hard to govern when you have no real consensus supporting you beyond "enough women and minorities to the polls to win - oh and we got them there by preaching that the GOP is actively against them!"

Also doesn't help IMHO when they act like Mitt Romney is Hitler and then a truly insane and unqualified person comes along in Trump - nobody buys it when try to point out that Trump would be a disaster cus you said the same stuff about a perfectly normal and qualified candidate in Romney.

FatHobbit;1817647 wrote:http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/kristian-saucier-investigation-hillary-clinton-223646

This guy took a picture of a classified submarine engine room. He faces 30 years. Nobody thinks he was trying to share it or do anything with it. That's a big double standard.

Not to mention the obstruction of justice charge where both of them tried to delete/destroy evidence after they found out they were being investigated. Clinton did it after she was subpoenaed to provide the information.

This is the case I was referring to:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-harold-martin-nsa-theft-20161020-story.html

As far as the case you referenced with the Navy Sailor goes Number 1. I think the prosecutors are going too hard on the guy and hopefully they work it out but 2. They can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he deleted and destroyed the evidence after the investigation.

As far as obstruction with Hillary goes, how can you prove that Hillary did the obstruction and not the guy who deleted the emails or that she aided and abetted the obstruction? In this instance the FBI claims they discovered that the IT guy didn't know about the subpoena and was kind of behind in his duties and just started deleting old emails.

Now the second the subpoena got there there should have been a mass notification to everyone not to delete. I agree it looks terrible but it is conceivable that at least one Jury member would doubt that the IT guy had the state of mind required to obstruct justice and that Hillary aided and abetted said obstruction.

Maybe in a better world they file the charge and let the jury decide rather than choose not to even bring the matter before a jury because they don't think they have a greater than 90% chance of getting a conviction?

bases_loaded;1817763 wrote:Just checking in on to see the outrage from BS and isadore over VP Joe Biden's violence inciting comments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He was just defending his wife against a ***** grabber.

thavoice;1817721 wrote:If I went by the yard signs in my town it would be Trump gets 90% and Johnson 10%.

Did see 2 Clinton signs in a town over..but they were in the same yard.

Crimson streak;1817758 wrote:I live in central pa (Harrisburg area) and I do quite a bit of driving and I've literally seen 3 Hillary signs. And thousands upon thousands of trump signs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's like me saying I see a lot of Hillary supporters in Chicago.

I really don't think this election is going to be close.

FatHobbit;1817745 wrote:Do you not think the BLM would try to get democratic candidates elected? Or do you think they will start their own party?

I think it's more likely they would approach it with an independent platform. Trump is the talk of bigotry and racism now, but BLM also doesn't like the Dems, because they don't like white people.

I see the Bernie socialists turning into the democrat's version of the tea party.

BoatShoes;1817769 wrote:This is the case I was referring to:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-harold-martin-nsa-theft-20161020-story.html

As far as the case you referenced with the Navy Sailor goes Number 1. I think the prosecutors are going too hard on the guy and hopefully they work it out but 2. They can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he deleted and destroyed the evidence after the investigation.

As far as obstruction with Hillary goes, how can you prove that Hillary did the obstruction and not the guy who deleted the emails or that she aided and abetted the obstruction? In this instance the FBI claims they discovered that the IT guy didn't know about the subpoena and was kind of behind in his duties and just started deleting old emails.

Now the second the subpoena got there there should have been a mass notification to everyone not to delete. I agree it looks terrible but it is conceivable that at least one Jury member would doubt that the IT guy had the state of mind required to obstruct justice and that Hillary aided and abetted said obstruction.

Maybe in a better world they file the charge and let the jury decide rather than choose not to even bring the matter before a jury because they don't think they have a greater than 90% chance of getting a conviction?

All you're proving is the Clintons know how to create enough levels of separation to skirt the system. Bill should've worn a condom then he could've said Monica was blowing the condom and it just happened to be on his dick.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

like_that;1817778 wrote: I see the Bernie socialists turning into the democrat's version of the tea party.

Problem with that crowd (and their SJW cohorts) is they much prefer the "seen and heard" part of activism over the "do" part. It's about posting participation pics on Facebook rather than rolling up the sleeves to do the shit needed to get things done.

Youth movements, in general, just flitter out either because of lack of leadership and/or laziness....or in many cases because they grow up, get some life experiences and just get wiser.

BoatShoes;1817764 wrote:Could be a Geolibertarian and support eminent domain in some form IMHO.

http://geolib.pair.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

I'm not really seeing that. While they seem to approve community collection of land to prevent monopolization, they also only believe in paying government based on increases it generates from any land it owns. They also oppose state monopolization of land, believe that government should have to pay rent to communities for the land it uses, and oppose unilateral government spending, and instead support the limit of spending only what is approved through voter referendum.

Doesn't seem like eminent domain, at least in its contemporary iteration, would fly.

Coming home just now, I heard 1.5 interesting interviews on CNN, both in regards to Clinton.

The first interview, I don't know who was the interviewer or who was the interviewee, but it was mid-interview. (paraphrasing as best as I can)
Interviewer: You sent me some nice emails over the years.
Interviewee: Yes but they were "happy birthday, good job, etc." and he goes on to say "but there's a difference between friendly emails and collusion!"
That was a good point to make and the interviewer pretty much had nothing to say about it.

On to the second interview, the host had Dan Rather lined up.

Interviewer: Is there a media bias?
Rather: Yes, there is some bias.
Rather goes on to equate it to "whining to the referees"

I turned the channel thinking that the host didn't quite get the reactions and/or safe answers he was looking for. Dan Rather did try to make a go of it, but think through his reference to whining to the referees. Usually there are good reasons to whine to/about the refs, as anybody who saw the uncalled PI on Penn State last night.

But at least the media, in and of itself, is starting to admit that a bias exists for Clinton. I think that's a good start and I'm glad it happened on CNN. At least with CNN opening up to admitting things (or their guests) it carries more weight than with a network such as MSNBC.

If anybody knows media bias, it's Dan "fake word document" Rather.