Why not? It starts with tactical nuclear weapons but escalates from there. He evidently has no idea what a Pandora's box the nuclear arsenal is.
Why not? It starts with tactical nuclear weapons but escalates from there. He evidently has no idea what a Pandora's box the nuclear arsenal is.Are you really fearful that in the unlikely event Trump is elected pres, he would actually use nuclear weapons?
What is misinformed and/or crazy about voting for Johnson, especially for people that live in strong (D) or (R) states?
I'm kinda curious about why I should care about Trump/Putin/Crimea when Libya was a far more successful nation than Ukraine has ever been, and when Hillary gloated about her involvement in toppling it, and blamed its citizens for why it's still in disarray.
Frankly, being in California, whether I and many others stay home, makes no difference. California stays blue no matter what we do. There is not even a remote chance of Republicans changing that. I'm going with Johnson, but it's not going to matter.
So you #feelthejohnson? :biggrin:
I know it sounds funny. But...#feelthebern seemed like a disease.
Then they will ONLY pander to big states. Nobody would bother to even campaign in say RI or ID.But if their was no EC than everyones vote would matter equally no matter where you lived and politicians couldnt just pander to like 10 states.
I know it sounds funny. But...#feelthebern seemed like a disease.
Then they will ONLY pander to big states. Nobody would bother to even campaign in say RI or ID.
Then they will ONLY pander to big states. Nobody would bother to even campaign in say RI or ID.
That type of political power system is inherently unstable. The more populous state will have more power which will lead to more population which will lead to more power etc.
In a well designed system, you avoid these type of positive feedback. This is strictly from looking at it from scientific way. Personally, I would be very pleased if GOP never wins another election ever.
So, uhh, Feel the Johnson, or what?
So are you saying that Libya wasn't in turmoil when we assisted our allies to topple Gaddafi?
I wouldn't vote for someone who so blatantly panders to the anti-vaccine crowd.leaning towards Stein
You cannot believe she is an honest and truthful person? Ignoring everything for the last 2 decades and just looking at the last few months, exactly how many times has she lied just about the email issues? Ignore any legal issues with what she may have done or did not do, there is at least 5 or 6 things she lied about.
(1) Emails were used just to communicate with Bill. Bill does not use email.
(2) No marked as classified email ever when through her server. Several marked as
classified or higher were found.
(3) All email was turned over to those investigating. All of them were turned over, except for the 30000 she deleted.
(4)And when asked if she had permission to run her own server, she stated she asked and was given permission. That request was never submitted or granted.
That is just 4 outright bold faced lies about a simple thing that even you have to acknowledge. There is no dispute of these things, they are fact, not something made up by some back room group of "small-minded republicans bent on getting rid of Hillary. In my book when someone lies to you about something so simple to prove, they have and or will lie to you in the future.
To those considering a third party vote: think very carefully. Remember Ralph Nader and Ross Perot.
I "Felt the Bern" during the primaries. I've liked Jill Stien in the past, but some of her more recent statements give me pause. I'm not against voting for third parties, but voting third party for president is not only too risky, it is mathematically equivalent to throwing your vote away when considering the electoral college. If you reject the two main parties, go ahead and vote third party for all the downballot races. Your vote can make a difference there and pave the way for future change.
You do realize that not all lies are created equal, right? These are insignificant in the grand scheme of things, as they hardly effect anyone residing in the real world.
Here's a lie that you know effects people in a significant way: "I will pay you the mutually agreed upon amount for goods/services you provide." Just ask many of Trump's employees, business partners, and contractors how that ends up.
Hillary does have her baggage, but that is no reason to vote for someone exponentially worse by any metric you pick.
I'm not really sure how to respond to this. Those glasses must be pretty pink to see Hillary's lies in that light.
National secretes in the hands of those who would do us harm, possible information that other nations could use to blackmail the President of the United States, information about troop movements that have the potential to kill hundreds of our service members, if not more. Please don't confuse me with a Trump supporter, his stand on other nations are just as damaging as Clinton's.
Why do you believe any of that resided in her emails? It seems people have went to town with their own speculations of what happened.
Here are some facts for you directly from Comey:
But "a lot of what ended up on Secretary Clinton's server ... had been forwarded up the chain ... and then she comment[ed] sometimes on it," Comey told the House committee.
"In most circumstances, it initiated with aides starting the conversation," he said. Only one conversation — consisting of several email chains — involved top-secret information, and "Secretary Clinton not only received but sent e-mails talking about the [top secret] subject."
...
In fact, he said, three emails on Clinton's server had a paragraph "summariz[ing] something" and included a C in parentheses at the beginning of it, indicating the paragraph contained information "classified at the confidential level, which is the lowest level of classification."
But those paragraphs were "down in the body" of the emails, and "none of the emails had headers at the top of the document that said it's classified," Comey said. Because of the improper absence of such headers, it "would be ... reasonable" for Clinton to think the emails did not contain classified information, or she may have missed the C markings buried in the tens of thousands of other emails exchanged, he acknowledged.
Even if she did notice the markings, "I think it's possible — possible — that she didn't understand what a C meant when she saw it in the body of the e-mail like that," he said
Well seeing how we don't know that the - at least 8 email chains that contained “information that was top secret at the time they were sent.” (Comeys words) - contained, and no one has seen fit to release that info, I'm going to assume that its not for public consumption and could have the potential to cause issues down the road. If you want to believe they do not......Why do you believe any of that resided in her emails? It seems people have went to town with their own speculations of what happened.
Here are some facts for you directly from Comey:
But "a lot of what ended up on Secretary Clinton's server ... had been forwarded up the chain ... and then she comment[ed] sometimes on it," Comey told the House committee.
"In most circumstances, it initiated with aides starting the conversation," he said. Only one conversation — consisting of several email chains — involved top-secret information, and "Secretary Clinton not only received but sent e-mails talking about the [top secret] subject."
...
In fact, he said, three emails on Clinton's server had a paragraph "summariz[ing] something" and included a C in parentheses at the beginning of it, indicating the paragraph contained information "classified at the confidential level, which is the lowest level of classification."
But those paragraphs were "down in the body" of the emails, and "none of the emails had headers at the top of the document that said it's classified," Comey said. Because of the improper absence of such headers, it "would be ... reasonable" for Clinton to think the emails did not contain classified information, or she may have missed the C markings buried in the tens of thousands of other emails exchanged, he acknowledged.
Even if she did notice the markings, "I think it's possible — possible — that she didn't understand what a C meant when she saw it in the body of the e-mail like that," he said