As I have stated in the past, I personally despise the man and have since the 80s ... he's an arrogant child of privilege who gamed the system ... I can't bear to even see him on TV he annoys me!!! It may be petty, but it's how I feel ... Same as I hate the Clintons for their gaming the system and being assholes where everything the do is in a grey area legally!!!
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > What is it that you oppose about Donald Trump? > > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Brian Bednarek <[email protected]> wrote: > >> He's still better than Hillary or Trump!!! Sadly only Congress is in >> power and needs to be changed, but they keep going back and doing the same >> shit year after year!!! >> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Gary Johnson on Open Borders: >>> >>> http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Gary_Johnson_Immigration.htm >>> >>> >>> Gary Johnson on government funded abortion: >>> >>> http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Gary_Johnson_Abortion.htm >>> >>> ====================================== >>> >>> >>> http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435704/gary-johnson-libertarian-party-2016-conservatives >>> >>> ‘Never Gary Johnson’: He’s Not Conservative and Not Even All That >>> Libertarian Johnson at CPAC 2016 (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) SHARE ARTICLE ON >>> FACEBOOKSHARE TWEET ARTICLETWEET PLUS ONE ARTICLE ON GOOGLE PLUS+1 PRINT >>> ARTICLE ADJUST FONT SIZEAA by JAMES SPILLER May 23, 2016 4:00 AM Write in a >>> name if you must, but don’t be misled by the label ‘Libertarian.’ What to >>> do? The awfulness of Donald Trump and the awfulness of Hillary Clinton can >>> make conservative Republicans feel helpless. We shouldn’t. We still have >>> the power to do tremendous good — or harm. Whoever wins, we have lost this >>> presidential election, but we may still end up with most of the >>> governorships and control of most state legislatures. If we lose Congress, >>> we’ll likely get it back in the midterm. The triumphant return of >>> conservatism at the presidential level has been postponed, but not >>> permanently. Trump supporters might say we have nothing to lose, but we do >>> — this is still the greatest country on earth. One way to help lose >>> American conservatism would be to support Gary Johnson, the Libertarian >>> party’s presumptive nominee for president. There are many responses to that >>> assertion. The most common is “What’s the worst he would do, leave us >>> alone?” The assumption is that someone whose label is “Libertarian” has >>> libertarian values and would promote them in office. In the case of >>> Johnson, that notion is absurd. When Johnson took the tiller in New Mexico >>> in 1995, the budget stood at $4.397 billion. When he left in 2003, it had >>> grown to $7.721 billion, an increase of 7.29 percent a year. Of the eleven >>> governors who filed to run for president this year (two Democrats, Johnson, >>> and eight Republicans), only one had a worse record on spending growth. In >>> New Mexico, Bill Richardson, Johnson’s Democratic successor, clocked in a >>> little better than he did, but Richardson’s successor, Susana Martinez, has >>> shown what a fiscal conservative looks like: New Mexico currently spends >>> less than it did when she took office. It’s not just at a state level that >>> being more fiscally conservative than Johnson is a bipartisan achievement. >>> Federal spending during the time Johnson was in office grew at an average >>> annual rate of 4.49 percent. Late Clinton and early Bush weren’t as >>> successful in their efforts to fight spending cuts as they might have been, >>> but Johnson makes them look like Coolidge, and federal spending since then >>> has grown at an average annual rate of 4.56 percent. The assumption is that >>> someone whose label is ‘Libertarian’ has libertarian values and would >>> promote them in office. In the case of Johnson, that notion is absurd. >>> Johnson also claims to have balanced the budget every year, but what he >>> means by this is that he complied with the New Mexico constitution, which >>> as a practical matter prohibits operational spending deficits. New Mexico’s >>> debt is required to be off the books, or at least off those books, in a >>> separate “capital outlay” budget. This means that of course his >>> operating budgets were balanced; New Mexico makes the alternative >>> impossible. The capital outlays are considered “balanced” if it is believed >>> that they can likely be paid for in the future, and rosy assumptions are >>> permitted. It’s as if you or I claimed to be debt-free because our current >>> account, which does not allow for overdrafts, had no overdrafts, despite >>> our taking out ever more maxed-out credit cards and making minimum payments >>> on each. In the sense that Johnson says he balanced the budgets, every >>> president and Congress in history has passed balanced federal budgets 100 >>> percent of the time. In fact, Johnson inherited a debt of $1.8 billion and >>> left a debt of $4.6 billion, a rate of increase unmatched by the 22 >>> governors in either party who have filed for presidential primaries in the >>> past two decades, with the exception of Governor Tom Vilsack (D., Iowa) in >>> 2007. During every year that Johnson, as he says, balanced the budget, he >>> added to the debt. As with so many big-government types, government growth >>> under his administration was greater not only quantitatively but >>> qualitatively. That is, he expanded government into new and illegitimate >>> areas. Most notably, he created a new form of the refundable tax credit, a >>> film subsidy that has since spread like a cancer across America. Plenty of >>> other governors imitated Johnson’s pattern of buying publicity, including >>> photo opportunities with celebrities, by paying, cash down, for filmmakers >>> to move out of some other state; traditional subsidies just weren’t >>> generous enough to enable states to compete. Like Trump this cycle, >>> Johnson in 2012 proposed cartoonish plans to cut spending. Trump promises >>> to achieve savings of more than 100 percent on various costs; Johnson >>> promised a less radical-sounding, but still implausible, 43 percent budget >>> cut in the first year. Like Trump, he demonstrates no interest in even the >>> vaguest outlines of fiscal policy. Johnson would turn much of the >>> government over to the states and make them make the cuts. Fine. But he >>> showed no interest, either, in detailing the cuts he promised to defense or >>> to the federal court system. His Social Security cuts were on the order of >>> a few percent at most in the first year. No one who seriously wants to cut >>> spending thinks that a 43 percent cut — which would entail costs associated >>> with, for example, closing bases — followed by stasis in subsequent years >>> makes more sense than, say, a 35 percent cut in year one followed by a 15 >>> percent cut in year two. In 2016, Johnson has forgotten all that. His >>> promises on spending extend all the way to the promise to balance the >>> budget. Again, he gives little detail. The section “Government Spending” on >>> his campaign website includes the false and hypocritical claim that debt >>> repeatedly doubled under Obama and Bush. (It only nearly did so; the >>> multipliers are 1.86 for Bush, 1.81 for Obama so far, and 2.53 for Johnson >>> as governor.) Here, the closest thing to a spending policy is Johnson’s >>> stated commitment to look at the budget closely, veto any budget with a >>> deficit, and pass a balanced budget. The focus of Johnson’s fiscal policy >>> can be found under “Taxes,” a different section of his website. There he >>> makes his case for a a consumption tax. The closest parallel can probably >>> be found in Mike Huckabee’s 2008 campaign, which was heavy on the FairTax >>> and also also light on spending cuts. On public financing of political >>> campaigns, the one issue on which Johnson has gone into significant detail, >>> he said in 2012 that he would increase spending. The biggest >>> Libertarian-party message of 2012 was “Vote Libertarian one time.” If the >>> party got 5 percent of the vote in 2012, it would have qualified for public >>> funding for its private political speech in 2016 and would have been the >>> only political party to receive this uniquely anti-libertarian subsidy. >>> (The two major parties raise too much money to qualify for funding for the >>> presidential campaign.) This cycle, Johnson has not addressed the >>> public-funding issue, but he does address the problem of the major parties’ >>> having access to inordinate private funds, aligning himself with Sanders on >>> the larger issue of campaign finance. Those of you with keen memories will >>> note, incidentally, the discrepancy between his pro-choice rhetoric in this >>> video and his moderate pro-life rhetoric when in a Republican debate four >>> years ago. His campaign site takes the middle road: It notes the >>> late-term-abortion ban (although not the counseling requirement) that he >>> supported as governor and that he told Republicans about, but those >>> positions are described in the past tense, without any indication of his >>> current position. Whatever you believe the principled libertarian position >>> on abortion is, it probably doesn’t involve telling conservatives that you >>> would increase restrictions and then suggesting to progressives that the >>> practice should be unrestricted. On civil liberties as with fiscal issues, >>> Johnson’s record is less libertarian than that of his successors as >>> governor of New Mexico, and even of most other governors and presidents. >>> Bill Richardson, his immediate successor, introduced concealed carry. >>> Susana Martinez succeeded Richardson and got rid of civil-asset forfeiture. >>> Johnson’s successors enacted sound libertarian reforms, including measures >>> against eminent-domain abuse and Johnson’s government involvement in >>> markets. This cycle, Johnson has declared against freedom of association >>> for bakers and florists. Other than supporting drug legalization, in which >>> he has a substantial personal financial interest, there appears to be very >>> little in his record or agenda that National Review readers would find >>> appealing. Some argue that one has a moral duty to vote for a candidate on >>> the ballot rather than write in a name. Johnson will be on the ballot in >>> all fifty states, but his participation in the general election will be no >>> more sincere than his effort four years ago to secure the Republican >>> nomination. Rather, he has repeatedly used the electoral process to enhance >>> his personal standing and now seeks to use it to build a patronage machine. >>> He claims that the machine pursues libertarian ends, but it does not >>> restrict itself to them and has never achieved them. Not only does >>> Johnson’s faction seek the anti-libertarian objective of public campaign >>> funding, but it tilts elections to Democrats. The potential negative impact >>> of the Libertarian party can be clearly seen in the election for the U.S. >>> Senate in Minnesota in 2008. Al Franken beat Norm Coleman by 215 votes, >>> with the Libertarian party netting 13,916 votes for a candidate focused on >>> economic issues, particularly drilling. A little more than a year later, >>> Obamacare passed with 60 votes, Franken providing the 60th. With public >>> funds and a professional ground game diverting votes, who knows what >>> Congress might pass? As Libertarian-party activists like to say, don’t vote >>> for the lesser evil. If you want a libertarian, please consider writing in >>> Janice Rogers Brown or Penn Jillette. If you want someone who isn’t a >>> barbarian, please consider Mitch Daniels. By all means, give up on this >>> year’s presidential race if you must, but please don’t throw away 2020. — >>> James Spiller is an attorney living in Washington, D.C. He writes on >>> Ricochet.com as James of England. >>> >>> Read more at: >>> http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435704/gary-johnson-libertarian-party-2016-conservatives >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 4:46 PM, plainolamerican < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> You keep on hoping that the masses of Americans don't turn out in force >>>> Plain Ol! >>>> --- >>>> they will and will send a message to Trump and his supports that >>>> xenophobic, homophobic, misogynist, asshole warmongers are not wanted in >>>> America. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 11:42:39 AM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hah! >>>>> >>>>> You keep on hoping that the masses of Americans don't turn out in >>>>> force Plain Ol! I just watched President Obama give a plea in a Presser >>>>> with the PM of Singapore, claiming that Trump wasn't qualified. The >>>>> desperation would be semi-humorous if it weren't so important! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 10:41 AM, plainolamerican <[email protected] >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Columbus, Ohio (CNN)Donald Trump on Monday took his complaints about >>>>>> the "rigged" political system one step further. >>>>>> "I'm afraid the election's going to be rigged. I have to be honest," >>>>>> Trump told voters in Ohio, a crucial swing state. >>>>>> Trump's comments Monday came as he decried Vermont Sen. Bernie >>>>>> Sanders for endorsing Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary, even as >>>>>> some Sanders supporters have continued to resist unifying behind the >>>>>> nominee. Trump has sought to siphon off Sanders supporters and draw them >>>>>> to >>>>>> his campaign. >>>>>> <http://www.cnn.com/specials/politics/cnn-politics-data-app/index.html> >>>>>> Trump added that he has heard "more and more" that the November >>>>>> election will be rigged -- suggesting to his supporters that the outcome >>>>>> of >>>>>> the election is out of the hands of voters. >>>>>> Trump during the primary repeatedly slammed the "rigged system" he >>>>>> claimed was working against his campaign to capture the Republican >>>>>> nomination for president. He then pivoted to using that language to decry >>>>>> the nomination process on the left, accusing the Democratic Party of >>>>>> colluding with the Clinton campaign to keep Sanders from winning that >>>>>> party's nomination. >>>>>> >>>>>> Trump's comments during the primary bolstered the impression that >>>>>> Trump, a political outsider, was leading the charge against a corrupt >>>>>> political system. >>>>>> But his latest comments could hurt Trump's general election campaign >>>>>> as his supporters might decide not to turn out to vote if the election is >>>>>> already "rigged" against their candidate. >>>>>> Trump continued with the "rigged" theme during a Monday night >>>>>> interview on Fox News. Appearing on "Hannity," the Republican nominee >>>>>> suggested the potential for foul play in November. Trump pointed to the >>>>>> 2012 presidential election as a cause for concern. >>>>>> "I've been hearing about it for a long time," Trump said. "And I know >>>>>> last time, there were -- you had precincts where there was practically >>>>>> nobody voting for the Republican. And I think that's wrong. I think that >>>>>> was unfair, frankly" for 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney. >>>>>> "I'm telling you, November 8, we'd better be careful, because that >>>>>> election is going to be rigged," Trump added. "And I hope the Republicans >>>>>> are watching closely or it's going to be taken away from us." >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>>>> >>>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>> >>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>> >>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> brine >> http://brineb.blogspot.com/ >> >> -- >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- brine http://brineb.blogspot.com/ -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
