Don't forget living in NYC and NJ, he has been constantly in the local media for the last 30 years ... like I said, I can't stand the person and can't bring myself to vote for him ... kinda like how I can't stand Jim Carrey and won't watch anything he is in!!!
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > Good Morning Brine; > > I semi-understand that. I was never a fan of Trump, especially from back > in the 1980s when he was involved in the USFL. To be honest, I never paid > much attention to him since then. I completely missed him on television > with I think the show is called, "The Apprentice"; and I'm sure that living > down in the South, Trump was not featured in a lot of our media or the > culture down here. > > I have never seen the media in such a frenzy as they are in this election > cycle. It's amazing, and you can literally feel the fear of the > establishment media, as well as the politicians who feel threatened by > Donald Trump. > > For, this issue alone, I love Trump! Last night, one of the > "#NeverTrump" supporters; a Congressman from Kansas, Tim Huelskamp, was > defeated in the Kansas primary. What's significant about this primary > election, is that Huelskamp was an outspoken "#NeverTrumper; an avid Ted > Cruz supporter and had been popular up until the last month or so. > > I feel the same will happen to John McCain and possibly even Paul Ryan. > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Brian Bednarek <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. >> > > -- > -- > 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.
