Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Whembly, I don't know if you've ever been to the North of England, but its a really nice area, beautiful scenery, and of course, Hadrian's Wall is there.

Now, Hadrian's Wall is a very impressive feat of engineering, and it has a fascinating history behind it.

It took the Romans a lot of years, and a lot of money to build this, with the best technology available at the time. The terrain in that part of the world is difficult, and even with slave labour and no Health and Safety, it still cost a lot of money...

When you visit that wall, you're reminded of that. From the West Coast of England, to the East Coast, where the wall runs, is one hell of a distance, but its nothing compared to America's border with Mexico

Even if Trump gave the go ahead, even if Mexico agreed to pay, the time, the cost, the terrain to overcome...

It would cost billions, take years...and you could still fly over it or go round by boat

It's so impractical as to be a non-starter...

The Channel Tunnel between Britain and France cost a jaw dropping amount of cash, but it paid for itself becuase the trade that goes back and forth is huge.

How is a giant wall going to pay for itself, or help trade?

I still can't believe this idea is being seriously entertained.

Hell, you don't even have to go that far back in history, just only about 50 years back to Berlin. The Berlin Wall was about 91 miles long, and one of the most heavily guarded and monitored walls in history...and people still got through. The US/Mexico border is about 1,989 miles long. Add to that the fact that 90% of the skilled construction labor within a 3 state radius of the border is of that very same demographic that will be offended by the very existence of the wall (if not also among those that will be kicked out), so won't work on it for anything less than a king's ransom. But common sense has never been a strong point among Trump supporters...

 whembly wrote:
"Clinton stated deliberation over a future drone strike did not give her cause for concern regarding classification"


So... it's either Hillary was too dumb to figure this out, or she's simply incompetent.

Great job 'Murrica... this nincompoop will be our next Commander in Chief.

...

Or you are biased against Clinton.

Trump would never "deliberate" about anything.

The Wall.....

I never thought Republicans would be the ones asking to bring back the WPA and the CCC?

Given the news about Trump's visit to the President of Mexico, I have concluded that Trump simply confabulates whatever seems like a good idea at the moment he is speaking.

Considering the production capability of the USA, I am sure you could "Build That Wall" especially if commissioned to Trump Industries, but don't you think the money would be better spent on something useful like 15 nuclear fleet carriers or a colony on Mars?

Maybe it could be used for social psychology research into how to make people less racist.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:
"Clinton stated deliberation over a future drone strike did not give her cause for concern regarding classification"


So... it's either Hillary was too dumb to figure this out, or she's simply incompetent.

Great job 'Murrica... this nincompoop will be our next Commander in Chief.

...

Or you are biased against Clinton.

How is "I don't recall" a defense for a Presidential candidate?

How can one justify Clinton's statement that, under penalty of perjury, she turned over every single work-related email... yet, the FBI recovered thousands of work related emails that were bleachbitz'ed on her email server.

Trump would never "deliberate" about anything.

This isn't about Trump... stop deflecting.

This isn't a binary election. (yes, the outcome is binary, but no one is forcing me to pick between Trump & Clinton)

Besides, my vote is still on either #TeamJohnson or #TeamMcMullin

EDIT: I was concuss'ed... I meant Johnson, not Trump. False alarm Trumpining Betters.

 whembly wrote:

How is "I don't recall" a defense for a Presidential candidate?

It may not be great for a candidate, but I recall it working pretty well for President Reagan.

squidhills wrote:

 whembly wrote:

How is "I don't recall" a defense for a Presidential candidate?

It may not be great for a candidate, but I recall it working pretty well for President Reagan.

Difference being here is that Reagan was asked the WHEN/WHAT his staff approached him about certain information and how that tied to his address to the nation.

Hillary, in contrast, was over she received a briefing or training on how to handle classified info:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/hillary-signed-she-received-briefing-on-classified-info-but-told-fbi-she-hadnt/article/2004146

Yet, she signed a document affirming that she had "received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information."

Either way, it feeds into the narrative that rules don't apply to her.

The reason the wall shouldn't be built isn't because of cost or logistics it's because claiming that a wall is the solution presupposes that the reason people illegally cross our southern border is because there isn't a giant physical impediment in their way. The reason people illegally immigrate is because US labor policy and immigration policy incentivizes the behavior and building a wall doesn't do anything to change that. I don't go to my job because there isn't a wall stopping me and if a wall was built I would simply find a way to circumvent it so I could continue earning a living. The wall itself is red herring the distracts from the real problems with our policies, policies that coincidentally favor corporations and developers like Trump and those he does business with along with benefitting state and local govts and a demographic group that is a strong Democrat constituency.

I admit I like the idea of a physical barrier on the southern border. Ideally one that a person can't go a 100 feet down the way to walk around, and that I favor technology on said wall to help monitor things, as well as the severe crack down on anyone knowingly hiring illegals (can anyone say minimum 50yr prison sentences). But, I also admit I am highly and irrationally biased against them ever since one murdered my cousin and the Houston police didn't even bother to detain her becuase, "she is illegal and it wouldn't do any good." I know a wall or fence is practical really. But, I wish SOMETHING would be done that didn't REWARD people for bad behavior. But I guess that is unreasonable too.

Honest question for you Whembly, and I dont mean this in any sort of negative way;

Theoretically, if you were biased against Clinton and viewing her in a worse light than she actually is, how would you know?

 whembly wrote:

squidhills wrote:

 whembly wrote:

How is "I don't recall" a defense for a Presidential candidate?

It may not be great for a candidate, but I recall it working pretty well for President Reagan.

Difference being here is that Reagan was asked the WHEN/WHAT his staff approached him about certain information and how that tied to his address to the nation.

Hillary, in contrast, was over she received a briefing or training on how to handle classified info:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/hillary-signed-she-received-briefing-on-classified-info-but-told-fbi-she-hadnt/article/2004146

Yet, she signed a document affirming that she had "received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information."

Either way, it feeds into the narrative that rules don't apply to her.

I'm sure she signed a lot of documents in May 2015 (or is that November 2015? You Americans and your silly month then day format ) and since then, too. I can't remember every document I signed in the past year and I didn't sign anywhere near as many as she would have.

 NorseSig wrote:
But, I also admit I am highly and irrationally biased against them ever since one murdered my cousin and the Houston police didn't even bother to detain her becuase, "she is illegal and it wouldn't do any good." .

I believe that last part wholly and completely.

 NorseSig wrote:
(can anyone say minimum 50yr prison sentences).

No. Mandatory minimums are one of the (many) things wrong with our criminal justice system, especially for nonviolent offenses.

But, I also admit I am highly and irrationally biased against them ever since one murdered my cousin and the Houston police didn't even bother to detain her becuase, "she is illegal and it wouldn't do any good."

I'm not saying that I don't believe you or that the police wouldn't say something like that... oh wait, yes I am. Never mind.

It doesn't really matter what is found out about hillary. Her followers will still vote for her. Just like trumps followers will vote for him no matter what is found.

 whembly wrote:

How is "I don't recall" a defense for a Presidential candidate?

Did you even bother to read that article, or did you just latch onto the bit at the end of the first sentence regarding her inability to recall?

Because the article is not an attempt to prove what you clearly are.

 whembly wrote:

Difference being here is that Reagan was asked the WHEN/WHAT his staff approached him about certain information and how that tied to his address to the nation.

Hillary, in contrast, was over she received a briefing or training on how to handle classified info:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/hillary-signed-she-received-briefing-on-classified-info-but-told-fbi-she-hadnt/article/2004146

They're not that different, really. Both were asked questions regarding what they were briefed about, and when they were briefed about it.

yellowfever wrote:
It doesn't really matter what is found out about hillary. Her followers will still vote for her. Just like trumps followers will vote for him no matter what is found.

I don't know that this is really true on either side of the fence. I intend to vote for Hillary, but there are any number of things she could do that would make me go third party, and the way Trump has been bleeding support, clearly not only is it possible, it's happening somewhat.

yellowfever wrote:
It doesn't really matter what is found out about hillary. Her followers will still vote for her. Just like trumps followers will vote for him no matter what is found.

Interesting theory, but it remains untested. You could test that is by actually finding something against Clinton. And I mean an actual, real thing, not just another allegation from conservative stupid noise machine. But its been 25 years and the best anyone has found is a breach of information security, so its probably unlikely there's anything real to find.

But by all means if someone finds something really meaningful then we will get to test your theory.

 sebster wrote:

yellowfever wrote:
It doesn't really matter what is found out about hillary. Her followers will still vote for her. Just like trumps followers will vote for him no matter what is found.

Interesting theory, but it remains untested. You could test that is by actually finding something against Clinton. And I mean an actual, real thing, not just another allegation from conservative stupid noise machine. But its been 25 years and the best anyone has found is a breach of information security, so its probably unlikely there's anything real to find.

But by all means if someone finds something really meaningful then we will get to test your theory.

There is some truth that there are some voters who'd vote for Clinton no matter what. But, that's not unique...

Her biggest advantages over Trump is the perceived competence and qualification for high office. That FBI report is simply devestating...

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Whembly, I don't know if you've ever been to the North of England, but its a really nice area, beautiful scenery, and of course, Hadrian's Wall is there.

Now, Hadrian's Wall is a very impressive feat of engineering, and it has a fascinating history behind it.

It took the Romans a lot of years, and a lot of money to build this, with the best technology available at the time. The terrain in that part of the world is difficult, and even with slave labour and no Health and Safety, it still cost a lot of money...

When you visit that wall, you're reminded of that. From the West Coast of England, to the East Coast, where the wall runs, is one hell of a distance, but its nothing compared to America's border with Mexico

Even if Trump gave the go ahead, even if Mexico agreed to pay, the time, the cost, the terrain to overcome...

It would cost billions, take years...and you could still fly over it or go round by boat

It's so impractical as to be a non-starter...

The Channel Tunnel between Britain and France cost a jaw dropping amount of cash, but it paid for itself becuase the trade that goes back and forth is huge.

How is a giant wall going to pay for itself, or help trade?

I still can't believe this idea is being seriously entertained.

Hell, you don't even have to go that far back in history, just only about 50 years back to Berlin. The Berlin Wall was about 91 miles long, and one of the most heavily guarded and monitored walls in history...and people still got through. The US/Mexico border is about 1,989 miles long. Add to that the fact that 90% of the skilled construction labor within a 3 state radius of the border is of that very same demographic that will be offended by the very existence of the wall (if not also among those that will be kicked out), so won't work on it for anything less than a king's ransom. But common sense has never been a strong point among Trump supporters...

Exactly. This whole wall idea is ripe for satire and parody, but where is it? Why isn't Clinton jumping over this? Trump hasn't doubled down on dumbness, he's quadrupled down


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
The Wall.....

I never thought Republicans would be the ones asking to bring back the WPA and the CCC?

And Frazz is the kind of person who would end up trying to drive a tank through the wall, if ever it were built.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Given the news about Trump's visit to the President of Mexico, I have concluded that Trump simply confabulates whatever seems like a good idea at the moment he is speaking.

Considering the production capability of the USA, I am sure you could "Build That Wall" especially if commissioned to Trump Industries, but don't you think the money would be better spent on something useful like 15 nuclear fleet carriers or a colony on Mars?

Maybe it could be used for social psychology research into how to make people less racist.

If Trump wanted to build one big, mega super highway from Mexico to Canda, that would be a good idea, but this...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The reason the wall shouldn't be built isn't because of cost or logistics it's because claiming that a wall is the solution presupposes that the reason people illegally cross our southern border is because there isn't a giant physical impediment in their way. The reason people illegally immigrate is because US labor policy and immigration policy incentivizes the behavior and building a wall doesn't do anything to change that. I don't go to my job because there isn't a wall stopping me and if a wall was built I would simply find a way to circumvent it so I could continue earning a living. The wall itself is red herring the distracts from the real problems with our policies, policies that coincidentally favor corporations and developers like Trump and those he does business with along with benefitting state and local govts and a demographic group that is a strong Democrat constituency.

If Trump were smart, he's ask, why are migrants entering the USA from Mexico?

Part of that is due to the drugs trade and the wars between the cartel. It would be far cheaper and more effective if drug legalisation was passed in more US states, and an effort was made to help stabilize Mexico.

Instead of sending 250,000 troops to the Middle East, send them to Mexico and wipe out these cartels.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

yellowfever wrote:
It doesn't really matter what is found out about hillary. Her followers will still vote for her. Just like trumps followers will vote for him no matter what is found.

I don't know that this is really true on either side of the fence. I intend to vote for Hillary, but there are any number of things she could do that would make me go third party, and the way Trump has been bleeding support, clearly not only is it possible, it's happening somewhat.

Short of setting fire to the Declaration of Independence, or dancing on Washington's grave, I cannot see how Clinton can lose this election.

It's Johnson Vs. Goldwater all over again...

 whembly wrote:

Here biggest advantages over Trump is the perceived competence and qualification for high office. That FBI report is simply devestating...

No, it isn't. You're reading it that way because conservative news sites, that need hits to make money, are telling you what you what you want to hear.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Here biggest advantages over Trump is the perceived competence and qualification for high office. That FBI report is simply devestating...

No, it isn't. You're reading it that way because conservative news sites, that need hits to make money, are telling you what you what you want to hear.

So... you can't argue otherwise, so you take it out on me.

Fact is, she was First Lady for 8 years, Senator for 8 years (of which 6 years was on Senate Committee on Armed Services ), and finally 4 years of Secretary of State.

When shown an email in question by the FBI, she claimed that the emails she received on her homebrew system, that any "(c)"* denotation was simply an alphabetic bullet point.

She's either lying to the FBI or she's an idiot.

One or the other.

So, I repeat myself, one of the biggest arguments to vote for Clinton was being highly qualified and competent. That FBI report, (along with every other relevations) simply destroys those arguments.

*(c) = confidential classification.

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Here biggest advantages over Trump is the perceived competence and qualification for high office. That FBI report is simply devestating...

No, it isn't. You're reading it that way because conservative news sites, that need hits to make money, are telling you what you what you want to hear.

So... you can't argue otherwise, so you take it out on me.

Fact is, she was First Lady for 8 years, Senator for 8 years (of which 6 years was on Senate Committee on Armed Services ), and finally 4 years of Secretary of State.

When shown an email in question by the FBI, she claimed that the emails she received on her homebrew system, that any "(c)"* denotation was simply an alphabetic bullet point.

She's either lying to the FBI or she's an idiot.

One or the other.

So, I repeat myself, one of the biggest arguments to vote for Clinton was being highly qualified and competent. That FBI report, (along with every other relevations) simply destroys those arguments.

*(c) = confidential classification.

No its because you post the same drivel over and over again even when you have been proven wrong (see linking articles just based on their titles only to be proven wrong by the text in said articles) and people are tired of it

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Here biggest advantages over Trump is the perceived competence and qualification for high office. That FBI report is simply devestating...

No, it isn't. You're reading it that way because conservative news sites, that need hits to make money, are telling you what you what you want to hear.

So... you can't argue otherwise, so you take it out on me.

Fact is, she was First Lady for 8 years, Senator for 8 years (of which 6 years was on Senate Committee on Armed Services ), and finally 4 years of Secretary of State.

When shown an email in question by the FBI, she claimed that the emails she received on her homebrew system, that any "(c)"* denotation was simply an alphabetic bullet point.

She's either lying to the FBI or she's an idiot.

One or the other.

So, I repeat myself, one of the biggest arguments to vote for Clinton was being highly qualified and competent. That FBI report, (along with every other relevations) simply destroys those arguments.

*(c) = confidential classification.

No its because you post the same drivel over and over again even when you have been proven wrong (see linking articles just based on their titles only to be proven wrong by the text in said articles) and people are tired of it

Oh!

<pulling a HRC>

You're mistaken, I didn't intend to do those things since my concussion.

 djones520 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Johnson isn't a real trademarked Libertarian, to be fair. For example, he believes in licensures, traffic laws, national defense etc.

I've listened a bit to what he has to say and it's always the message "socially liberal, fiscally conservative".

Really, this basic approach is probably what most people in the US want...I just don't think that Gary Johnson or the Libertarian Party will be the vehicle to make it happen.

More likely post-Trump GOP will finally abandon the religious right, which doesn't seem to be a very powerful voting block anymore as Trump winning the Southern primaries suggested, and adopt the same basic "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" message that Johnson is currently pushing.

Yeah, I honestly think most people in America want what the Libertarians are selling, they are either just ignorant of what they stand for, or are scared off by some of their more fringe beliefs.

I think most American's want the "internet meme" version of Libertarianism, where we can all feel good about self determination and taxation being theft. The problem is that the devil is in the details, and while people are for "Freedom" and against "government regulation" in the abstract, they love it in practice.

I mean, legalized weed and lower taxes is a great pitch. It is. But look at Obamacare. Everybody hates it, except when they're asked about the specifics, they love it, except the individual mandate, which they feel is an incredible invasion of freedom. In other words, people love the idea of regulating things, they just don't like paying more. And that's just how Americans are. People shop at depressing, poorly staffed Walmarts to save a few percent, or fly in incredibly cramped discount airlines to save a few bucks.

and that's why Libertarianism will never really take off. People don't love the gold standard and child labor. They like incredibly safe consumer products and wheelchair accessible restaurants. They just hate paying for them.

 Polonius wrote:
and that's why Libertarianism will never really take off. People don't have the gold standard and child labor. They like incredibly safe consumer products and wheelchair accessible restaurants. They just hate paying for them.

This may be the most succulent comment on Libertarianism I've ever read. Bravo sir.

 whembly wrote:

So... you can't argue otherwise, so you take it out on me.

No, I'm explaining why you believe something which isn't devastating to be devastating.

You're starting from a positive position (FBI report is devastating), I am starting from a negative one (no it is not). The burden of proof falls on you, and the support you have so far produced amounts to right-wing click bait.

 whembly wrote:

She's either lying to the FBI or she's an idiot.

Or the people who briefed her regarding classification policy didn't do a good job, or it didn't really matter because people at that level play fast and loose with regard to classification, or the notation changed since she was last briefed, or she simply didn't pay attention when it came to certain briefings...etc.

You're creating a false choice, Whembly. Honestly, you could stand in for young Trump.

 whembly wrote:

*(c) = confidential classification.

No, it doesn't. Thoguh "(C)" does. See how you got confused making one, insignificant post to a gaming website?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

She's either lying to the FBI or she's an idiot.

Or the people who briefed her regarding classification policy didn't do a good job, or it didn't really matter because people at that level play fast and loose with regard to classification, or the notation changed since she was last briefed, or she simply didn't pay attention when it came to certain briefings...etc.

Nope.

The smartest woman in the world either lied or she's literally a dumbgak.

Have you read the FBI report?
https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton

Or, are you sprouting whatever TPM/Media Matters/Vox tell you to think?

Me? I think she's an intelligent woman who simply lied to the FBI.

You're creating a false choice, Whembly. Honestly, you could stand in for young Trump.

No... you're White Knighting for Clinton.

 whembly wrote:

*(c) = confidential classification.

No, it doesn't. Thoguh "(C)" does. See how you got confused making one, insignificant post to a gaming website?

Again, you are being ridiculous.

 whembly wrote:

The smartest woman in the world either lied or she's literally a dumbgak.

Who called Hillary Clinton the smartest woman in the world? Was it Hillary Clinton, someone in her employ, or someone who needs clicks in order to generate revenue?

Also, you're creating another false choice.

 whembly wrote:

Have you read the FBI report?

Yes. A few times. It was interesting, though my knee didn't jerk because I don't hate Hillary Clinton.

 whembly wrote:

Or, are you sprouting whatever TPM/Media Matters/Vox tell you to think?

And yet another false choice.

Real talk: false choice can work in situations where beating the drums is important. Which it currently is, because the GOP is afraid of losing seats in November. Get people to hate Clinton, for whatever reason, and you get ticks in the other GOP boxes.

 whembly wrote:

No... you're White Knighting for Clinton.

Yeah, when you've been reduced to "white knight" accusations your argument has pretty much failed.

Slightly out of nowhere, but my church started a wonderful sermon series on politics, especially with this particular election being so intense. It's been a wonderful refreshing set of sermons so far, just what I needed.

 whembly wrote:
So... it's either Hillary was too dumb to figure this out, or she's simply incompetent.

Or, you know, you she pushed the rules, got caught, and then told a lie later on to try and move on to something meaningful and minimise the impact the conservative lying machine would make over this.

It isn't good that she pushed the rules, and it isn't good that she lied about it afterwards, but it is what it is. The subsequent efforts of the conservative lying machine to make this in to something far bigger than it ever was is many times more serious to the state of politics and governance than hosting a private server.

People often compare what Clinton did to Powell and Rice's own use of private email. Those are quite direct comparisons, but they're different enough that sufficiently partison people can derail any discussion of why they're treated so differently in the media. I think maybe a more instructive comparison is to Bill Clinton's own scandal. Bill didn't have an email scandal of course, Bill had a penis scandal. Bill didn't just push the rules, he straight up got a blow job and a whole bunch of other affairs, and then he lied about the blowjob later on and got caught about it.

It wasn't a good thing, either the act or the lie, but it also didn't impact the running of the state in any way. Despite this, a certain group of people with very specific partisan loyalties pretended it was the worst thing that could possibly ever happen. Meanwhile Clinton just got on with having a fairly successful presidency. This only made the conservative lying machine even angrier.

I think the comparison to Hillary Clinton's own email scandal is quite telling.

Prestor Jon wrote:
The reason the wall shouldn't be built isn't because of cost or logistics it's because claiming that a wall is the solution presupposes that the reason people illegally cross our southern border is because there isn't a giant physical impediment in their way. The reason people illegally immigrate is because US labor policy and immigration policy incentivizes the behavior and building a wall doesn't do anything to change that. I don't go to my job because there isn't a wall stopping me and if a wall was built I would simply find a way to circumvent it so I could continue earning a living.

Yep. Funnily enough, in the last five years, due to improving conditions in Mexico, there's been a net flow to Mexico, more people returning to Mexico than new migrants entering.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
I believe that last part wholly and completely.

Just because it sounds ludicrous doesn't mean it isn't a deep, personal wound that affects how he sees the world. I have a lot of sympathy for him, actually, because my own cousin was killed by a gang of unicorns and the police did nothing, and when I tell that story on the internet no-one believes me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
There is some truth that there are some voters who'd vote for Clinton no matter what. But, that's not unique...

There is truth in it because there is truth in it for every single politician. Goldwater won 38% of the vote. McGovern won 37%. A party could put up a hamster trained to say only racist things and they would still get more than 35% of the vote.

So the only question is why this claim would be made about only Clinton, when the only reason it is true is when it is true is because it is true of every politician. There is something of a pattern appearing here.

Her biggest advantages over Trump is the perceived competence and qualification for high office. That FBI report is simply devestating...

Clinton's advantages;
Coherent, evidence based policy positions.
Doesn't make racist comments as a matter of routine.
Doesn't court support among the worst parts of humanity, whether it is the leadership of Russia, or the hard right racist fringe of American politics.

And yes, she also has a considerable advantage in competence and experience in office. Which is true even after the FBI said her email security wasn't good enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Exactly. This whole wall idea is ripe for satire and parody, but where is it? Why isn't Clinton jumping over this?

This is the question of the election - where the feth is Clinton? What is she fething doing? Last she turned up and got her face in the media in a serious way, she moved the polls from even to a 10 point lead. Now she appears to have returned to her hermit cave and polls are moving back to a competitive race.

The reason the attacks are working on Clinton isn't because they're good attacks, because they're very silly, but because Clinton is giving the public nothing else. They define Clinton because she's not giving them anything else to define herself by.

If Trump were smart, he's ask, why are migrants entering the USA from Mexico?

Anyone who is smart with notice they're leaving.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
and that's why Libertarianism will never really take off. People don't love the gold standard and child labor. They like incredibly safe consumer products and wheelchair accessible restaurants. They just hate paying for them.

Man that was good.

I will repeat my earlier comments though, that Johnson is moving the libertarian party away from the crazy and conspiracy filled ideology of Ron Paul, and towards something that could actually be a decent replacement for the Republican party. Whether those reforms continue past this election is the first question. Then there's a bigger question about whether such a party actually has a viable base, or if it will end up with the remains of the old Republican establishment and nothing more than that.