Defending the Undefendable.

[countryclubjoe]

There are more choices than two. There is a respectable person going to be on every ballot in the election. IMO since Trump cannot win, a vote on him is a wasted opportunity to make a strong showing for a 3rd party. Slither out from under the refuse pile that is the two party scam and let your voice ring out that you will no longer support the vile, corrupt system.

+100000000000

 

[utbagpiper]

There are more choices than two. There is a respectable person going to be on every ballot in the election. IMO since Trump cannot win, a vote on him is a wasted opportunity to make a strong showing for a 3rd party. Slither out from under the refuse pile that is the two party scam and let your voice ring out that you will no longer support the vile, corrupt system.

I think that is exactly what many who support Trump are doing. Whether Trump is or isn't part of the "two party scam" or the "vile, corrupt system" is an interesting discussion. But many who support him believe he isn't and are supporting him for exactly that reason.

Many who do not support him, may well give him their vote so as to oppose Hillary. That is also a perfectly valid reason to cast a vote.

I note that even my usual go-to of the Libertarians are unacceptable to me this year as Gary Johnson is far too hostile to religious freedom to warrant support from anyone who values (all of) the 1st amendment.

This means that none of the top THREE candidates are truly acceptable to me.

I can accept a guy who supports BOTH the right of druggies and perverts to live their lives as they see fit as well as my right to live my life as I see fit. But if he supports only the left wingers' rights while subordinating my rights to their whims, that is a non starter for me. Not to mention the fact that he is a little soft on RKBA for a Libertarian.

That leaves a "4th party" candidate. Some may be great. Others may be nuts. How does one know given the absence of vetting for most such "also rans"? If you do know, great. But it isn't like it is just the two (or three) major parties whose candidates have a habit of saying one thing and doing another or having some rather unpleasant skeletons in their closets.

My opinion:

If you live in a solidly red or blue State such that your vote is extremely unlikely to change the outcome of the electoral results: Vote for the best possible candidate you can determine, without any concern about strategic voting.

If, however, you live in a swing State, I think a person ought to give some real thought to whether they prefer the worst of two evils over the proverbial "lessor of two evils".

I also tend to wonder about anyone who attacks one side as being unacceptable, while not pointing out how unacceptable the other candidate is. If countryclubjoe wants to assail on Trump for his bad conduct, while giving Hillary a pass on hers, I have to wonder what his real motives are.

Charles

 

[countryclubjoe]

Trump, I am a victim!

 

[countryclubjoe]

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...e-Can%92t-Fix-What%92s-Broken-In-America-Long[/QUOTE

Trump needs to fix the zipper on his trousers first, than practice keeping his big vile mouth shut.

 

[Grapeshot]

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...e-Can%92t-Fix-What%92s-Broken-In-America-Long[/QUOTE

Trump needs to fix the zipper on his trousers first, than practice keeping his big vile mouth shut.

It appears that you are totally convinced that he is guilty as charged - no trial needed, just carry out the sentence.

HRC has been shown to having let her fingers walk through our national security w/o so much as a "go sit in the corner" penalty.

We are not all equal in the media inspired witch hunt.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I note that even my usual go-to of the Libertarians are unacceptable to me this year as Gary Johnson is far too hostile to religious freedom to warrant support from anyone who values (all of) the 1st amendment.

I assume you're talking about his stances on anti-discrimination law. I find this pretty interesting because, if I recall correctly, Gary's reasoning and rationales are actually quite similar to yours. As you well know, I've opposed your reasoning and rationales numerous times over a variety of issues, but of particular interest here is the issue of anti-discrimination law, and Gary's stances are a shining example of why. You oppose him because of the side on which he fell on this sub-issue (one particular segment or instance of anti-discrimination law), yet his stance is precisely the result of employing the same reasoning and rationale you've used to defend anti-discrimination law in the past.

I also tend to wonder about anyone who attacks one side as being unacceptable, while not pointing out how unacceptable the other candidate is. If countryclubjoe wants to assail on Trump for his bad conduct, while giving Hillary a pass on hers, I have to wonder what his real motives are.

I haven't seen any passes being handed out. If the thread topic is Trump, discussion of Hillary's misdeeds might even be considered off topic. I know what you mean here, but I think there is not enough here to seriously suggest any ulterior motive.

 

[countryclubjoe]

It appears that you are totally convinced that he is guilty as charged - no trial needed, just carry out the sentence.

HRC has been shown to having let her fingers walk through our national security w/o so much as a "go sit in the corner" penalty.

We are not all equal in the media inspired witch hunt.

Surly he is guilty in the court of " public opinion"... Along with dividing the Republican party..

The Republican party is at fault here, Mr.Trump should not have made it this far, the fact that the republican party could not find a more suitable, more moral adversary to defeat such a poor democratic representative simply illustrates the weakness of the party.

My .02

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

It appears that you are totally convinced that he is guilty as charged - no trial needed, just carry out the sentence.

Ah come on. You claim Hillary is a felon, without citation, but when it comes to Chump you're worried about a trial?

 

[Grapeshot]

Surly he is guilty in the court of " public opinion"... Along with dividing the Republican party..

The Republican party is at fault here, Mr.Trump should not have made it this far, the fact that the republican party could not find a more suitable, more moral adversary to defeat such a poor democratic representative simply illustrates the weakness of the party.

My .02

Maybe, maybe not. It does remain to be seen.

 

[Grapeshot]

It appears that you are totally convinced that he is guilty as charged - no trial needed, just carry out the sentence.

HRC has been shown to having let her fingers walk through our national security w/o so much as a "go sit in the corner" penalty.

We are not all equal in the media inspired witch hunt.

Surly he is guilty in the court of " public opinion"... Along with dividing the Republican party..

The Republican party is at fault here, Mr.Trump should not have made it this far, the fact that the republican party could not find a more suitable, more moral adversary to defeat such a poor democratic representative simply illustrates the weakness of the party.

My .02

Maybe, maybe not. It does remain to be seen.

Wonder if those so quick to hang Mr. Trump high would do so if it were their butt on the line. Ya think mabe you might want all possibilities considered?

Hot off of the presses:
Mainstream Media Trumpets Trump Sex Scandals – but Allegations Immediately Debunked!

"The first woman was uncovered by the New York Times and her name is Jessica Leeds – Leeds said that Trump sexually assaulted while on a flight some 30 years ago. In fact Leeds told the Times, and later CNN, that Trump was being extremely aggressive and groping and touching her wherever he could, and that the man across the aisle simply watched it all transpire."


"However, the Trump campaign produced the only other witness to the day’s events, a British man by the name of Anthony Gilberthorpe, and his version of the events is completely contradictory to Leeds’."
http://constitution.com/mainstream-...ex-scandals-allegations-immediately-debunked/

 

[countryclubjoe]

It begs the query here, what female member of your family would you indeed feel comfortable thereof, leaving ALONE with Mr. Trump?

Ex- wives excluded.

 

[countryclubjoe]

Wonder if those so quick to hang Mr. Trump high would do so if it were their butt on the line. Ya think mabe you might want all possibilities considered?

Hot off of the presses:
Mainstream Media Trumpets Trump Sex Scandals – but Allegations Immediately Debunked!

"The first woman was uncovered by the New York Times and her name is Jessica Leeds – Leeds said that Trump sexually assaulted while on a flight some 30 years ago. In fact Leeds told the Times, and later CNN, that Trump was being extremely aggressive and groping and touching her wherever he could, and that the man across the aisle simply watched it all transpire."




"However, the Trump campaign produced the only other witness to the day’s events, a British man by the name of Anthony Gilberthorpe, and his version of the events is completely contradictory to Leeds’."
http://constitution.com/mainstream-...ex-scandals-allegations-immediately-debunked/

The video recordings of his so called locker room banter will be his demise. Any and all conversations with a scum bag named " Howard Stern" should disqualify one from holding the highest office in the land.

My .02

 

[countryclubjoe]

Ah come on. You claim Hillary is a felon, without citation, but when it comes to Chump you're worried about a trial?

Indeed.. + 10000000000

When character and morals are the subject of discourse for the highest office in the land, " Public Opinion" is the Supreme Court..

My .02
Regards

 

[Grapeshot]

The video recordings of his so called locker room banter will be his demise. Any and all conversations with a scum bag named " Howard Stern" should disqualify one from holding the highest office in the land.

My .02

Glad that not everyone is so rigidly opinionated and that they can keep an open mind.

 

[Grapeshot]

It begs the query here, what female member of your family would you indeed feel comfortable thereof, leaving ALONE with Mr. Trump?

Ex- wives excluded.

No meeting with anyone (judge in courtroom excepted) will occur w/o at least audio recording, in some instances with video too.

 

[Grapeshot]

Regarding he said, she said:

Go back and read the link on post #98 on this thread.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ending-the-Undefendable&p=2204208#post2204208

 

[countryclubjoe]

Glad that not everyone is so rigidly opinionated and that they can keep an open mind.

Indeed, the greatness of living in America, where liberty of opinion and thought along with freedom of speech can be argued intelligently and not be censored due in part to a simple disagreement.

My .02
Regards
CCJ

 

[WalkingWolf]

It begs the query here, what female member of your family would you indeed feel comfortable thereof, leaving ALONE with Mr. Trump?

Ex- wives excluded.

I have seen no evidence that Trump would be a danger to any of my family members. Plus mine can take care of themselves. Try again because I am still voting for Trump, you are wasting your time, as I would be if I were trying to turn you away from Hillary.

 

[OC for ME]

Hi WW

I have stated in previous post, Hilary is a world class liar, Trump is the Anti-Christ.. Neither deserve to run our Country however we need to decide the less of both evils..

Now are you going to defend Mr. Trump aka Aaron Burr, or are you going to deflect the attention to Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Clinton in the same way that the misogynist Mr. Trump deflected unto them?

Always a pleasure Sir!

Regards

Trump can defend himself. We have but two realistic choices, one will be elected to the presidency. Your charge is to figure out which side of history you want your posterity to be subjected to.

We know not what Trump will do. We know what Clinton will do.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Is electing the next president the only thing our voting does? You could say it's the primary thing. But maybe it'd be valuable to look at the totality of the consequences of the totality of the election results. Or maybe not, maybe it'd be better to narrowly train out minds to keep focused within the box which has been crafted specially for us.