Trump had some poor positions on guns back in the day, but he's supposedly reconsidered them and is now pro-2A. Clinton is the most anti-2A candidate ever fielded, by a wide margin. That's a large, though not complete, part of why I refused to vote for her.
I voted Johnson too. I'm not sold on Warren's supposed glory, but I haven't looked into her too much either. I share concerns about the Greens, though I suspect that a lot of it is just pandering to try and snag people too left for the Democrats.
I'm a white male. If the Republicans had put up Condoleeza Rice I probably would have voted for her. Clinton is the problem, pretending it's all about misogyny just means you won't learn the right lesson from the election.
He's apparently been thinking about running for years. I used to think he was a Hillary plant at the beginning, since they were friends in the before time, the long, long ago. But now I think it's pretty obvious that he did want to be elected, I'm still not sure that he wants to be president though, at the very least I think he doesn't want to do the job, just get the perks.
Indeed. I thought that Trump had managed to lose it still at the end, I wasn't even going to watch the election results, but I'm not terribly surprised that she lost. Anyone that is surprised needs to get off Tumblr and visit some sites that aren't run by SJWs.
Yep. That's the most funny part. Trump campaigned on Hope and Change, just like Obama, it's just he's targeted his message to a different group. It's so obvious, yet so many refuse to see it.
I agree on all points. I voted for Bernie in the primaries, but this is the first election I've voted in where my presidential vote didn't go blue. I will never vote for Clinton. I cast my vote for Johnson and I'd do it again, even if I was in a swing state.
Clinton was an obviously terrible choice. The SJWs that have taken over the Democratic party have turned off a lot of people and their tactics are terrible. You can't shit on people ("Basket of deplorables"? Really?) and then expect them to vote for you. The media blatantly lies all the time, even the ones that you agree with, I don't care who that is.
Against Donald Trump. With dozens of celebrities endorsing her and newspapers that NEVER endorse people backing her. She still won by ONLY 2.8 million. Against Donald Trump a likable candidate would have gotten 70-75 million votes.
One problem with taking them when things are especially bad is that when you're depressed you may not have the motivation to get out of bed and take your pills.
He's going to increase the size of the military. He wants more ships than the navy wants and wants to increase the size of the Air Force and Army too. Granted he's talked about cutting waste, which would be great, but he's probably not going to end up cutting funding.
It was far closer to the Philippines than China. China CLAIMS the water it's in, but no one recognizes the claim except for them and maybe North Korea.
Agreed. I can't imagine making someone care for me for a decade as I can't even clean or feed myself. One of the many reasons I own guns is that when the time comes I'll punch my own ticket.
Slashdot Mirror
A cardboard cutout of Biden would have been a stronger opponent.
+1 to that.
Nope. He's a bargain bin Mussolini.
That would be wonderful.
Trump had some poor positions on guns back in the day, but he's supposedly reconsidered them and is now pro-2A. Clinton is the most anti-2A candidate ever fielded, by a wide margin. That's a large, though not complete, part of why I refused to vote for her.
I voted Johnson too. I'm not sold on Warren's supposed glory, but I haven't looked into her too much either. I share concerns about the Greens, though I suspect that a lot of it is just pandering to try and snag people too left for the Democrats.
I'm a white male. If the Republicans had put up Condoleeza Rice I probably would have voted for her. Clinton is the problem, pretending it's all about misogyny just means you won't learn the right lesson from the election.
Not necessarily. There's a LOT of Republicans that don't like Trump, it's quite plausible that they could have chosen a compromise candidate.
He's apparently been thinking about running for years. I used to think he was a Hillary plant at the beginning, since they were friends in the before time, the long, long ago. But now I think it's pretty obvious that he did want to be elected, I'm still not sure that he wants to be president though, at the very least I think he doesn't want to do the job, just get the perks.
Indeed. I thought that Trump had managed to lose it still at the end, I wasn't even going to watch the election results, but I'm not terribly surprised that she lost. Anyone that is surprised needs to get off Tumblr and visit some sites that aren't run by SJWs.
Those rule changes don't effect the game that's already been played though, that was his point.
Yep. That's the most funny part. Trump campaigned on Hope and Change, just like Obama, it's just he's targeted his message to a different group. It's so obvious, yet so many refuse to see it.
Could. Maine and Nebraska do that, but as Creimer says it's more about the Senate.
I agree on all points. I voted for Bernie in the primaries, but this is the first election I've voted in where my presidential vote didn't go blue. I will never vote for Clinton. I cast my vote for Johnson and I'd do it again, even if I was in a swing state.
Clinton was an obviously terrible choice.
The SJWs that have taken over the Democratic party have turned off a lot of people and their tactics are terrible. You can't shit on people ("Basket of deplorables"? Really?) and then expect them to vote for you.
The media blatantly lies all the time, even the ones that you agree with, I don't care who that is.
The Democrats will have to screw up bad (again) to lose to Trump in 2020.
Against Donald Trump. With dozens of celebrities endorsing her and newspapers that NEVER endorse people backing her. She still won by ONLY 2.8 million. Against Donald Trump a likable candidate would have gotten 70-75 million votes.
"If you don't take it regularly you may not be physically able to take it when you need it." isn't a good argument?
So essentially pay a permanent bribe to not be attacked.
Sometimes the best ideas are the old ones.
One problem with taking them when things are especially bad is that when you're depressed you may not have the motivation to get out of bed and take your pills.
He's going to increase the size of the military. He wants more ships than the navy wants and wants to increase the size of the Air Force and Army too. Granted he's talked about cutting waste, which would be great, but he's probably not going to end up cutting funding.
We've got an ocean between us. The only friends with a close land connection are South Korea. It might be bloody, but we won't have to be involved.
Granted we probably will be, we'll probably be throwing people left and right into the fire to solve our own issues, but we won't have to be.
It was far closer to the Philippines than China. China CLAIMS the water it's in, but no one recognizes the claim except for them and maybe North Korea.
People in third world countries have nothing to do with their spare time but fuck.
Agreed. I can't imagine making someone care for me for a decade as I can't even clean or feed myself. One of the many reasons I own guns is that when the time comes I'll punch my own ticket.