IGX

johno wrote:We can argue about whether we should have invaded [Iraq]. But it was criminal to leave the way we did.

Wasn't that drawdown according to a schedule that W devised?

(That's a serious question. I'm not a foreign policy guru by any means.)

JimZipCode wrote:

johno wrote:We can argue about whether we should have invaded [Iraq]. But it was criminal to leave the way we did.

Wasn't that drawdown according to a schedule that W devised?

(That's a serious question. I'm not a foreign policy guru by any means.)

Yes, the Bush-Iraq status of forces agreement called for a drawdown. The status of forces agreement could have been renegotiated, but was not, largely due to lack of interest/effort from the Obama Admin., but complicated by Iraqi politics.

Some of Sec Def Panetta's take on our Iraq withdrawal:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/03/politics/ ... index.html

Gene wrote:Where was the compromise about Slavery?

http://constitution.laws.com/three-fifths-compromise

http://www.history.com/topics/missouri-compromise

http://www.history.com/topics/compromise-of-1850

http://www.ushistory.org/us/31a.asp

JimZipCode wrote:

Gene wrote:Where was the compromise about Slavery?

http://constitution.laws.com/three-fifths-compromise

This was about Congressional Representation....

JimZipCode wrote:http://www.history.com/topics/missouri-compromise

http://www.history.com/topics/compromise-of-1850

http://www.ushistory.org/us/31a.asp

An attempt to keep the Union together?

JimZipCode wrote:

Yes, I'm drunk wrote:If Hillary gets to nominate Scalia's replacement, do you think the Second Amendment will still mean in "X" number of years what it means to American citizens today?
I'd wager it wont.

Silly example. The Second Amendment means something very different to American citizens today, than it meant before Scalia re-wrote it in his Heller opinion in 2008.

If Hillary names Scalia's replacement, the Second Amendment has a chance to go back to something like what it meant for the ~200 years up thru 2007. But any movement in that direction would likely be slow & incremental. SCOTUS doesn't like to whipsaw.

DEMOCRATS R TEH REEL ORIGINALISTS!!!

Most of you guys faithfully read Breitbart. Can we now assume that the Trump "pivot" to the center and attracting more voters is off the table?

Yes I Have Balls wrote:Most of you guys faithfully read Breitbart. Can we now assume that the Trump "pivot" to the center and attracting more voters is off the table?

At this point I'm not entirely sure he'll still be the nominee on election day.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Yes I Have Balls wrote:Most of you guys faithfully read Breitbart. Can we now assume that the Trump "pivot" to the center and attracting more voters is off the table?

At this point I'm not entirely sure he'll still be the nominee on election day.

Are the press' articles on him quitting, making you say that? His stump speeches the last two days have been quite inspired. And the wife and I are probably sitting out voting for the first time in 45 years.

DikTracy6000 wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Yes I Have Balls wrote:Most of you guys faithfully read Breitbart. Can we now assume that the Trump "pivot" to the center and attracting more voters is off the table?

At this point I'm not entirely sure he'll still be the nominee on election day.

Are the press' articles on him quitting, making you say that? His stump speeches the last two days have been quite inspired. And the wife and I are probably sitting out voting for the first time in 45 years.

The approach he's taking, where he's going from "B-to-C level campaign professionals" to "Not even professionals," is not an approach likely to be successful. Political campaigns need to do a lot of hard things well, and you need people who know how to manage them.

If this change results in a drop in polls, the GOP may abandon him in an attempt to save the House. If it descends into blowout territory, I am not sure he will hang in for that.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

DikTracy6000 wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Yes I Have Balls wrote:Most of you guys faithfully read Breitbart. Can we now assume that the Trump "pivot" to the center and attracting more voters is off the table?

At this point I'm not entirely sure he'll still be the nominee on election day.

Are the press' articles on him quitting, making you say that? His stump speeches the last two days have been quite inspired. And the wife and I are probably sitting out voting for the first time in 45 years.

The approach he's taking, where he's going from "B-to-C level campaign professionals" to "Not even professionals," is not an approach likely to be successful. Political campaigns need to do a lot of hard things well, and you need people who know how to manage them.

If this change results in a drop in polls, the GOP may abandon him in an attempt to save the House. If it descends into blowout territory, I am not sure he will hang in for that.

Well I can't disagree that Trump is pretty much a total unknown if that happens. Manafort had no control over Trump that I could tell. Maybe a woman telling him what he should be doing is the answer. At any rate, it's entertainment, but not how I envisioned any Presidential election should be going.

You know Trump is in trouble when liberals and media figures think he is. Luckily he can turn to them for good advice, too.

So, now that Trump isn't going to deport all the illegals - and in fact, thinks Obama's work has been effective and vows to continue in that direction, do all you idiots that actually thought Trump was gonna deport 11 million people and build a wall have a different opinion of the con man....or no?

I never thought he was going to deport 11 million people. My requirements to support Trump would be simple: 1) appoint "conservative" justices; and 2) not start WWIII*.

But it's hard to say what he will do. It's like reading clouds, or a Rorschach Test. Trump believers see what they want to see.



*I'm probably being unfair to Trump in thinking he'll be less likely than Hillary to do this. Everything she has touched has turned to shit.

johno wrote:My requirements to support Trump would be simple: 1) appoint "conservative" justices;

That's interesting. Seeing as he isn't conservative, what leads you to believe he would appoint conservative judges? He's done a 180 at least once on every single thing he has said over the last year+.

^See the second sentence in my 3 sentence post.

I would never advocate for violence as a solution to our political problems.

But a natural disaster? An asteroid lands on the first Presidential Debate? One can hope...

nafod wrote:An asteroid lands on the first Presidential Debate? One can hope...

We're on the same page, unless Johnson makes the debates. In that case, I'm hoping for a high-speed game of chicken as Trump and Clinton each insist on their private jet taking off first.

I live in an area that's pretty centrist overall. In the last two weeks I've seen about 4 Trump stickers on cars and 0 Hillary stickers.

Have also been in NYC, Philly & Jersey in the same time frame with similar observations except for even less Trump.

Seems that hardly anyone approves of their candidate enough to want to be associated with them publicly.

Interesting and sad.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xlmU9LvtAs[/youtube]

In other news: Gary Johnson turns out to be just another typical SJW.

Anyone really surprised by this?

Yes, I'm drunk wrote:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xlmU9LvtAs[/youtube]

In other news: Gary Johnson turns out to be just another typical SJW.

Anyone really surprised by this?

Surprised, no. Disappointed, yes.
Is the Libertarian party essentially just moderate Republicans who like weed and don't like taxes? Johnson/Weld make me question my understanding of their principals.

I wonder how Mr. Johnson would feel if I walked into his house and moved into a spare bedroom. Would he consider me an undocumented houseguest?

Wow...i can;t believe someone bit on that shitty bit of trolling.

Donk, It's not a SJW tactic to use careful language regarding an issue he's MASSIVELY supportive of (open borders) and a constituency (Latinos) he's massively familiar with their hotbuttons. This is a hell of a lot more about his brand of libertarianism than PC language.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:Is the Libertarian party essentially just moderate Republicans who like weed and don't like taxes? Johnson/Weld make me question my understanding of their principals.

Until they start running reasonably competively in non-presidential (local, state, and federal) races-- it's just an idea. At this point they don't even rank up with the Know Nothings.

Johnson, a former governor, seems to have no concept of federalism or "states' rights." Disappointing.
And he strikes me as a Joke Candidate (much as Trump was a year ago) who isn't really serious about the Presidency. IMO, he will leverage his new-found fame to create greater wealth.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

Yes, I'm drunk wrote:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xlmU9LvtAs[/youtube]

In other news: Gary Johnson turns out to be just another typical SJW.

Anyone really surprised by this?

Surprised, no. Disappointed, yes.
Is the Libertarian party essentially just moderate Republicans who like weed and don't like taxes? Johnson/Weld make me question my understanding of their principals.

I wonder how Mr. Johnson would feel if I walked into his house and moved into a spare bedroom. Would he consider me an undocumented houseguest?

I get his point. Supply and demand. The jobs were going wanting, the guys from across the border filled the demand, society was glad to have their lawns mowed, artichokes harvested, kids watched, quesadillas prepared. Are they illegal? Yes. So are the 1,000,000 drivers commuting to Chicago every day doing 20 over the speed limit on the highways. You would be accurate in referring to them all as illegal drivers if that was your wont.

I remember someone protesting the reduced speed limit there by getting cars lined up line abreast and actually doing the speed limit. It gridlocked the network.

nafod wrote: I get his point. Supply and demand. The jobs were going wanting, the guys from across the border filled the demand, society was glad to have their lawns mowed, artichokes harvested, kids watched, quesadillas prepared. Are they illegal? Yes. So are the 1,000,000 drivers commuting to Chicago every day doing 20 over the speed limit on the highways. You would be accurate in referring to them all as illegal drivers if that was your wont.

I remember someone protesting the reduced speed limit there by getting cars lined up line abreast and actually doing the speed limit. It gridlocked the network.

This .



I'm a bit surprised anyone is surprised. Whatever faults mainstream Libertarianism has (there's plenty) and whatever principles you want to ascribe to GJ (PC and SJW being so far off the mark as to rend a hole in space time) he's actually taking intelligent principled stands in this election if anyone bothered to listen.

Immigration is one (agree or not, his argument is consistent and intelligent)
The war on Drugs is another
Vaccinations is another where his stand recognizes that reality trumps fantasy.

He's not my IDEAL candidate but what he says/believes/acts on is far and away superior to the nonsense coming out ot the other two silos.