Weekly Thread 8/15 through 8/22/16. Who wuold you like to see running for President if we had a do-over?

Weekly Thread 8/15 through 8/22/16. Who would you like to see running for President if we had a do-over?

This post was last modified on August 31, 2016

CO2Insanity: Tired of the CO2 BS and all the other BS in the US and the world.

View Comments (66)

  • Why is Obama talking about Juan Gabriel? Did he say something about Gene Wilder? I mean Juan Gabriel... you he's gay right? Is this a gay thing? I mean really Obama...? If he did not say anything about Gene Wilder, then I have to say... weird... I mean because Juan Gabriel is like the Mexican Elton John. Mexican... but yeah gay... like super gay... Whereas Gene Wilder is basically a US icon... he's a US President not a Mexican President who is... well... so...

    Anyway RIP Gene Wilder and RIP Juan Gabriel wow.... What a weird couple of celebrities deaths... They couldn't be more opposite.

  • Erick Erickson has been firing on all cylinders ever since the presidential election campaigning started. Erick is a NeverTrumper who decided last year to go to seminary and become a minister, so his political columns are infused with his faith. Here's what he said today about not voting for Trump and I think he hits the nail on the head:

    Right now there are Christians in America who believe they should not vote for a man who calls himself a Christian, brags about his affairs, and swindles the elderly and single moms out of money. These same Christians also believe they should not vote for a woman who supports the right to kill children.

    But other Christians are hell bent on pressuring these conscientious objectors into voting. Politics is not a subject from which one can remove one’s faith. There is no obligation in Christianity to vote. In fact, it is a rather good thing to not collaborate in the political process if doing so might prop up those who hold themselves out as a Christians while openly celebrating sin. The right to not vote is as powerful as the right to vote and the most important thing is to not violate your conscience. We may all be sinners, but Christians do not endorse sins, they repent.

    If a person wants to vote in the Presidential election, let them. But if someone refuses because their conscience tells them none of the candidates are worthy of support, pressuring them to vote is as much as sin as violating one’s own conscience. Our country is not eternal, but we are and will be called one day to account.

    • I "hear" what he is saying and ok, not voting IS an option, but is it a viable option for those who exercise their right to express themselves...?

      What about my right to bitch? I want to complain or to opine on the process or what is happening in the world/country. Even if I decide to write in my vote or vote third party or whatever, in my opinion, I earned the right to bitch. Not voting means I need to stay quiet and have no opinions on a lot of matters.

      If he doesn't vote, I will have no regard for his opinions at all. He has no skin in the game, he stood for literally nothing so why should I listen or read to what he has to say? I won't hate on him or anyone else who makes that decision, but I won't respect it and I certainly will have no regard for their opinions. Standing on an ivory tower of self righteousness is not a good look in my opinion.

      The issue really is do I believe myself to be righteous by not voting for either and voting for someone else even though he won't win? (ME vote - which I find to be legitimate way of voting after all people need to have some standards). Or, even though I wouldn't befriend this person on a personal level, voting for someone who MAY do right by the country? (US vote - which is also legitimate). Because I just KNOW/BELIEVE that the other person is NOT a good representative of myself and us as a country and this person may do far more harm than good to me personally and to US all.

      Me personally I see no righteousness in literally doing nothing AND then later have opinions and share them when I literally stood for nothing at all - other than my own self righteousness of course. Again, it is not like I will hate on people who choose not to vote, but I certainly don't have to stand anywhere and hear their speech.

      This is just my opinion. Again, I "hear" what he is saying. Not voting means he is not participating in the sin of others... I get it. If things were going well and the prospects of this country could withstand a bad administration, I may even say I could respect his choice... Is he however not going to express political opinions from now on? That is my question. Because he COULD, but he shouldn't be surprised if people don't take him seriously.

      • "If things were going well and the prospects of this country could withstand a bad administration..."

        The assumption behind that phrase is that you have a choice who would be a good administration. You don't. So you will go into the voting booth and pick a bad administration and I think every time we do that we validate by our participation the crappy, evil, lousy, pathetic presidential choices the powers-that-be are giving us.

        Stop, take a breath, step away from the R and D of it, and LOOK AT WHAT THEY HAVE GIVEN US. We have Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton! It's absurd! We can't let the establishment get away with this.

        • That is only your opinion after all. Like I said above, that was MY opinion. Your opinion is yours. So far we are both equal. Like I said below. It is fair enough that he does what he wants and you do what you want. No one should be forced to do anything they don't want to do. We don't have to respect each other's choices, but at least we can agree to be equals.

          • Too long after 2:30 I got the point and it should have ended there... So that is how far I got. It was boring and all over the place.

            In any case, I didn't laugh.

            Gary Johnson is a terrible choice. He believes that Government should force people to do things they don't want to do and that the Constitution does and should protect them from being forced to do it, which goes with what you stated above or below about how people shouldn't be forced to do something. Also he doesn't seem to have much of an understanding of the Constitution. He is not much of a real libertarian. Also the KKK endorsed Hillary. The video seems to equate Islam as a race and Trump's problems with Muslims as a racist thing. That right there is bullshit. Even if Trump is a racist, the problems with Islam go further than mere racism. Also I've seen his speeches and I've seen him debate and he is not a very balanced person and he hates being contradicted and he also gets very personal once he perceives or gets an attack. Nothing about this guy is awesome and I can say just like I stated with Hillary that he is not going to get my vote.

          • I agree with you about Johnson but what the Internet site is doing is matching Rs with Ds so people who don't want to vote for either Hillary or Trump cancel each other out.

          • No, Johnson isn't a Libertarian. Every Libertarian I know understands this. But he's not Hillary, and he's not Trump.

    • I will have no problem defending my actions to do whatever I can to keep Killary out of the White House, should I be called upon to do so at the Pearly Gates. I would, however, be a stammering fool if I had to justify greasing the skids for her.

      • That's exactly the opposite of what the words say. What he's saying is that it's wrong to pressure the people who in good conscience refuse to vote for Trump into voting for him anyway. How did you turn that around and make yourself the victim in this scenario? Go ahead and vote for him if that's what your moral compass suggests.

        • I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I felt "victimized", but seein's how you've taken to insulting anyone with an opinion other than your own, I'll just chalk it up to being another cheap shot.

          Nothing wrong with voting yer conscience, or not voting on principle...EXCEPT when it's a flawed strategy that winds up helping Hillary Clinton get in the White House. And exactly HOW is pressuring someone to vote for Trump any different than pressuring them to vote (or not vote) their conscience? Perhaps Erickson is taking a different approach since he's chosen a different path. If that's the case, God Bless him, and I wish him well. But he certainly has done his share of demeaning anyone that hasn't agreed with him, as have you. If he's truly giving his life up to God, then he should get out of the business of framing political opinion. I don't see Franklin Graham insulting anyone.

          For the life of me, I cannot understand the "principle" that gives the Progressives an 8 year head start on completing the "fundamental transformation of America". I know, you think there's no difference between Trump and Killary, but as far as I can tell, that's pure rationalization on your part. There's a choice of MAYBE a lousy president for 4 years, or 8 years of a KNOWN evil. 8 years of loading the Supreme Court and federal bench with Progressives. What good are your principles gonna do you when you wake up to find the Supreme Court with a 7-2, 8-1 liberal lean and they're deciding whether or not the Second Amendment is Constitutional? Or any other American fundamental that these globalists want to purge? You'll be dead and gone before that court ever swings the other way, and it'll be left up to our grand children to right the Ship of State that has long since sunk.

          • How in the world did I insult you? For God's sake, put on your big boy pants and stop crying every time someone disagrees with you.

            "And exactly HOW is pressuring someone to vote for Trump any different than pressuring them to vote (or not vote) their conscience?"

            Agree or disagree, the answer is in the original post to which you replied:

            If a person wants to vote in the Presidential election, let them. But if someone refuses because their conscience tells them none of the candidates are worthy of support, pressuring them to vote is as much a sin as violating one’s own conscience.

          • I take being characterized as playing the "victim card" to be an insult. You've lost the ability to carry on a conversation without attacking the person yer talking to. To quote a reply you made yesterday: "You can't be that ignorant." because someone pointed out yer cherry-picking shit off of the Daily Beast, of all places. That's ALL you do anymore...cherry pick anti-Trump stories. And the last conversation we had you referred to me as something along the lines of a slobbering establishment sheep that's only doing their bidding. (Which is so far from the truth that it's laughable. Textbook definition of ludicrous.) You've pretty much single-handedly turned this site into factions that are at each others throats, and you just don't see it, or CARE to see it. From where I'm sitting, something snapped in you after yer guy lost in the primary, and this site is the worse for it.

            As for the original post...Erik Erickson has a long way to go to convince me that he's suddenly altruistic. And I still contend that his is a flawed strategy, as is yours.

            As for big boy pants...way to side step the real world implications of your "principles".

          • There's a whole lot of misinformation in that post. For your edification, I'm calling you a liar. Now that's an insult, in case you're confused. For instance, I didn't say you couldn't be that ignorant for pointing out that the link was to the Daily Beast. I said you couldn't be that ignorant for saying the article never claimed Trump made money from the deal. You see? You want to twist things and lie about what happened in previous posts. That makes you a liar. Again, that's an insult. Got it? I call you something bad. Insult. Memorize this. Take notes if you have to.

            And you DID play the victim card when you started your original post by saying, "I will have no problem defending my actions..." We weren't talking about you having to defend anything. We were talking about NeverTrumpers being pressured to vote for Trump. You decided to make it about yourself and implied you had to defend yourself. Why? You wanted to be the victim. Didn't work.

          • I don't give a shit what you call me, JP...I've been called worse . Fact is, you can't take the criticism. And no matter how stubborn you chose to be, you deserve it.

            And for the record, it wasn't my post that you responded with the "ignorant" comment. Does that make YOU a liar? Never mind...I take that back. I don't wanna play yer game.

            How you get me portraying myself as a victim is beyond me...I was trying to make the point that the important thing is keeping Hillary Clinton out of the White House, not pouting because yer guy didn't make the cut.

            And AGAIN...you fail to address the real world implications of your "principles". But whatever...you can have the last word if you want...I'm tired of trying to talk sense to someone that has no use for it.

          • And as usual, with Trumpers and liberals alike, the conversation devolves into name-calling and any possibility of discussing matters of substance is gone. Did Trump say one thing in the debates and then say the opposite Wednesday? Yes. Did he then turn around in the face of the criticism and say something different last night? Yes. But can we discuss it? No. Babies, whiners, Trump Davidians, and paid Trump agents make sure that doesn't happen. This is the state of politics in modern America. No wonder we have two nominees like this.

        • That is fair enough. I don't want anyone to be forced to do anything they don't want to do. I guess we may not respect each other's choices, but as long as we are all equal in the end it is what it is.

  • Countdown is on for the move to San Antonio! Hubby leaves in 2 weeks. I leave in 3! House in Hawaii is officially on the market. House in San Antonio is rented. Car ships on Monday. More importantly Mother-in-law gets here tomorrow to help with the 5 week old who won't let me put him down. So, laundry hasn't been done in weeks. :(. Poor hubby has had to arrange almost everything for the move.

  • Not the subject, but around 30:35, my thoughts diverted to the gay agenda. Most people in alternative sexual lifestyles are liberal and Democrats. The creation of "cake slaves" is under way. Wanting free labor from those they despise (Christians), in order to FORCE them to participate in their personal activities and thus normalize their lifestyles in the public arena, through a form of government sanctioned slavery; is happening and it's scary and just as evil as the contemporary Democrat Plantations. Their use of the imperfect Civil Rights is smart. Republicans should have used a Libertarian comb to smooth over the CRA, but due to wanting their mandate to happen they didn't, thus leaving the door opened for what's happening now.

    In the end, Leftists are about control over humans they consider lesser than themselves, and how to get free labor, services or products from them, without having to do more than minimum effort to get it. Can range from a simple forcing acceptance or forced conversion to their point of view (to increase ranks and normalize their behavior, legitimize their viewpoints), to having absolute control over the other to the point of slavery which can take many forms. That in a nutshell is the mandate of Lefties, Radical Islam, and Satan.

    https://youtu.be/rrTcRbuvYXA

Related Post
  1. What’s your worst car dealer story?
  2. Will California Governor Gavin Newsom be tossed out of office or not? If he is, who do you think will be the new Governor?
  3. How long before we’re back in Afghanistan?