Trump finally admits Obama was born in America

[Michchamp]

Wait, wait, wait... you'd honestly prefer Trump nominate a Supreme Court justice?

My god man... have you gone COMPLETELY INSANE?!?

 

[KAWDUP]

Wait, wait, wait... you'd honestly prefer Trump nominate a Supreme Court justice?

My god man... have you gone COMPLETELY INSANE?!?

That is the ultimate question isn't it? Would I be completely insane enough to vote that way because I think Hillary would set society back for decades with her nominations? Sucks to be in that position, but it is what it is. I bet I am not alone in saying . . . maybe.

 

[biggunsbob]

Defense taken in any discussion where something negative is brought up about Obama, anything positive about any Republicans is talked about, or anytime anyone defends something Trump did. Your answer (as is most politicians on both sides), point to the greater of two evils and claim that they did much worse, so whatever my lesser of two evils did should be absolved.

. . . and in case it wasn't obvious, if I were to hold my nose and vote for Trump, it would only be so Hillary never gets to name a Supreme Court Justice. That is why just about everyone in those ridiculous polls doesn't give a shit about how hated or unworthy their candidate is.

Stakes are high, but certainly not because Hillary is completely corrupt, and Trump would be a disaster for the office.

So basically we disagree. Go figure that one out lol.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I don't want Trump picking SC Justices, but I also don't believe Clinton will pick people that would actually go against the spirit of Citizens United. I know she said she would, I bet bet she'd do something that sounds like progress, but I don't believe she'd actually change anything - just what loophole they need to use. I would rather have the candidate that says more clearly that they'd do something about it, but one has way more superpac money and the other hired the head of Citizens United. Neither gives a crap about unrigging the system.

 

[Sbee]

I don't want Trump picking SC Justices, but I also don't believe Clinton will pick people that would actually go against the spirit of Citizens United. I know she said she would, I bet bet she'd do something that sounds like progress, but I don't believe she'd actually change anything - just what loophole they need to use. I would rather have the candidate that says more clearly that they'd do something about it, but one has way more superpac money and the other hired the head of Citizens United. Neither gives a crap about unrigging the system.

I think Trump may have an 8th graders understanding of the constitution, I doubt he could name more than 4-5 amendments. Hillary is not the one to overturn CU, but you never know if she wants to pander to the Bernie voters for the 2nd term. What wins out? the pandering or the political donor class? I'm sure it's a calculation of what benefits her most, I'd bet on the moneyed elite winning out but you never know. She might do the right thing for the wrong reason from time to time.

 

[tomdalton22]

She might do the right thing for the wrong reason from time to time.

not ripping you or her at all...I just love this line.

Unfortunately, this is the best we can hope for either of these candidates.

 

[Michchamp]

That is the ultimate question isn't it? Would I be completely insane enough to vote that way because I think Hillary would set society back for decades with her nominations? Sucks to be in that position, but it is what it is. I bet I am not alone in saying . . . maybe.

"set society back decades" what the shit does that even mean?

Hillary will appoint supreme court justices so extreme, THEY WILL OUTLAW ALL MODERN TECHNOLOGY! YES THAT IS WHAT JUDGES CAN DO! IT WILL BE 1956 forever!

 

[Sbee]

not ripping you or her at all...I just love this line.

Unfortunately, this is the best we can hope for either of these candidates.

It's true, look at her flip flop on the TPP, she was for it but then reversed to appease progressives.

 

[Spartanmack]

In a contest between Trump and Clinton, you prefer Trump, saying Hillary is worse is also saying that Trump is better, just own it. You can puss out by voting for an unelectable candidate so you can maintain some kind of moral high ground and say "I didn't vote for either."

I own that I think Hillary is worse and I reject that having that position makes me a Trump guy. I'm not pussing out by voting for an unelectable candidate, I'm not choosing the faux libertarian and I'm not writing anyone in - I've said many times before, i'm not casting a vote for President this year. It's my right to not vote for an office if I don't think there is a viable candidate worthy of the office.

This is the last time I'll address your nonsense on the matter - but you can go ahead and continue to try to pin the Trump label on me so you feel good about yourself because you think your candidate is better than the one you so desperately want to believe I support.

 

[KAWDUP]

"set society back decades" what the shit does that even mean?

Hillary will appoint supreme court justices so extreme, THEY WILL OUTLAW ALL MODERN TECHNOLOGY! YES THAT IS WHAT JUDGES CAN DO! IT WILL BE 1956 forever!

Right, I'm positive that technology is what I was talking about. If you're going to put words in people's mouth, you ought to at least come up with something less ridiculous than most of your other posts. I guess I shouldn't have expected much else.

So hmm . . . what issues might be decided in the next few years that I could possibly be referring to? Are you really that dense?

 

[Thumb]

Right, I'm positive that technology is what I was talking about. If you're going to put words in people's mouth, you ought to at least come up with something less ridiculous than most of your other posts. I guess I shouldn't have expected much else.

So hmm . . . what issues might be decided in the next few years that I could possibly be referring to? Are you really that dense?

If you're referring to Roe vs. Wade, that issue was decided in 1973.

 

[byco42]

If you're referring to Roe vs. Wade, that issue was decided in 1973.

And Dred Scott v. Sanford was "decided" 1857. Plessy v. Ferguson: "decided" in 1896. R. v W. is far from "decided."