Trump: America First Energy Plan

[yjacket]

On 5/29/2016 at 10:42 PM, MormonGator said:

I never said you were a Trumper. I don't think you are, to be honest. I've gone out of my way and tried my best to think only good things about you, actually. I apologize that we are often not on the same page.
 

My apologies MG, I'm sorry that I grouped you in with others. You are certainly right. I appreciate your comments.

[Just_A_Guy]

On May 29, 2016 at 8:33 PM, yjacket said:

They are calculated, planned, targeted, accurate and very effective.

A number of reprehensible things in history were also calculated, planned, targeted, accurate, and very effective. I don't think MG's point was that Trump's antics are ineffective against their chosen targets; it was that the are the despicable tactics of a despicable human being.  

In that context, it's fascinating to me that even though you claim to support Johnson, and even though we are in a forum where you have a particularly good chance of winning proselytes to Johnson's cause:  If my search of the forum is accurate, you've mentioned Trump 29 times and Gary Johnson only once--for first time ever--in this thread.  If you defended Johnson with the zeal that you've defended Trump, half of us would probably be on board with you by now.

[Guest MormonGator]

41 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

A number of reprehensible things in history were also calculated, planned, targeted, accurate, and very effective. I don't think MG's point was that Trump's antics are ineffective against their chosen targets; it was that the are the despicable tactics of a despicable human being.  

In that context, it's fascinating to me that even though you claim to support Johnson, and even though we are in a forum where you have a particularly good chance of winning proselytes to Johnson's cause:  If my search of the forum is accurate, you've mentioned Trump 29 times and Gary Johnson only once--for first time ever--in this thread.  If you defended Johnson with the zeal that you've defended Trump, half of us would probably be on board with you by now.

To yjackets credit, he's just trying to be objective and fair. He's a libertarian pretty soundly and I'm 99% sure he'll be voting for Gary Johnson. I'd be stunned if he was voting for Trump. 

Trump is the most polarizing candidate I've ever seen. He makes Ayn Rand look like Ronald Reagan in their ability to unite people. Rand is the most polarizing person in history. Ronald Reagan united people. There are no "Trump Democrats" and Trump has split the conservative right in a way I've never seen. 

 

Edited May 30, 2016 by MormonGator

[LeSellers]

8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

There are no "Trump Democrats"

I'm not too sure abut that. There are a lot of people from all parties who are sick'n'tired of illegal immigration and the Muslim invasion of this country. I've met a lot of people who self describe as Democrats, but who like Trump a lot better than they like either the socialist or the liar.

There are libertarians who dislike the concept of a third O'bama term even more than they dislike the Donald.

13 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Trump has split the conservative right in a way I've never seen.

While true, it my be unimportant. As polarizing as Trump is among conservative, Clinton is even more so across the entire electorate. Some of his most "alienated" GOPers are now coming on board for him — reluctantly, yes, but aboard nonetheless.

I'll vote (95% certain) for whoever the Libertarian candidate will be, but, knowing "my guy" is unlikely to win, I'll hope Trump does. Because if Hilary takes (or, more likely, steals) it, we're in more trouble than I can describe.

Lehi

[Guest MormonGator]

13 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

I'm not too sure abut that. There are a lot of people from all parties who are sick'n'tired of illegal immigration and the Muslim invasion of this country. I've met a lot of people who self describe as Democrats, but who like Trump a lot better than they like either the socialist or the liar.

There are libertarians who dislike the concept of a third O'bama term even more than they dislike the Donald.

While true, it my be unimportant. As polarizing as Trump is among conservative, Clinton is even more so across the entire electorate. Some of his most "alienated" GOPers are now coming on board for him — reluctantly, yes, but aboard nonetheless.

I'll vote (95% certain) for whoever the Libertarian candidate will be, but, knowing "my guy" is unlikely to win, I'll hope Trump does. Because if Hilary takes (or, more likely, steals) it, we're in more trouble than I can describe.

Lehi

Yeah, I disagree.

For someone who isn't a liberal democrat, most of my friends are. I run in their circles. I know of no one that would vote for Trump, and since most know my politics, they'd tell me in private if they would. 

Most libertarians are such a small minority that their vote doesn't matter in the big picture. I've voted libertarian in the past and I'm libertarian on most issues, but I accept that.  

No, Trump being polarizing is important. Like I mentioned, the real world doesn't operate like an online forum. Discord  will only get you so far in politics. The NeverTrump movement is still very strong among Christian Conservatives (he's been divorced! He ran a casino!).

 

The blunt truth is that there is no silent majority anymore. It's a silent minority. 

 

Edited May 30, 2016 by MormonGator

[LeSellers]

41 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

For someone who isn't a liberal democrat, most of my friends are. I run in their circles. I know of no one that would vote for Trump, and since most know my politics, they'd tell me in private if they would. 

I didn't say anything about "liberal Democrats", I said "Democrats". No one can pretend that a liberal Democrat would vote for Trump, but rank and file Democrats, union members, low level bureaucrats, and even welfare recipients who don't want to mooch off the system just might feel threatened enough by the illegals and potentially radical Muslims to choose a different option from Hilary or Bernie who want more Muslims and more illegals. The same thing might apply to people who don't want more men in women's restrooms and their daughters' locker rooms in "their" grtf-welfare schools. And people who don't support same-sex "marriage". This list just may be what it takes.

Lehi

Edited May 30, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

I didn't say anything about "liberal Democrats", I said "Democrats". No one can pretend that a liberal Democrat would vote for Trump, but rank and file Democrats, unions members, low level bureaucrats, and even welfare recipients who don't want to mooch off the system just might feel threatened enough by the illegals and potentially radical Muslims to choose a different option from Hilary or Bernie who want more Muslims and more illegals.

Most of the people you just mentioned-the "Reagan Democrats" have already joined the republican party. There aren't many of the lunchpail union worker socially somewhat conservative democrats left. WV, Kentucky etc swinging towards the republican side as of late proves that. 

 

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

 This list just may be what it takes.

 

Time will tell. 

Edited May 31, 2016 by MormonGator

[yjacket]

13 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

A number of reprehensible things in history were also calculated, planned, targeted, accurate, and very effective. I don't think MG's point was that Trump's antics are ineffective against their chosen targets; it was that the are the despicable tactics of a despicable human being.  

In that context, it's fascinating to me that even though you claim to support Johnson, and even though we are in a forum where you have a particularly good chance of winning proselytes to Johnson's cause:  If my search of the forum is accurate, you've mentioned Trump 29 times and Gary Johnson only once--for first time ever--in this thread.  If you defended Johnson with the zeal that you've defended Trump, half of us would probably be on board with you by now.

JAG,

Just come off it.  I destroyed your guy and you can't let it go.  Stop being so incredibly bitter and stop twisting the facts.  Okay, calling someone "Little Marco" and "Lying Ted" . . .that's reprehensible.  If that is so reprehensible, I shudder to think what you'd think of the rest of the crud in this world, you must hide under a blanket telling yourself "please make the bad men go away". Yeah, it's playground tactics, it sucks I don't like it, but it is very effective.  But to counter those absolutely horrible, reprehensible words, there are plenty of stories of Trump being very kind and generous.

I've only mentioned Gary Johnson once, because this is the first time I've posted about politics that he has actually won the Libertarian nomination.  I've said multiple times I'd vote Libertarian.  I very well can't vote for Gary Johnson if he isn't the Libertarian nominee, no duh.

It is amazing to me how much you are willing to twist peoples words to make them into what you want them to be.  You want, no you need me to be a Trump supporter. Because heaven forbid that someone who isn't a Trump supporter, saw through your guy as a scumbag. 

MG and I have a truce and an understanding (although I don't think we were ever at war).  You can't seem to lay down the knife . . .

Johnson is polling at 10%, he needs 15% to be included in the debates.  I hope he makes it up to 15%.  I think it's be great, it would give some exposure to ideas that are sorely needed in politics.  Now please tell me again how much of a Trump supporter I am-please twist my words, make them into something they aren't simply because you need them to be something different.

 

Edited May 31, 2016 by yjacket

[Guest]

1 hour ago, yjacket said:

Just come off it.  I destroyed your guy and you can't let it go.

  Was I visiting a foreign planet for a while?  We apparently remember things very differently.

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

  Was I visiting a foreign planet for a while?  We apparently remember things very differently.

If I didn't, then why am I still being attacked weeks later?? Out of spite?

[Guest MormonGator]

YJacket-what do you think of Bill Weld getting the VP slot for the libertarians? The lovely LadyGator is from Massachusetts and she grew up in the time period he was governor. 

[Just_A_Guy]

5 hours ago, yjacket said:

JAG,

Just come off it.  I destroyed your guy and you can't let it go.

 

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

  Was I visiting a foreign planet for a while?  We apparently remember things very differently.

Yeah, Carbs, that was my takeaway too.  The record shows that Yjacket was caught, on these forums, making a number of misrepresentations about the "evidence" of Cruz having an illicit relationship with Amanda Carpenter and falsely suggesting Carpenter was the source of the story about Carson dropping out of the primary even after being shown proof to the contrary.   That was the only real point I remember him making against Cruz, other than the fact that Cruz had a "creepy" television persona, that Cruz once voted for a bill he had always said he'd vote for (but apparently for the wrong reason, or something), and that he was (ulp!) too openly religious. 

5 hours ago, yjacket said:

I've only mentioned Gary Johnson once, because this is the first time I've posted about politics that he has actually won the Libertarian nomination.  I've said multiple times I'd vote Libertarian.  I very well can't vote for Gary Johnson if he isn't the Libertarian nominee, no duh.

Yjacket, most of the times you indicated your intent to vote Libertarian was after you had submitted many, many apologias for Trump and were accordingly categorized as a Trump supporter; at which time you denied actually supporting Trump by indicating that you were voting Libertarian.  But you have never, in the past six months, attempted to persuade your hearers to vote Libertarian in lieu of Republican (or Democrat); and so far as I can see you have never openly mentioned Johnson, Peterson, McAfee, Feldman, or any of the other contenders for the Libertarian nomination.  Given that Trumpkins have a habit of denying they are Trumpkins--you might understand why I thought this curious.

I don't "need" you to be anything, Yjacket; other than truthful.  And--yeah--if you really are voting for the libertarian presidential candidate, it would be nice to see you start articulating a case for him instead of continually making excuses for Trump.

The floor is yours, to advance the agenda of whichever candidate you really want to see in the White House.  Go ahead and make your case.  We'll be watching. 

 

Edited May 31, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[yjacket]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 

Yeah, Carbs, that was my takeaway too.  The record shows that Yjacket was caught, on these forums, making a number of misrepresentations about the "evidence" of Cruz having an illicit relationship with Amanda Carpenter and falsely suggesting Carpenter was the source of the story about Carson dropping out of the primary even after being shown proof to the contrary.  

JAG, you are the one who is lying and twisting the facts.  You have continually lied about my character, lied about me, lied about what I represent.  You keep bringing it up, you can't let it go can you.  Very Christlike of you and here I thought I was on an LDS forum.

1st off, read the darn article. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/04/cruz-carson-email-trump-iowa-cnn/.  The actual tweets coming from Chris Moody, never suggested Ben Carson was dropping out.  Amanda Carpenter's tweets did.  One is a simple stating the facts, the other is an interpretation of the facts.  Amanda Carpenter at the time was a CNN reporter, for her to insinuate that Ben Carson was dropping out, when Chris Moody never suggested such a thing, is her taking sides and was irresponsible as a reporter.

In fact, if you actually look at the timestamps of the tweets, you will notice (as I'm sure you did-but didn't mention it b/c you like to twist my words). That Amanda Carpenter's tweets occurred @ 6:46 PM, Chris Moody's tweets were @ 7:41-7:46 pm.  Chris Moody never suggested Ben was Dropping out, Amanda did.  Those are the facts. 

You are reported, sir for continually misrepresentation of my character. The facts show the exact opposite of what you claim.

Now, please tell me again who is it that is misrepresenting things?

 

 

Edited May 31, 2016 by yjacket

[yjacket]

 

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don't "need" you to be anything, Yjacket; other than truthful.

 Maybe you should try your own medicine.

[yjacket]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Yjacket, most of the times you indicated your intent to vote Libertarian was after you had submitted many, many apologias for Trump and were accordingly categorized as a Trump supporter; at which time you denied actually supporting Trump by indicating that you were voting Libertarian.  But you have never, in the past six months, attempted to persuade your hearers to vote Libertarian in lieu of Republican (or Democrat); and so far as I can see you have never openly mentioned Johnson, Peterson, McAfee, Feldman, or any of the other contenders for the Libertarian nomination.  Given that Trumpkins have a habit of denying they are Trumpkins--you might understand why I thought this curious.

I don't "need" you to be anything, Yjacket; other than truthful.  And--yeah--if you really are voting for the libertarian presidential candidate, it would be nice to see you start articulating a case for him instead of continually making excuses for Trump.

The floor is yours, to advance the agenda of whichever candidate you really want to see in the White House.  Go ahead and make your case.  We'll be watching. 

(eyeroll).  Please  . .I've always been libertarian.  I participate in the Repub. Party out of necessity not b/c I ideologically fit there. I pretty much always vote in Repub. primaries, participate in the events, and then vote Libertarian down the ticket where I can. The big difference between the Libertarian party vs. Repub/Dem. is that they are actually pretty ideologically pure, unlike either R/D. So advocating for voting Libertarian party isn't making so much a case for voting for someone but for voting for ideas. So yes, you will see me advocate for ideas as I have always done and yes Johnson is a pretty good embodiment of those ideas.

Go back years on this place, I've always been one of the most ardent libertarian supports, I don't have to prove myself to anyone, least of all you. 

[Just_A_Guy]

50 minutes ago, yjacket said:

In fact, if you actually look at the timestamps of the tweets, you will notice (as I'm sure you did-but didn't mention it b/c you like to twist my words). That Amanda Carpenter's tweets occurred @ 6:46 PM, Chris Moody's tweets were @ 7:41-7:46 pm.  Chris Moody never suggested Ben was Dropping out, Amanda did.  Those are the facts.

It's not twisting your words to point out that Moody's initial tweets were at 6:41-6:43 Central Time, not after 7.  Within three minutes, Jake Tapper and Dana Bash are live on CNN pontificating about how unusual Carson's move is, with Bash agreeing that this isn't what winning campaigns do.  Carpenter then tweets at 6:46 (presumably Central time as well).  The Cruz campaign consistently points to Moody's tweets, not Carpenter's, as the source for their statements about Carson--and somehow this is all Carpenter's fault and denotes a sexual relationship between the two? 

This isn't truth, YJacket.  It's the picture Trump's tabloid trash friends want us to see--just like the "Daddy Cruz" misdirection and just like the "hotel room" pic that wasn't actually taken in a hotel room.

Quote

 I participate in the Repub. Party out of necessity not b/c I ideologically fit there. I pretty much always vote in Repub. primaries, participate in the events, and then vote Libertarian down the ticket where I can.

We are apparently in a new form of bizarro-land where you can support Trump in the Republican primary but avoid being categorized as a "Trump supporter" by virtue of your professions of support in the general election for a third-party candidate whose stands you fail to advocate, whose commitment to libertarianism is questionable, and who we all know won't win.

Oh, and by the way--you're welcome to report me, and the mods will act as they deem appropriate.  But I would note, in closing, that I have been far more honest and substantive in our exchanges, than Donald Trump has been with . . . pretty much anyone.  And if I truly had behaved boorishly with you, then wouldn't that merely show how masterful and brilliant I am--just as you claim Trump's churlishness shows him to be?

Edited May 31, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[yjacket]

44 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It's not twisting your words to point out that Moody's initial tweets were at 6:41-6:43 Central Time, not after 7.  Within three minutes, Jake Tapper and Dana Bash are live on CNN pontificating about how unusual Carson's move is, with Bash agreeing that this isn't what winning campaigns do.  Carpenter then tweets at 6:46 (presumably Central time as well).  The Cruz campaign consistently points to Moody's tweets, not Carpenter's, as the source for their statements about Carson--and somehow this is all Carpenter's fault and denotes a sexual relationship between the two? 

This isn't truth, YJacket.  It's the picture Trump's tabloid trash friends want us to see--just like the "Daddy Cruz" misdirection and just like the "hotel room" pic that wasn't actually taken in a hotel room.

We are apparently in a new form of bizarro-land where you can support Trump in the Republican primary but avoid being categorized as a "Trump supporter" by virtue of your professions of support in the general election for a third-party candidate whose stands you fail to advocate, whose commitment to libertarianism is questionable, and who we all know won't win.

Oh, and by the way--you're welcome to report me, and the mods will act as they deem appropriate.  But I would note, in closing, that I have been far more honest and substantive in our exchanges, than Donald Trump has been with . . . pretty much anyone.  And if I truly had behaved boorishly with you, then wouldn't that merely show how masterful and brilliant I am--just as you claim Trump's churlishness shows him to be?

Showing your true colors JAG, more misrepresentation, here you go again. This is so incredibly funny how you can't see it (or won't) Even if you assume Carpenter's tweets were Central time (which would by necessity mean that she was in Central Time when she tweeted, Iowa maybe? ), it is still irresponsible if she got the story from Moody. Moody's last tweet was @ 6:43 and in that tweet he said " Ben Carson's campaign tells me he plans to stay in the race beyond Iowa no matter what the results are tonight. "  Carpenter's tweet (assuming Central time) was @ 6:46pm.  And she says "Carson is "taking a break" after Iowa? This should be read as if he is releasing his supporters. IMO".  So now, Cruz campaign initially points to CNN as reporting that Carson is dropping out. CNN didn't report that, Amanda Carpenter did. Even the talking heads were pretty careful in their exchange to not go over the line. 

Did you even read the breitbar article?  Obviously not. Anyone not deeply involved can read it and see that Cruz simply lied about Carson. 3 min. after the Moody report Carpenter who is a reporter for CNN says "This should be read as if he is releasing his supporters.".  This is the same person who was previously Cruz's Chief of Communications.

And you are using RedState as your libertarian guide? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.  Oh my word, that just shows how completely uninformed you are. Uninformed in politics as to how things work and uninformed in who guides you.

Come back to me when you can actually cite a good source.

JAG is still bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter. You just can't let it go.  Oh I know the mods will probably do nothing, you're one of them, so I highly doubt you will get your hand smacked.  All I know is your behavior by you keep coming after me does not speak well of you.

 

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

We are apparently in a new form of bizarro-land where you can support Trump in the Republican primary but avoid being categorized as a "Trump supporter" by virtue of your professions of support in the general election for a third-party candidate whose stands you fail to advocate, whose commitment to libertarianism is questionable, and who we all know won't win.

Not so.  Life and supporting candidates isn't black or white. You only see 2 colors, for or against and life just isn't like that. My guy that I was really for in the Repub. race dropped out long, long ago. I'm glad Trump won, I think he will be better than Cruz.  I'd rather have a Gary Johnson over a Trump and I'd rather have Trump over Hillary. Just because I liked Trump more than Cruz does not a "Trump Supporter" make. It's all on a scale, yes I could vote for Trump if he picked a Rand Paul for VP, other than that I don't see it.

Are you now libertarian?  I highly doubt it.  I'd put my libertarian creds. against the best of them.  This is like someone who is Baptism, coming to me as a Mormon, you believe in xyz, you don't believe in this, you're the devil, blah, blah, blah.  Come back to me after you've actually studied it.

Ah the old tried and true "we all know won't win" shtick.  Oh so you're voting for Trump now?  What was this #NeverTrump about then. Hmm, I guess they were all full of hot-air.

 

[NeuroTypical]

Folks, let's give a little extra effort to be civil here.  It's not about nailing the other guy to the wall with their own words, it's about sharing ideas and discussing the merits.  

(I've specifically stayed out of this thread, because I doubt my ability to do what I just asked y'all to do.  I get it.)

[yjacket]

30 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Folks, let's give a little extra effort to be civil here.  It's not about nailing the other guy to the wall with their own words, it's about sharing ideas and discussing the merits.  

(I've specifically stayed out of this thread, because I doubt my ability to do what I just asked y'all to do.  I get it.)

I'd love to stay civil. Unfortunately it is very hard to do so when one is continually attacked and misrepresented.  Generally speaking it is good form to accept in good faith when one says something about their personal beliefs.  Unfortunately, there are those who do not accept my statements about where I stand in good faith and I am attacked; therefore I will respond. I am continually told that I'm not really Z, I'm X, and if I was really Z, I'd do Y . . .oh and by the way that thing Z, it's not any good either.

If my opinions were respected, I would respect others opinions. 

I am willing to let the past go, I'd like to see it reciprocated.

Edited May 31, 2016 by yjacket

[yjacket]

8 hours ago, MormonGator said:

YJacket-what do you think of Bill Weld getting the VP slot for the libertarians? The lovely LadyGator is from Massachusetts and she grew up in the time period he was governor. 

Meh, I'm not terribly impressed with Weld, but that is okay. I really like Johnson.  One of the biggest powers a President has is the veto power and Johnson certainly knows how to use it.

I haven't looked at every single item on the list, but I haven't found too many I disagree with.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, yjacket said:

Showing your true colors JAG, more misrepresentation, here you go again. This is so incredibly funny how you can't see it (or won't) Even if you assume Carpenter's tweets were Central time (which would by necessity mean that she was in Central Time when she tweeted, Iowa maybe? ),

Not necessarily.  Are Twitter timestamps recorded in the time zone of the poster, or the viewer?  And if Carpenter's tweets preceded Moody's, I think we'd know it by now.

Quote

it is still irresponsible if she got the story from Moody. Moody's last tweet was @ 6:43 and in that tweet he said " Ben Carson's campaign tells me he plans to stay in the race beyond Iowa no matter what the results are tonight. "  Carpenter's tweet (assuming Central time) was @ 6:46pm.  And she says "Carson is "taking a break" after Iowa? This should be read as if he is releasing his supporters. IMO".  So now, Cruz campaign initially points to CNN as reporting that Carson is dropping out. CNN didn't report that, Amanda Carpenter did. Even the talking heads were pretty careful in their exchange to not go over the line.

The CNN talking heads said,

Look, if you want to be President of the United States, you don’t go home to Florida. I mean, that’s bottom line. That’s the end of the story. If you want to signal to your supporters that you want it, that you’re hungry for it, that you want them to get out and and campaign, you’ve got to be out there doing it too. And he’s not doing it. it’s very unusual.

In the context of that statement, comes Carpenter's tweet--wrong, but defensible in the snap-judgment world of Twitter politicos.  And again, that's not what the Cruz campaign cited when they later came under fire--they cited Moody, and the Tapper-Bash exchange.

Quote

Did you even read the breitbar article?  Obviously not. Anyone not deeply involved can read it and see that Cruz simply lied about Carson. 3 min. after the Moody report Carpenter who is a reporter for CNN says "This should be read as if he is releasing his supporters.".  This is the same person who was previously Cruz's Chief of Communications.

The Breitbart article doesn't even mention Carpenter.  It, in conjunction with Carpenter's own tweet, allows us to construct the following timeline:

6:41-6:43:  Moody tweets

6:44:  Tapper-Bash on-air analysis of Moody tweets

6:46:  Carpenter tweet.

Quote

And you are using RedState as your libertarian guide?

Not at all.  I simply noted that RedState hosts a rather interesting article asking why Johnson and Weld should be considered true libertarians, when the article cites statements from each of them suggesting that each is actually a blend of fiscal conservatism and social progressivism that hews closer to a blue dog Democrat or a country club Republican.  Given your support of Johnson, I would very much enjoy seeing you spell out specifically where you think the article misses the mark.

1 hour ago, yjacket said:

Ah the old tried and true "we all know won't win" shtick.  Oh so you're voting for Trump now? 

No, but I was not--at any stage of the process--a part of the apparatus that helped to put Trump where he is today. 

If I'm involved in the Republican primary process, and used my involvement to stump for Trump, and Trump in fact gets the nomination--I'm not sure I can absolve myself of my role in that by saying "hey, guys, don't blame me--in the general, I promise to vote for the party that has never gotten more than one percent of the popular vote!!!" 

Edited June 1, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

I hear chamomile tea is quite nice and has some effect in calming the nerves.

[Takawi]

I don't want to ruffle any feathers or anything.  This is purely a question.  Do you think that Johnson can win?  If not, is your vote a protest vote?  Is this your way to quietly support Hillary?  Please don't read anything into this questions other than what I put here.   I'm not political.   I just wandered in here and wondered about it

Thanks in advance

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Takawi said:

I don't want to ruffle any feathers or anything.  This is purely a question.  Do you think that Johnson can win?  If not, is your vote a protest vote?  Is this your way to quietly support Hillary?  Please don't read anything into this questions other than what I put here.   I'm not political.   I just wandered in here and wondered about it

Thanks in advance

I do not think Johnson can win. Like it or not the libertarian party is still very small politically. He earned 1.2 million votes compared to 60 million for Romney and 65 million for Obama. 

Yes, it is a protest vote. 

Does it support Hillary? It'll take votes away from both Trump and Hillary. 

 

It's a totally fair question my friend.