Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, October 15, 2016

For starters, "I can't encourage millions of people whom I've never met to just run out and cast a ballot, simply because they have the right to vote. That would be like encouraging everyone to buy an AR-15, simply because they have the right to bear arms."

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Absolutely. Everyone should stop encouraging everyone to vote, and should instead be encouraging people to get informed about the issues and the candidates. Then they can decide for themselves if voting is important to them.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

People should not be encouraging "voting." People should be encouraged to get informed about the issues, the candidates, the way the world works at the national and local level, and then they can figure out on their own if voting is worth their time and effort.

#1 | Posted by ABH at 2016-10-15 12:15 PM | Reply

"For starters, "I can't encourage millions of people whom I've never met to just run out and cast a ballot, simply because they have the right to vote. That would be like encouraging everyone to buy an AR-15, simply because they have the right to bear arms."

The stupidity of that comment is hilarious. Someone will be elected President, your voice should be heard as to who that will be. Don't vote then don't complain. Not voting in this election is just another way of voting for Trump. We can't allow that monster to be elected, every vote counts.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2016-10-15 12:17 PM | Reply

Danni,

If I sat this one out how would that be a vote for Trump?

#3 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-15 12:20 PM | Reply

That statement isn't stupid, it's correct. Uninformed voting is ridiculous. Encouraging random morons that have no idea who the candidates are, what they believe in, their solutions, our how they will impact the economy, stability, and other factors, is gigantically dumb. I would rather have only 10 percent of the population vote and bee totally informed, than 100% vote by a bunch of idiots.

#4 | Posted by ABH at 2016-10-15 12:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#4

Great point!

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-15 12:27 PM | Reply

"If I sat this one out how would that be a vote for Trump?"

Quite simply, you know the Trump voters won't sit this one out. They are rabid for Trump. We need every rational voter to vote for Hillary to defeat him with enough of a landslide that the election is not stealable. Because he, the GOP and the Russians will try.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2016-10-15 12:28 PM | Reply

The Hillary supporters won't sit this out either.

Never Trump is compromised mostly of conservatives who mostly would vote for a Republican. A LOT of reasonable conservatives won't vote for either of these two. Ditto for reasonable liberals. Vote shaming has the opposite effect than intended.

#7 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-15 12:33 PM | Reply

How is it that Hillary Clinton not conservative enough for you?
She doesn't seem less conservative than Romney or McCain except on abortion.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 02:23 PM | Reply

The day after the election Jeff, after a Trump win, look in the mirror and ask yourself if you should have voted against Trump. Someday, your kids will thank you for voting against Trump.

#9 | Posted by danni at 2016-10-15 02:36 PM | Reply

"I can't encourage millions of people whom I've never met to just run out and cast a ballot"

Well, they do have to be registered first. So the advice is probably good, seeing as it's only actionable for the people who care enough to bother to register in the first place.

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 02:53 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

The stupidity of that comment is hilarious.

It's stupid to suggest one should responsibly exercise their Constitutional rights?

#11 | Posted by jpw at 2016-10-15 02:59 PM | Reply

Let's have mandatory voting, like Josef Stalin had, so we can all legitimize a corrupt, rigged system.

#12 | Posted by nullifidian at 2016-10-15 03:02 PM | Reply

I'm fine with mandatory voting, provided there's a "none of the above" option.

"Freedom isn't free."
Why shouldn't that apply to the democratic process itself?

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 03:13 PM | Reply

Let's have mandatory voting, like Australia has. Are the Austrlians really in favor of dictatorship? Who knew?

#14 | Posted by danni at 2016-10-15 03:14 PM | Reply

Danni,

I'm voting for McMullin.

That is voting against Trump.

And don't play the "morality" card when voting for Clinton. That is just risible.

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-15 03:17 PM | Reply

-Let's have mandatory voting, like Australia has

Yeah, let's be more like North Korea, Kim-Jong-Danni.

#16 | Posted by nullifidian at 2016-10-15 03:19 PM | Reply

I'm voting for McMullin.

Do you buy the idea that McMullin can stop Clinton from reaching 270, thus tossing the election to the GOP controlled House?

This is your sensible path forward for our Republic, a contested election that will make 2000 look like a fart in a tornado?

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 03:20 PM | Reply

#17

That is half of my motivation - throw it to the House. The other half is self-respect. I couldn't live with my conscience if I pulled the lever for Trump or Hillary.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-15 03:24 PM | Reply

So you desire an election decided by the House rather than by the Electoral College.
You want America to break out the 12th Amendment.
Wow.

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 03:26 PM | Reply

#16

The ONLY reason they are in favor of mandatory voting is due the the huge advantage Democrats have in the media and pop culture. The uninformed and insouciant person - who would other stay home on election day - is more likely to vote Democratic if a gun was at their head forcing them to vote. If that dynamic was flipped there is no way Danni or Snoofy would advocate mandatory voting. Situational ethics.

I am strongly against it simply because it's coercive and unnecessary. I strongly oppose authoritarianism and totalitarianism. I deplore the nanny-state. Among other things, it's what brought us the war on drugs.

#20 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-15 03:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So you desire an election decided by the House rather than by the Electoral College.
You want America to break out the 12th Amendment.
Wow.

#19 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Yep. If neither of these 2 can reach 270 they don't deserve to win. It's that simple. A process exists for this scenario. Follow the process.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-15 03:29 PM | Reply

If neither of these 2 can reach 270 they don't deserve to win

Okay. So the spoiler deserves the win in that case?

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 03:31 PM | Reply

#22

If that's who the House chooses - absolutely. Again, it's about following the process.

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-15 03:35 PM | Reply

It's about "following the process," even when that process gives the election to a guy who came in a distant third in both the popular and electoral vote.

You're hiding behind process because you favor the non-democratic outcome.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 03:42 PM | Reply

" I deplore the nanny-state. Among other things, it's what brought us the war on drugs."

That is not even true as John Ehrlichman, aid to Richard Nixon, has said.

"Top adviser to Richard Nixon admitted that ‘War on Drugs' was policy tool to go after anti-war protesters and ‘black people' "

www.nydailynews.com

I stated my theory that was exactly what he finally said in 1999 here many times only to be ridiculed but then it turned out I was right all along. Let me give you another tip, Reagan purposely started the destruction of the middle class because we were becoming too hard to control, because we refused to support the various wars, etc. Sooner or later one of his henchmen will come right out and admit it as if we didn't already know.

#25 | Posted by danni at 2016-10-15 03:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You're hiding behind process because you favor the non-democratic outcome.

#24 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Hiding?

No.

How do you suggest this hypothetical be resolved?

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-15 03:45 PM | Reply

If Adams, despite his many virtues, had a failed presidency during an era when constitutional reverence still prevailed over the democratic demand for direct elections of the president, what are the prospects that a candidate other than Trump or Clinton would have legitimacy if the next president is selected by the House? This would be a recipe for another failed presidency.

insiders.fortune.com

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 03:45 PM | Reply

Which wars did Reagan try to involve us in that necessitated the destruction of the middle class?

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-15 03:46 PM | Reply

How do you suggest this hypothetical be resolved?

I suggest you do your part in not creating a Constitutional crisis, is how I suggest it be resolved.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 03:46 PM | Reply

This would be a recipe for another failed presidency.

Maybe. Maybe not.

We are a nation of laws, no?

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-15 03:47 PM | Reply

I suggest you do your part in not creating a Constitutional crisis, is how I suggest it be resolved.

#29 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

OK. But that isn't what we are discussing. What if enough people in certain states give the 2 parties enough of a middle finger so that no candidate reaches 270?

A process already exists for dealing with that scenario. You obviously don't like that process. So, what do you propose in its place and how do you achieve it?

I don't know why you are dancing around this. If this scenario were to take place (extremely unlikely), do we follow the process, yes or no? If no, what should be done instead?

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-15 03:50 PM | Reply

"Top adviser to Richard Nixon admitted that ‘War on Drugs' was policy tool to go after anti-war protesters and ‘black people' "

Some people still truly believe the War on Drugs isn't racist.
Even when the architects are on record.
It's hard to imagine being this blind to racism.

Some people even think that when the DOJ reviews police activity, much of which is prompted by the War on Drugs in the first place, the act reviewing of police behavior fighting a racist war is what's truly racist.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 03:50 PM | Reply

What if enough people in certain states give the 2 parties enough of a middle finger so that no candidate reaches 270?

Pick from one of those two, since that's clearly what the two largest pluralities want.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 03:51 PM | Reply

We are a nation of laws, no?

What is this statement supposed to mean?
Are there nations that are other kinds of nations?

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 03:52 PM | Reply

#25 in the context of this excellent analysis by Mike Rowe proves his brilliance.

Allowing an uninformed to continue to vote en masse leads to the status quo continuing. As long as the uninformed view how they are tons and not how they KNOW... the wool continues to be pulled over everyone's eyes.

In other words, you are correct, Danni, everyone should be encouraged to get educated, not encouraged to vote.

#35 | Posted by ABH at 2016-10-15 03:52 PM | Reply

You obviously don't like that process.

I didn't say I didn't like the process.
I said I don't like the concept of running as a spoiler for the purposes of being a spoiler.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 03:53 PM | Reply

Which wars did Reagan try to involve us in that necessitated the destruction of the middle class?

The one currently engulfing the Middle East.
Marine barracks, Lebanon?
Arrow Air 1285?
No?

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 03:56 PM | Reply

Pick from one of those two, since that's clearly what the two largest pluralities want.

#33 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

So, just ignore the process then? If you think following the process and electing a spoiler would create illegitimacy I don't think you comprehend how much chaos would result from saying that the rules won't be followed, well, because.

Also, this scenario is STILL far more likely to put Clinton or Trump in the WH. The GOP would most likely be gutless and lockstep vote for Trump. Or, just as likely, they'd fracture, fail to unify, split their vote in the House resulting in Hillary for president. In this scenario I would say the odds are small that a 3rd Party candidate would come out on top.

If I understand you correctly, your concern with the process is that it might result in distant 3rd (or 4th or even 5th) becoming president when the more Democratic route would be for it to go to one of the 2 major party candidates. I disagree with that but I do see where you are coming from.

#38 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-15 03:58 PM | Reply

If I sat this one out how would that be a vote for Trump?

#3 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-15 12:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why do you even entertain a position that is absurd on its face? The way counting works is not up for debate. The only way voting behavior helps Trump is if a vote is cast for him. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply wrong and most likely being very dishonest with you (the alternative being genuine stupidity).

#39 | Posted by Sully at 2016-10-15 03:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No?

No.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-15 03:59 PM | Reply

Okay, well about 300 Marines died in Lebanon while Reagan was President.
Guess that wasn't an act of war, or terrorism, when they got truck-bombed?

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 04:01 PM | Reply

So, just ignore the process then?

Any time you engage in a process you should know what the process is supposed to do.
(That's why Ikea gives you pictures along the way.)
McMullin is hoping to become President despite nobody knowing his name last month.
That's not what the process is supposed to do.
You're advocating "Just Following Orders" now.

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 04:03 PM | Reply

#41

We are talking about a token retaliatory response to an act of war. Reagan did not receive a ton of pushback for the action he took.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-15 04:04 PM | Reply

Reagan did not receive a ton of pushback for the action he took.

It's not rape if she doesn't fight back hard enough?

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 04:07 PM | Reply

"That would be like encouraging everyone to buy an AR-15, simply because they have the right to bear arms."

What an idiotic comparison. Votes are not deadly weapons.

#45 | Posted by Angrydad at 2016-10-15 04:20 PM | Reply

#45 so you don't agree an irresponsible vote can result in disastrous consequences on a scale that dwarfs what a gun can do?

History would strongly disagree with you.

#46 | Posted by ABH at 2016-10-15 04:26 PM | Reply

on a scale that dwarfs what a gun can do?

Assassinating the guy who got elected on the "irresponsible vote?"

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 04:28 PM | Reply

#46 | Posted by ABH

Great. Another idiotic comparison.

#48 | Posted by Angrydad at 2016-10-15 04:39 PM | Reply

The thought was that if no candidate could reach 270 then they didn't have enough support of the people to be president. The next step is to kick it to the House and let the chips fall where they may. That was the intent of the 12th. And it's a bit more complicated - it's not a straight up House vote. The House members of each state vote and whichever candidate receives the most votes from that state gets 1 state vote.

No stipulation was made that the president had to come from either the Republican or Democratic party.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-15 04:41 PM | Reply

#48 "You're stupid!"

Just the kind of intellectual retort I would expect that can only see visions of democrats dancing through his head. The goal should be support for the most qualified candidate that most agrees with your own world view, and that is only achieved through an informed electorate. Not through coercive tactics trying to sway morons to vote how you want them too... And often against their own self interest.

For bonus points, I like your complete dismissal of history.

Strong work.

#50 | Posted by ABH at 2016-10-15 04:53 PM | Reply

Rowe's full of crap. A lot of people encourage voting without caring whether that means their candidate will win or lose.

Anyone who says they can't encourage voting -- because some people might vote stupidly -- is being an insufferable elitist. Rowe loses some of his common man cred when he takes a position against everyone voting.

#51 | Posted by rcade at 2016-10-15 05:26 PM | Reply

"The House members of each state vote and whichever candidate receives the most votes from that state gets 1 state vote. "

Which could and probably would result in a small minority actually overruling a majority. I hope and pray we never experience that, we should correct the system and give the Presidency to whoever wins the largest number of popular votes.

#53 | Posted by danni at 2016-10-15 05:31 PM | Reply

"Which wars did Reagan try to involve us in that necessitated the destruction of the middle class?"

He was governor of California when students at the University of California in Berkly were protesting, he decided at that time to end free tuition and to slash taxes which benefited the wealthy and reduced the incentive for the rich to invest in factories where the middle class were employed.

#54 | Posted by danni at 2016-10-15 05:35 PM | Reply

#51. But that isn't what he is saying. He is saying I encourage people to get educated and informed. Voting will come naturally to those that seek to be educated and informed about elections. That is a very smart thing to do, and much better than hoping idiots can be coerced into voting the way they want.

#55 | Posted by ABH at 2016-10-15 05:38 PM | Reply

The thought was that

#27 describes the reality.
Yet it means nothing to you, ideologue.

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-15 06:46 PM | Reply

Voting will always be for the mass of stupidity, just look at this sight, most here vote democrat, not by because they actually have knowledge of qualifications per say but because it is their party.

#57 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-10-16 03:18 AM | Reply

Voting will always be for the mass of stupidity, just look at this sight, most here vote democrat, not by because they actually have knowledge of qualifications per say but because it is their party.

#57 | Posted by Crassus

And then there's the mouthbreathers who vote Republican because...well...they're ---- idiots.

#58 | Posted by jpw at 2016-10-16 03:31 AM | Reply

Wow, I have never seen so much name calling and cursing across party lines. I am glad you guys like your party but I am and have always been independent, why, cause I have thoughts, and they are not party affiliated.

#59 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-10-16 04:02 AM | Reply

I have thoughts that turn out to be party affiliated.
Thoughts like "people should be able to get an abortion."

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-16 04:03 AM | Reply

CRASSUS @ 57

"Voting will always be for the mass of stupidity, just look at this sight,[sic] most here vote democrat, not by because they actually have knowledge of qualifications per say but because it is their party."

Or it could be because they DO have knowledge of qualifications and aren't stupid enough to trust the future of the country to a social pariah with an overlay of insatiable lust for power that he isn't mentally capable of using with any degree of sanity.

Let your "independent" thinking consider that.

#61 | Posted by Twinpac at 2016-10-16 05:02 AM | Reply

but I am and have always been independent, why, cause I have thoughts, and they are not party affiliated.

---------.

#62 | Posted by jpw at 2016-10-16 05:04 AM | Reply

BTW CRASSUS

It's site (not sight) ~ and per se (not per say)

C & P that in your non-party affiliated thoughts. It will help you when you're talking to "more knowledgeable" people on this site.

#63 | Posted by Twinpac at 2016-10-16 05:30 AM | Reply

Thoughts like "people should be able to get an abortion."

I don't disagree with you.

#64 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-10-16 05:30 AM | Reply

Let your "independent" thinking consider that.

That's just political party pander BS.

#65 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-10-16 05:31 AM | Reply

It's site (not sight) ~ and per se (not per say)

Did that feel good? I bow to you!

#66 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-10-16 05:33 AM | Reply

C & P ???

#67 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-10-16 05:34 AM | Reply

CRASSUS

"That's just political party pander BS."

Well I guess that settles the dismissive part of this debate. ~ LOL

#68 | Posted by Twinpac at 2016-10-16 05:36 AM | Reply

It will help you when you're talking to "more knowledgeable" people on this site.

Yawn! You people are just godlike to us peons!

#69 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-10-16 05:42 AM | Reply

Well it serves no purpose to try to discuss the condescension.

#70 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-10-16 05:43 AM | Reply

90% of all posts here involving trump is just BS name calling without substance or fact, all just editorial opinion for party affiliation.

No substance what so ever. Anything involving Hillary is dismissed through some type of deflection. The assumption is we just have to take your word for it without any back up.

#71 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-10-16 05:46 AM | Reply

"without substance or fact?

LOL ~ Yeah, who ya' gonna believe? Crassus or your lying eyes?

Hmmmmm ~ Tough decision.

NOT!

#72 | Posted by Twinpac at 2016-10-16 06:14 AM | Reply

Com'on CRASSUS. Don't take it like that. Just try harder like we knowledgeable people do. That's how we got to be knowledgeable.

#73 | Posted by Twinpac at 2016-10-16 06:27 AM | Reply

I just don't agree with your assessments, and have yet to see any posting supporting or backing up the assessments so postulated here. In fact, Hillary is rarely discussed here and when so it is almost always convoluted opinion with mostly derision to those that don't support Hillary.

In fact, for the last several months I have seen very little KNOWLEDGE being used here, but a whole lot of name calling, deflections, put downs, without ever substantiating viable realistic thoughts. And it is even more humorous when a Hillary thread shows up about some sort of malfeasance it is not only never address but all you Hillary supporter ignore such.

So I would lay low about saying you people are knowledgeable let alone more knowledgeable, the condescension shown contradicts such knowledge.

#74 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-10-16 06:41 AM | Reply

CRASSUS

You need to find a hobby. This site is neither a news agency nor is it a credible source of information that has any affect on the election results whatsoever.

No problem has ever been solved, no election has ever been altered and no opinion is ever bias free.

The headlines are designed to attract the lowest common denominator in society. From both sides of the isle.

It's a place for the disgruntled to vent and the victors to gloat. It's a place where speculation is allowed to run rampant and facts are distorted to fit personal policy.

It's a place to come and argue for those who need that sort of thing in their lives.

You shouldn't get so bent out of shape. It's not good for your mental health.

Try humor instead.

#75 | Posted by Twinpac at 2016-10-16 07:05 AM | Reply

I am not bent out of shape, I do find this site humorous and sometime sadly so.

There is so much time trying to convince people that trump is bad so vote for Hillary but literally no time is spent trying to sell Hillary's attributes. It would be like me trying to tell my customer about all the other competitors being bad not trying to sell my customers why they should come to my company.

#76 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-10-16 08:27 AM | Reply

"Try humor instead."

Damn good advice, TWINPAC.

#77 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2016-10-16 09:06 AM | Reply

"For starters, "I can't encourage millions of people whom I've never met to just run out and cast a ballot, simply because they have the right to vote. That would be like encouraging everyone to buy an AR-15, simply because they have the right to bear arms."
The stupidity of that comment is hilarious. Someone will be elected President, your voice should be heard as to who that will be. Don't vote then don't complain. Not voting in this election is just another way of voting for Trump. We can't allow that monster to be elected, every vote counts.

#2 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2016-10-15 12:17 PM
---

Uninformed voting is the only reason Trump had as much support as he did. That comment wasn't stupid, but your response to it sure was.

#78 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-10-16 11:16 AM | Reply

Votes are not deadly weapons.
#45 | POSTED BY ANGRYDAD AT 2016-10-15 04:20 PM

They can be, if the candidate they're voting for is a nuke loving pedo. ("swoon" - NG3)

#79 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-10-16 11:22 AM | Reply

"That comment wasn't stupid, but your response to it sure was."

No, your refusal to acknowledge that every thinking American needs to get out and vote against this monster is idiotic. Of course we do. If an enemy were getting ready to attack our nation we would all get ready to defend it. One is and you think sitting on the sidelines is acceptable, it's simply not and were he to win you would have the responsibility for that on your hands for which your children would hate you. My kids won't be hating me because I will be in the voting booth voting against the monster as they will be too.

#80 | Posted by danni at 2016-10-16 11:53 AM | Reply

No, your refusal to acknowledge that every thinking American needs to get out and vote against this monster is idiotic.
#80 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2016-10-16 11:53 AM

The quote was specifically against the "un" *bold italics omg" -thinking voting. It specifically encouraged informed voting. You just had an unthinking knee jerk reaction to it, even though you agree with it.

#81 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-10-16 12:23 PM | Reply

It's interesting that many of the butt hurts who think voting should be mindless and uninformed are Hillary voters. Granted, anyone voting for Trump must be uninformed but it's interesting to see Hillary voters embrace mindless voting.

#83 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-10-16 01:13 PM | Reply

Voting is a right for all citizens, it has nothing to do with intellect or knowledge. Even the dull and ignorant have a right to choose.

#84 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-10-16 10:27 PM | Reply

No, your refusal to acknowledge that every thinking American needs to get out and vote against this monster is idiotic. Of course we do. If an enemy were getting ready to attack our nation we would all get ready to defend it. One is and you think sitting on the sidelines is acceptable, it's simply not and were he to win you would have the responsibility for that on your hands for which your children would hate you. My kids won't be hating me because I will be in the voting booth voting against the monster as they will be too.

#80 | POSTED BY DANNI

The problem is you say that about every GOP candidate. Every one.

Your evil-scale currently is as follows:

Mussolini
Hitler
Satan
Scalia
Reagan

I share your abhorrence for Trump, but do you truly believe he could be worse than Reagan by your own personal metrics? I don't see how that's possible. Given that, I encourage you to consider dropping the overblown rhetoric and histrionics. Hillary is a bigger threat to freedom within this country than Trump - that's not to say that Trump won't be worse in other areas - he most certainly would be.

#85 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-17 12:01 AM | Reply

One is and you think sitting on the sidelines is acceptable, it's simply not and were he to win you would have the responsibility for that on your hands for which your children would hate you.

Oh poppy ----! Stop with the political partisan side shaming, it is stupid and without merit.

My kids won't be hating me because I will be in the voting booth voting against the monster as they will be too.

So you are not voting for monster Hillary so who will your kids hate on? See how ridiculous that is.

#86 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-10-17 12:08 AM | Reply

#27 describes the reality.
Yet it means nothing to you, ideologue.

#56 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

You have been dancing around this hypothetical the entire thread.

In the extremely unlikely scenario where a spoiler or two win a couple of states and prevent Trump and Clinton from hitting 270 - what can be done, from a practical standpoint, to prevent the GOP House from voting for McMullin? If no candidate hits 270 the 12th Amendment will kick in. If that happens, the GOP House will likely pick our next president. I understand why you dislike this (aside from Hillary not becoming POTUS) should they choose a 'spoiler'. But that is how the process works, should things reach that point. It's the process that saddled the GOP with Trump. I think that should serve as a cautionary tale for the GOP's primary process going forward, but they have to live with the results in '16.

If '16 goes to the House and they vote McMullin, what do you propose be done about it?

#87 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-17 12:13 AM | Reply

If '16 goes to the House and they vote McMullin, what do you propose be done about it?

Nothing can be done about that. Which is why I propose nobody vote for McMullin so he doesn't get any Electoral votes so this is never an option in the first place. Not that Electors would be constrained by the plebiscite in the first place. But you get the idea.

You're voting for a Constitutional crisis over the major party nominee. You can call that a lot of things, but "conservative" isn't one of them.

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-17 12:21 AM | Reply

I share your abhorrence for Trump, but do you truly believe he could be worse than Reagan by your own personal metrics?

You go deaf when Trump blows the racist dog whistle better than Regan ever did.

#89 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-17 12:30 AM | Reply

Nothing can be done about that.

Thank you - that was refreshingly honest.

#90 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-17 12:36 AM | Reply

You go deaf when Trump blows the racist dog whistle better than Regan ever did.

#89 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Really?

I am a Never Trump guy and absolutely will not vote for him.

You really should Hans my comments regarding Trump during the primary and understand why I was (and still am) so opposed to him. You'll find that his 'referee whistle racism' was front-and-center of my criticisms - I know that this destroys your narrative, but if you really embrace science and facts over fiction...

#91 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-17 12:40 AM | Reply

I am a Never Trump guy and absolutely will not vote for him.

You say that like we should care.

Tell me, if you think he's more racist than Reagan, why can't you figure he'd be a worse President than Reagan?

#92 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-17 12:43 AM | Reply

I absolutely think he'd be a worse president than Reagan. By a HUGE margin.

Perhaps you should consider setting your straw on fire and engaging in honest discourse.

#93 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-17 12:47 AM | Reply

I think Reagan lands in the top-10 - barely - when we evaluate presidents on a historical basis.

#94 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-17 12:48 AM | Reply

I absolutely think he'd be a worse president than Reagan. By a HUGE margin.

We all think that. It shouldn't surprise you. You shouldn't have to ask us why. Yet, here you are.

#95 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-17 12:48 AM | Reply

I think Trump would have handled AIDS better than Reagan. Purely out of his fear of getting it.

#96 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-17 12:50 AM | Reply

Not a bad idea to be an informed voter.

#97 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-10-17 12:50 AM | Reply

You shouldn't have to ask us why. Yet, here you are.

#95 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I didn't ask you (plural) why. I asked Danni why. And I tailored the question to her specifically in addition to singling her out with said question. And, on top of that, said question was asked on a different thread.

#98 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-17 12:55 AM | Reply

Not a bad idea to be an informed voter.

#97 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

You would think that statement would be regarded as common-sense. On this thread, sadly you'd be wrong.

#99 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-17 12:57 AM | Reply

You told Danni, The problem is you say that about every GOP candidate. Every one.

On your ranking of all the best Presidents, do any Democrats score higher than any Republicans?

#100 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-17 12:57 AM | Reply

On your ranking of all the best Presidents, do any Democrats score higher than any Republicans?

Yep. One example: Grover Cleveland scores higher than a vast majority of Republican presidents on my personal scale.

#101 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-17 01:00 AM | Reply

A more recent example: George W Bush scores lower on my scale than Obama, who scores lower on my scale that HW Bush who scores lower on my scale than Clinton.

#102 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-17 01:02 AM | Reply

Lemme guess - you score Obama several grades above Lincoln?

#103 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-17 01:03 AM | Reply

Is Franklin Pierce at the bottom?

#104 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-17 01:04 AM | Reply

Frankie is scraping bottom - big picture. Buchanan is bottom - big picture.

Undoubtedly that kind of "inconsistency" blows your mind. I am out and will leave you to ponder what you likely see as massive hypocrisy (even though it isn't).

#105 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-17 01:07 AM | Reply

Lemme guess - you score Obama several grades above Lincoln?

I don't know enough about Lincoln to say, but probably.

#106 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-17 01:10 AM | Reply

Undoubtedly that kind of "inconsistency" blows your mind

Not really. The concept that there's some sort of fair scale where we can judge William Henry Harrision against Harry Truman seems suspect in the first place, is actually what I think about ranking the Presidents.

#107 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-17 01:11 AM | Reply

Should Lincoln be commended for winning a war made inevitable by Founders? It seems to me like the Founders wanted the South to win. They gave the South extra representation in government based on property ownership (slaves), so it's clear what side they favored. Plus they pretty much all owned slaves themselves.

#108 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-17 01:21 AM | Reply

Feels revisionist to me.

#109 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-17 01:21 AM | Reply

#108

I popped back in for a cameo and you surely didn't disappoint.

It's really precious when someone (such as yourself) fast-forwards over 2 centuries and applies all that has been achieved during that time to what happened during the infancy of this country, whilst not providing, much less hinting toward acknowledgment, how "progressive" this country was, at that point in history, when compared with what was going on in the rest of the world.

Howard Zinn is worth reading (I have a copy of his definitive tome on my bookshelf and have read it cover-to-cover) but he paints a VERY incomplete picture that is utterly lacking in broader historical context.

This lack of perspective infects a bunch of your posts.

#110 | Posted by jeffj at 2016-10-17 01:44 AM | Reply

It's really precious when someone (such as yourself) fast-forwards over 2 centuries and applies all that has been achieved during that time

You're asking me to engage in revisionist history now.

I said America's government was stacked in favor of slave states. This is a plain fact.

From there, I speculate that the Founders wight have wanted the slave side to win. It's not a stretch. So many of them were Virginians, which went with the South.

There's noting problematic about what I said, unless you need to think the Founders were abolitionists too, which is nonsense, since they established slavery and gave slave states a political one-up (three-fifths up, I guess) in representation.

#111 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-17 02:34 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort