|
Who What Now posted:Where "a lot of flack, criticism and general condemnation from other states and other international bodies and basically anyone else" has ever stopped discrimination, or civil and human rights abuses. You know, the thing we're talking about right now? Good god, you're almost as bad at basic reading comprehension as you are at comedy. Given 'Libertarian', it's totally true so long as you read 'dictate the sexual mores of consenting adults' to mean 'enforce the age of consent'.
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 18:50 |
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:No, okay, I've played nice and I've defended my choice of candidate. It's time for you guys to ante up, I want somebody to answer my original question: you haven't defended poo poo, i'm still waiting to hear about things not addressed in the bill of rights in case you forgot already here's the list Literally The Worst posted:adoption if you have time i'd like to hear how you think this time letting states decide on whether gay marriage is cool or not will play out differently from the last time we did that
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:I think you're seeing what you want to see, but again, I've been clear, it would be foolish of him not to at least be cautious when withdrawing military personnel and resources from the area, since poo poo's still hot. I maintain that I've every confident he will stick to his stated goal to keep his--and the nation's--nose out of other country's affairs. That's not his stated goal, his stated goal is maintaining bases in the Middle East forever and continuing drone strikes, along with funding a military large enough to wage humanitarian wars that he deems necessary. 8-Bit Scholar posted:Campaign finance, it's a lost cause either way. What, you think Hillary Clinton is going to be the one to take money out of politics? Hillary Clinton co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act (the law that Citizens' United overturned), her husband and Obama between them appointed 100% of the judges who dissented from that decision, she has promised to appoint another judge to swing the court to a majority who are opposed to that decision, there's zero reason to believe she won't do that or that her entire career of fighting to get big money out of politics is a smokescreen until she'll reveal her true form after the election. I notice the double standard. Johnson will continue America's long tradition of loving around in the Middle East: "well maybe he'll do a bit better, every bit helps." Clinton has significant campaign finance victories under her belt, a career of fighting for legislation to restrict 1%er influence in politics, and is guaranteed to succeed in appointing at least one anti-CU justice in her first term: "welp, what are you gonna do, there will always be money in politics, guess I'll vote for the guy pledging to give the 1% complete control of everything all the time"
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:No, okay, I've played nice and I've defended my choice of candidate. It's time for you guys to ante up, I want somebody to answer my original question: Defending a position or your candidate's positions requires you to present them, argue why they are good, and do so in good faith conceding points when you can't defend them any further. For example, whether or not I vote for Stein anymore I still concede that she has been loving mealy-mouthed about her stance on vaccinations and I'm not going to espouse or defend that poo poo anymore. (In all honesty I prolly won't vote for anyone) I'm gonna steal Dickeye's thing and tell you to fight me irl you idiot
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
gTwerkteam Pizza posted:Defending a position or your candidate's positions requires you to present them, argue why they are good, and do so in good faith conceding points when you can't defend them any further. get your own fuckin thing
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
Also, it's hilarious that you blame the superrich for starting all of America's wars so they can profit from it, and your solution is to get rid of all campaign finance restrictions and let them buy politicians directly. Gee I wonder who the warmongering superrich are going to elect once Johnson generously lets them buy the entire political process in this country.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:g okay sorry please murder him
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:you haven't defended poo poo, i'm still waiting to hear about things not addressed in the bill of rights Thirteenth amendment, I already linked you that one. I don't know why adoption needs to be a civil right, is that a thing? I'm not getting that. VitalSigns posted:That's not his stated goal, his stated goal is maintaining bases in the Middle East forever and continuing drone strikes, along with funding a military large enough to wage humanitarian wars that he deems necessary. That's not his stated goal though? He doesn't even state that in the article you linked. quote:I notice the double standard. Johnson will continue America's long tradition of loving around in the Middle East: "well maybe he'll do a bit better, every bit helps." I'm about as incredulous about Clinton's sincerity in taking money out of politics given how much money she's made just this election. She's the poster child of exactly the kind of bloated fundraising that needs to stop--so what, she'll be the last one? Seems unlikely to me, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say okay, say she does overturn citizens united. That's one thing. What about the drone strikes, the regime change policies, the domestic spying and the NSA, the drug war? ISIS? The fact that Clinton herself is friends with dictators, takes money from oil barons? You all seem really keen on NOT actually defending or even endorsing your candidate du jour. What about the massive amount of money the Clintons make doing speeches? Speeches to these guys: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/44b80y/clinton_has_been_paid_over_3_million_for_speaking/ I mean, gently caress, go ahead and vote for Jill Stein, I"m just saying that that the third party vote is the only reasonable choice to make this election, and Gary Johnson is a candidate who could actually steal votes from both sides of the aisle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Thirteenth amendment, I already linked you that one. I don't know why adoption needs to be a civil right, is that a thing? I'm not getting that. the thirteenth amendment isn't in the bill of rights you moron you're still not addressing the entire rest of that list, keep going, by my count there's still four more things on it
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
8-bit scholar you know what you you're a fuckin coward you won't back up anything you say, you just toss out these pithy little handwaves and expect everyone to either agree with you or let you off the hook fight me you fuckin coward
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:the thirteenth amendment isn't in the bill of rights you moron Oh well, I'm just extending the whole of the amendments. I forgot that the term "bill of rights" i guess only refers to the first ten, but y'know, the list of amendments and general civil rights. The list of amendments then. That poo poo's fine? Constitution is the law of the land, what's wrong with that? If you want other poo poo added on, then get it voted in. You get that poo poo voted in though, you gotta do it. EDIT: Why are you all so angry you are the angriest people on these forums it takes absolutely nothing to get you riled up
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
i don't give a poo poo about adoptions foster care system is hosed
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Oh well, I'm just extending the whole of the amendments. I forgot that the term "bill of rights" i guess only refers to the first ten, but y'know, the list of amendments and general civil rights. The list of amendments then. That poo poo's fine? Constitution is the law of the land, what's wrong with that? If you want other poo poo added on, then get it voted in. You get that poo poo voted in though, you gotta do it. So keep explaining the rest of that list, if you can do that while you backpedal so furiously
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:except for Stein who is an unrealistic choice. Last I heard Johnson was polling at 6% to Stein's 2%. But that was from someone retweeting Paul Ryan making a joke about how 5% of people wanted that gorilla who'd been shot for president. How is someone polling 1% higher than a dead gorilla (who was also 17 and thus didn't meet the age requirement) a realistic choice?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
Harambe for President
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
Do you want a constitutional amendment to guarantee people employment and housing? That's not even a thing currently, I don't get it. If the government is currently providing housing to the homeless then there are an awful lot of men and women on the major intersections of my city who have not received the memo, so perhaps the system is not particularly effective. I actually also do think that healthcare is not best left to the free market and would be perfectly okay with an amendment ensuring it as a human right to all, although Johnson does not support that. ANd hey, maybe he's right, and we'll end up with high quality, low cost competetive health care, who knows, I'm not an expert on health economies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
White Coke posted:Last I heard Johnson was polling at 6% to Stein's 2%. But that was from someone retweeting Paul Ryan making a joke about how 5% of people wanted that gorilla who'd been shot for president. How is someone polling 1% higher than a dead gorilla (who was also 17 and thus didn't meet the age requirement) a realistic choice? poo poo, Johnson's greatest accomplishment on the national level was getting just under 1% of the popular vote in the 2012 presidential election. The Libertarian party as a whole does not hold a single national-level office or seat in Congress. I say again, Bernie Sanders holds more seats in Congress than the entire Libertarian Party, and has won more elections to boot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Do you want a constitutional amendment to guarantee people employment and housing? That's not even a thing currently, I don't get it. If the government is currently providing housing to the homeless then there are an awful lot of men and women on the major intersections of my city who have not received the memo, so perhaps the system is not particularly effective. I would like people to not be discriminated against in various ways because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. You claim the constitution stops this. I want you to explain to me how, and I want you to do this while also explaining why that hasn't stopped it from being a problem yet I feel like I've been pretty clear about it and you're just a pussy rear end bitch who can't come up with a good answer so you're falling back on this bizarre nonsense
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:I would like people to not be discriminated against in various ways because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. You claim the constitution stops this. I want you to explain to me how, and I want you to do this while also explaining why that hasn't stopped it from being a problem yet I'm sorry you feel that way. It may be that perhaps you've confused discrimination for people treating you like an overly hostile jerk? If you want to make gender identity a human right or whatever, you'll have to put the legwork in to get it added I'd say. I can't imagine what that'd look like, but good luck to you. Otherwise I'm not sure what your point has been, you listed a bunch of poo poo like housing that isn't even in the constitution right now, so again, you're just spouting nonsense. Still nothing to say about the whole domestic spy thing? EDIT: I guess I'd say I'm not sure if everyone is guaranteed a house, if that's what you've been trying to get at. I think that's a nice idea that'd be very troublesome in execution. 8-Bit Scholar fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Aug 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:That's not his stated goal though? He doesn't even state that in the article you linked. You: "that thing he stated as a goal of his foreign policy isn't his stated goal!" 8-Bit Scholar posted:I'm about as incredulous about Clinton's sincerity in taking money out of politics given how much money she's made just this election. She's the poster child of exactly the kind of bloated fundraising that needs to stop--so what, she'll be the last one? Seems unlikely to me, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say okay, say she does overturn citizens united. That's one thing. She cosponsored McCain-Feingold, the toughest campaign finance laws in history. Everyone who voted for it took fundraising money for their campaigns, that didn't magically stop them from writing the law. Obama took money from the 1%, that didn't magically stop him from appointing Kagan and Sotomayor to the court. Just because politicians have to take money to get elected in the current environment doesn't mean that they like it. Unilaterally forgoing money is how you end up with an underfunded losing campaign against an opponent with a huge warchest. That's why you pass laws that affect both candidates equally but to do that you have to get elected in the first place. 8-Bit Scholar posted:What about the massive amount of money the Clintons make doing speeches? Speeches to these guys: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/44b80y/clinton_has_been_paid_over_3_million_for_speaking/ Well-known politicians give lots of speeches to lots of different groups for money, it's a common thing and doesn't imply they'll give those groups favors. Hillary got $260,000 to give a speech to the American Camp Association, is she in the pocket of Big Camping? Now from a Sanders supporter this kind of makes sense, it's better not to even appear to have a conflict of interest because it may look like you'll be partial to those groups later. But this criticism makes no sense from a Johnson supporter because he makes no bones about his intentions to reshape the law into nothing but big blowjobs for the ultrarich all day every day. In short: "Hillary got paid for speeches so she might let banks do bad things, therefore let me vote for Johnson who is already promising to let banks do all the bad things!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
Now let me address your Gish Gallop8-Bit Scholar posted:What about the drone strikes, the regime change policies, 8-Bit Scholar posted:the domestic spying and the NSA, 8-Bit Scholar posted:the drug war?  Hillary's loving platform posted:The "war on drugs" has led to the imprisonment of millions of Americans, disproportionately people of color, without reducing drug use. Whenever possible, Democrats will prioritize prevention and treatment over incarceration when tackling addiction and substance use disorder. We will build on effective models of drug courts, veterans’ courts, and other diversionary programs that seek to give nonviolent offenders opportunities for rehabilitation as opposed to incarceration. 8-Bit Scholar posted:ISIS? 8-Bit Scholar posted:The fact that Clinton herself is friends with dictators Anyway, Johnson wants bases in the Middle East, that's going to require him to be friendly with dictators. 8-Bit Scholar posted:takes money from oil barons? Oh no, an oil sheikh contributed to a charity foundation she founded, dismantle all charities that ever took money from a bad person. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Aug 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:No, okay, I've played nice and I've defended my choice of candidate. It's time for you guys to ante up, I want somebody to answer my original question: Because Gary Johnson's economic policy would be catastrophic and Donald Trump is a loving lunatic. Somehow I think you're a little bit too much of a pithy bitch to actually stand your ground, but if you're curious, I responded to your stupid poo poo up thread in explaining precisely why Gary Johnson can go suck all of the dicks. Since we've already clarified that Johnson can't be president, because his economic policy would be almost quite literally world ending, that leaves you with the choice of Trump or Hillary. Now I can get why you don't want to vote for Hillary, she has some policies and opinions that are dumb as poo poo to put it lightly. And if you're not in a swing state then frankly I don't think it much matters who the gently caress you vote for, but if you live somewhere it matters you should vote for Hillary Clinton because your primary alternatives are a crazy person and a person with such a poor grasp of economic realities that he thinks you can cut off 1/4 of all federal funding, over 5% of the loving economy, without any negative side effects. So tell me, why should I vote for the guy willing to usher in economic armaggedon, or do you still not understand how loving stupid a balanced budget amendment is, amongst all his other stupid poo poo. Because for the record, Gary Johnson has a bunch of really lovely policies, I just picked the one that is the financial equivalent of a Michael Bay movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
I only weakly implied it, but there's another hilarious double-standard here for Hillary. Confronting dictators: "she's meddling in another country's affairs and imposing her own government on them!" Peacefully engaging dictators: "why she's friends with dictators, how evil!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
Speaking of Gary Johnson, he (well, his presidential committee) is still in debt from his 2012 run. Somewhere to the tune of $1.5 to $1.8 million. http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/950/201607079020368950/201607079020368950.pdf $332k of that is repayment to the FEC for money spent that did not qualify for FEC matching funds. http://www.fec.gov/audits/2012/Gary_Johnson_2012_Inc/GovernorGaryJohnsonandGaryJohnson2012IncMemorandum.pdf It appears that he's going to be making some of the money back. How, you might ask? By selling his 2012 campaign email list to 5 groups, at $150k a pop. (pg 2) http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/486/201605090300073486/201605090300073486.pdf I'm sure there's more schadenfreude to be mined in these FEC documents.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:No, okay, I've played nice and I've defended my choice of candidate. It's time for you guys to ante up, I want somebody to answer my original question: Because she doesn't want to replace the income tax with a loving sales tax, she doesn't want to eliminate the EPA, and she doesn't want to privatize social security. Johnson wants all of this poo poo and Trump probably does, too, so Clinton is the better pick. You seem to care about campaign finance reform, well Clinton actually stands with you on that. Johnson doesn't. Clinton is actually a pretty good candidate if you're progressive at all. She's kind of a war hawk, but we can't all be perfect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 10:36
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:I'm sorry you feel that way. It may be that perhaps you've confused discrimination for people treating you like an overly hostile jerk? So what you're saying is, when you said the bill of rights would stop states from discriminating against LGBT people, you were actually talking completely out of your rear end. Also, I'm the jerk for holding you down and demanding an answer and not allowing you to change the subject Get hosed
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 11:41
|
|
|
That is literally how this started mind you "Lol you guys are nuts discrimination won't happen if states are allowed to decide individually on whether or not gay people have rights, the constitution prevents it" Eight hours of you trying to dodge people asking how later: "Sorry that's not covered by the constitution" Get hosed
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 11:46
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:other than that the bill of rights should cover gay marriage so its totally okay for states to decide how that plays out Is this the actual loving argument? This has to be a troll. Ay yo 8-bit, the fact that something is protected by the Bill of Rights does not automatically prevent laws from violating your rights! There is in fact a whole system to react to such a possibility. So how the gently caress do you think any law that violates gay folks' Bill of Rights-provided rights will be struck down? At what level of government? By what body and for what reason? How is this in any way different from how same-sex marriage became legal in the entire US besides which specific amendment to the Constitution was cited?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 12:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hillary Clinton co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act (the law that Citizens' United overturned), her husband and Obama between them appointed 100% of the judges who dissented from that decision, she has promised to appoint another judge to swing the court to a majority who are opposed to that decision, there's zero reason to believe she won't do that or that her entire career of fighting to get big money out of politics is a smokescreen until she'll reveal her true form after the election. And uh, in any case, however much she benefits from big business donations I am pretty sure that the party that is even more explicitly and stridently pro-business, i.e., her opponents' party, benefits a lot more. So there's an incentive structure there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 12:13
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:I feel like 8-bit scholar
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 13:41
|
|
|
Stein isn't antivax the same way Johnson is anti-war. "Bad things are bad and I support good things, it's a tricky subject all right, okay no more details"
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:So what you're saying is, when you said the bill of rights would stop states from discriminating against LGBT people, you were actually talking completely out of your rear end. Also, I'm the jerk for holding you down and demanding an answer and not allowing you to change the subject I already explained that LGBT rights--specifically marriage--should be included in either freedom of expression or freedom of religion. We've covered the rest of this, so you're just being hysterical. Again. Do you all have some kind of psychological disease that requires you to end every post with a furious ejaculation? Chill. QuarkJets posted:Clinton is actually a pretty good candidate if you're progressive at all. She's kind of a war hawk, but we can't all be perfect. You actually mean this sincerely? C'mon man. She didn't even support your precious gay marriage issue until a few years ago and had been staunchly opposed whenever the political winds favored opposition. VitalSigns posted:I only weakly implied it, but there's another hilarious double-standard here for Hillary. This isn't...what the gently caress are you on? "Confronting dictators"? Is that what you're calling surreptitiously aiding armed insurgencies and rebellions to bring down foreign governments? Taking money and hand outs from Libyan generals and Saudi royalty is peacefully engaging dictators? Now it is your turn to honestly get hosed. VitalSigns posted:Johnson supports drone strikes and humanitarian interventions against evil regimes. Keeping his options open does not equate to support and you keep saying this like it is so. GunnerJ posted:Ay yo 8-bit, the fact that something is protected by the Bill of Rights does not automatically prevent laws from violating your rights! There is in fact a whole system to react to such a possibility. So how the gently caress do you think any law that violates gay folks' Bill of Rights-provided rights will be struck down? At what level of government? By what body and for what reason? How is this in any way different from how same-sex marriage became legal in the entire US besides which specific amendment to the Constitution was cited? State and local governments, based on existing precedent and general opinion, and again you seem to think that every federal mandate is instantly invalidated by a Johnson presidency, it's more hysterics and more hyperbole. If you think your state is that close to becoming a horrible Puritanical hell hole, that's only more reason to say that you should not stand idly by while the political process is underway. Getting involved, particularly in a state-centric government, is very important. You want amendments and protections, you have to get out and raise the call for them. Since you all seem exclusively concerned with LGBT rights, that apparently should be the issue you fight for. It's depressing to see how many of you think the only salvation you have left is the benevolence of the distant and faceless Federal state, as though you've no agency at all in your own governments. So far the only thing you guys have going is that Clinton plans to overturn citizen's united and maybe she does, but based on literally everything about her, I somehow am skeptical as to whether she's going to somehow clean up the corruption in our government. Her pro war stance is already disquieting and it is absolutely not the same thing that Johnson is proposing no matter how many times you attempt to say it is, her domestic spy policies are atrocious, she's never been against the War on Drugs or the police state, and she'd continue to expand the power of the federal government to the detriment of common people. All the rest is like "Blah blah we hate Gary Johnson" but you've nothing but faint praise for Clinton. I suppose since I don't live in a swing state this year it's all a moot point, but in between all your ceaseless vitriol, anger and furious rhetoric, smug condescension and condemnation you've only made a single case for your candidate, only a single point in her favor, and at best you've simply said "well the other candidate is just as bad about X" which is weak stuff overall. As I've said before, Clinton or Trump being elected are both awful messages for a democracy to send. If you really want to keep propping up this empire, that's on you, but y'know, if you're going to sneer, I'd urge you to do so only once you've come to terms with who YOU are voting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:i don't give a poo poo about adoptions "Orphans should be left to die in the streets" -8-Bit Scholar, TYOOL 2016
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:I already explained that LGBT rights--specifically marriage--should be included in either freedom of expression or freedom of religion. What do you think the First Amendment actually says? I'm legitimately curious; without googling it tell me what the text of it actually is. quote:Keeping his options open does not equate to support and you keep saying this like it is so. If you don't support an option you don't keep it open. Full stop. This isn't a difficult concept to understand, and yet like so many other simple things you're struggling mightily with it. It's exactly like how wanting to give states the ability to take away civil rights means you support civil rights being taken away. If he didn't support that then he wouldn't want to give them that power. Simple, see?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Of course they have faint praise for Clinton, this is the Libertarian thead, so they are addressing the problems with the Libertarain candidate and his almost apocalyptically absurd policy platform. The Democrat thread is busy worrying about downticket races, because unlike the Libertarian Party, they have Congressional seats to win at the state level.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:We've covered the rest of this, so you're just being hysterical how, pray tell, did we cover this? last time i looked you just went "well you'll have to get that into the constitution as an amendment", which is a pretty furious backpeddle from "lol the bill of rights will cover it"
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:"Orphans should be left to die in the streets" -8-Bit Scholar, TYOOL 2016 Go on, buy me the red text. Who What Now posted:If you don't support an option you don't keep it open. Full stop. Johnson has already pledged to close down a huge chunk of our military bases, he hasn't specified which ones, I suspect he honestly wants to close them all but would never get elected by militant moderates with that kind of attitude, and it would be a dangerous thing to commit to anyway. You're not making the point you think you're making, and it's strange that you guys keep repeating this as though you're doing anything but spinning on this issue. You'd condemn him if he committed to an action too, you'd say it was unrealistic and strategically dangerous and too ideologically driven and there'd be no win state. You guys vacillate between pragmatic realists trying to support a worn out but still functioning system and ideological purists who scoff at anyone adopting a middle ground position as it suits you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Go on, buy me the red text. closing all of our military bases: a good idea
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
^^^^ I'd be in favor of closing all of our foreign bases, and generally advocating that military bases not be permenant facilities, so yeah. Wait aren't progressives supposed to be against the military do you want to actually defend thisLiquid Communism posted:they have Congressional seats to win at the state level. Oh hey how's about all that funding that your Presidential candidate totally promised was going to be for state electoral races but actually just sat in the upper party's bank vaults forever? How's that Clinton Victory Fund hey you guys are playing power broker here right how's that power brokering going, did she give you back the money she basically stole from you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 18:50 |
|
|
also lol at gary johnson as the middle ground would you say he's socially liberal fiscally conservative
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:07
|
|