The next President will be the greatest catastrophe of American governance since the Civil War...

[Mac1958]

Whichever one wins, they will be so hated by the other side that the next eight years will make the past eight years look like a love fest.

Yep.

And it continues to deteriorate until some "leaders" stop worrying about being re-elected to their cushy gubmit jobs, grow the **** up, and start working together.
.

 

[S.J.]

Sure, he does, S.J., and you put words in peoples' mouths in order to lower the discussion to Alt Right lunacy.

Trump will be a catastrophe. So would Clinton.

Sounds like you're resolved to Trump being the next POTUS.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"The next President will be the greatest catastrophe of American governance since the Civil War..."

Ridiculous hyperbole.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sure, he does, S.J., and you put words in peoples' mouths in order to lower the discussion to Alt Right lunacy.

Trump will be a catastrophe. So would Clinton.

Sounds like you're resolved to Trump being the next POTUS.

Either of them will be a catastrophe.

 

[Fueri]

unfortunately that fucktard is going to get a handful of Supreme Court nominations, so I'd rather it not be a liberal loon.

I would agree with you here somewhat except that I do not see Trump as electing anything to the SCOTUS better than Hillary. Constitutional does not even remotely come to mind when thinking about Trump.

Could well be although after watching Obama appoint the likes of Sotomayor I'd rather have anyone but another lib picking justices.

 

[JakeStarkey]

unfortunately that fucktard is going to get a handful of Supreme Court nominations, so I'd rather it not be a liberal loon.

I would agree with you here somewhat except that I do not see Trump as electing anything to the SCOTUS better than Hillary. Constitutional does not even remotely come to mind when thinking about Trump.

Could well be although after watching Obama appoint the likes of Sotomayor I'd rather have anyone but another lib picking justices.

The scenario seems to be one of two dem lites will be elected POTU.

 

[Fueri]

unfortunately that fucktard is going to get a handful of Supreme Court nominations, so I'd rather it not be a liberal loon.

I would agree with you here somewhat except that I do not see Trump as electing anything to the SCOTUS better than Hillary. Constitutional does not even remotely come to mind when thinking about Trump.

Could well be although after watching Obama appoint the likes of Sotomayor I'd rather have anyone but another lib picking justices.

The scenario seems to be one of two dem lites will be elected POTU.

Yes, I can see how people can say that. In terms specifically of the appointment of SC justices, however, this is one area where hillarys experience and network in DC works against her from the perspective of being able to choose exactly the people she thinks will support her agenda.

I know it's counter-intuitive, but with the rise of activism on the bench it would almost be better to draw a name at random rather than have someone chosen by someone that is laser focused on pushing this or that agenda.

I also think one of the top items on the list for dems to attempt to move the court on is the second amendment interpretation. While clinton and trump may be similar on some issues, they do not seem to be on this one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

unfortunately that fucktard is going to get a handful of Supreme Court nominations, so I'd rather it not be a liberal loon.

I would agree with you here somewhat except that I do not see Trump as electing anything to the SCOTUS better than Hillary. Constitutional does not even remotely come to mind when thinking about Trump.

Could well be although after watching Obama appoint the likes of Sotomayor I'd rather have anyone but another lib picking justices.

The scenario seems to be one of two dem lites will be elected POTU.

Yes, I can see how people can say that. In terms specifically of the appointment of SC justices, however, this is one area where hillarys experience and network in DC works against her from the perspective of being able to choose exactly the people she thinks will support her agenda.

I know it's counter-intuitive, but with the rise of activism on the bench it would almost be better to draw a name at random rather than have someone chosen by someone that is laser focused on pushing this or that agenda.

I also think one of the top items on the list for dems to attempt to move the court on is the second amendment interpretation. While clinton and trump may be similar on some issues, they do not seem to be on this one.

Interesting and good sense. I do think a large part of the Dem party and many centrists is the reining back of Citizens United.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Either way, it's our last election as 57 United States.

If Trump wins, the Bankers collapse the US economy which is built on top of the Credit Sand Castle; if Hillary wins, we'll she's just a ******* disaster and can't predict how she'll collapse it

I'd ring you up with 10 medals for this one if I could, CF. The republic is pretty much finished.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The OP seems to be saying that Obama has fucked us over so badly it doesn't matter who the next president is, the damage caused by this administration is irreversible. He may have a point.

Not quite. I am saying that it doesn't matter how well off our country may be, both Trump and Clinton will be a catastrophe.

No, that's not what youre saying at all. SJ is correct, Obama is handing over the biggest Financial IED in history to his unfortunate successor

 

[CrusaderFrank]

unfortunately that fucktard is going to get a handful of Supreme Court nominations, so I'd rather it not be a liberal loon.

I would agree with you here somewhat except that I do not see Trump as electing anything to the SCOTUS better than Hillary. Constitutional does not even remotely come to mind when thinking about Trump.

Could well be although after watching Obama appoint the likes of Sotomayor I'd rather have anyone but another lib picking justices.

The scenario seems to be one of two dem lites will be elected POTU.

Yes, I can see how people can say that. In terms specifically of the appointment of SC justices, however, this is one area where hillarys experience and network in DC works against her from the perspective of being able to choose exactly the people she thinks will support her agenda.

I know it's counter-intuitive, but with the rise of activism on the bench it would almost be better to draw a name at random rather than have someone chosen by someone that is laser focused on pushing this or that agenda.

I also think one of the top items on the list for dems to attempt to move the court on is the second amendment interpretation. While clinton and trump may be similar on some issues, they do not seem to be on this one.

Interesting and good sense. I do think a large part of the Dem party and many centrists is the reining back of Citizens United.

You think a few million in campaign spending makes a difference in a $14 Trillion economy?

 

[SwimExpert]

The OP seems to be saying that Obama has fucked us over so badly it doesn't matter who the next president is, the damage caused by this administration is irreversible. He may have a point.

Not quite. I am saying that it doesn't matter how well off our country may be, both Trump and Clinton will be a catastrophe.

No, that's not what youre saying at all. SJ is correct, Obama is handing over the biggest Financial IED in history to his unfortunate successor

Oh, well SJ is obviously the expert on what I am saying.

 

[Fueri]

unfortunately that fucktard is going to get a handful of Supreme Court nominations, so I'd rather it not be a liberal loon.

I would agree with you here somewhat except that I do not see Trump as electing anything to the SCOTUS better than Hillary. Constitutional does not even remotely come to mind when thinking about Trump.

Could well be although after watching Obama appoint the likes of Sotomayor I'd rather have anyone but another lib picking justices.

The scenario seems to be one of two dem lites will be elected POTU.

Yes, I can see how people can say that. In terms specifically of the appointment of SC justices, however, this is one area where hillarys experience and network in DC works against her from the perspective of being able to choose exactly the people she thinks will support her agenda.

I know it's counter-intuitive, but with the rise of activism on the bench it would almost be better to draw a name at random rather than have someone chosen by someone that is laser focused on pushing this or that agenda.

I also think one of the top items on the list for dems to attempt to move the court on is the second amendment interpretation. While clinton and trump may be similar on some issues, they do not seem to be on this one.

Interesting and good sense. I do think a large part of the Dem party and many centrists is the reining back of Citizens United.

yes, I think they're looking at that also.

I don't know enough about the legal arguments made to offer an opinion on it in terms of the jurisprudence on that issue. I haven't read the decision on it either although I may go do that.

What I do know that the current ruling is not the answer to getting money out of politics, which is one of largest issues with politics today, IMO and therefore I think it works against the better interests of the country. I personally would be fine with seeing that one overturned.

 

[SwimExpert]

"The next President will be the greatest catastrophe of American governance since the Civil War..."

Ridiculous hyperbole.

This fails as a douche bag fallacy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The OP seems to be saying that Obama has fucked us over so badly it doesn't matter who the next president is, the damage caused by this administration is irreversible. He may have a point.

Not quite. I am saying that it doesn't matter how well off our country may be, both Trump and Clinton will be a catastrophe.

No, that's not what youre saying at all. SJ is correct, Obama is handing over the biggest Financial IED in history to his unfortunate successor

Oh, well SJ is obviously the expert on what I am saying.

Obviously, you didn't realize what you were actually saying: Obama is handing over the biggest Financial IED in history to his unfortunate successor

 

[SwimExpert]

Obviously, you didn't realize what you were actually saying

Of course not. How can anybody know what they are themselves saying? We need other people to tell us those kinds of things. At least, that's what the liberals keep saying when they talk about political correctness.

 

[S.J.]

The OP seems to be saying that Obama has fucked us over so badly it doesn't matter who the next president is, the damage caused by this administration is irreversible. He may have a point.

Not quite. I am saying that it doesn't matter how well off our country may be, both Trump and Clinton will be a catastrophe.

No, that's not what youre saying at all. SJ is correct, Obama is handing over the biggest Financial IED in history to his unfortunate successor

Oh, well SJ is obviously the expert on what I am saying.

Well, YOU sure as shit don't know.

 

[S.J.]

Sure, he does, S.J., and you put words in peoples' mouths in order to lower the discussion to Alt Right lunacy.

Trump will be a catastrophe. So would Clinton.

Sounds like you're resolved to Trump being the next POTUS.

Either of them will be a catastrophe.

One of them already IS. Just ask the family members of the Benghazi victims.

 

[FA_Q2]

Whichever one wins, they will be so hated by the other side that the next eight years will make the past eight years look like a love fest.

Yep.

And it continues to deteriorate until some "leaders" stop worrying about being re-elected to their cushy gubmit jobs, grow the **** up, and start working together.
.

Not going to happen when the constituencies demand that they do not compromise.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sure, he does, S.J., and you put words in peoples' mouths in order to lower the discussion to Alt Right lunacy.

Trump will be a catastrophe. So would Clinton.

Sounds like you're resolved to Trump being the next POTUS.

Either of them will be a catastrophe.

One of them already IS. Just ask the family members of the Benghazi victims.

That is no game for you, sherlock. Johnson would be mediocre but acceptable. Both Comrade and Shillary, the one who is elected, could not be anything but disasters.