Trump supporters, are you happy?

[Bush92]

Free trade is a recent issue, America did just fine before without it,,,and TPP is not free trade

At least you're honest you're not for free trade. The Trumpette chorus keep saying they are against free trade because they are for it ...

I am against because I am from the Rust Belt and that part of the nation was destroyed because of it.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Wasnt PErot against the original free trade agreement ..........

 

[kaz]

Yep, I voted for Perot in 1992, I'd do it again. 19%, it shook the world

I wish it had at least shaken up the politics of the country a bit more.

People have to believe third party can win, it was huge

Nobody belived Perot could win. Donald is the New Perot goofy. Donald Trump is a non-politician that took the GOP from the same country club set that always controlled it. Damn dude. Get smart.

I don't just want someone who isn't from the country club, I want someone worth supporting. A guy who hates free trade isn't it

So you don't like Americans having good paying manufacturing jobs?

No, I don't, that's it, I hate Americans having a job.

Idiot

 

[kaz]

Free trade is a recent issue, America did just fine before without it,,,and TPP is not free trade

At least you're honest you're not for free trade. The Trumpette chorus keep saying they are against free trade because they are for it ...

It is a side issue...not something that is going to decide fate of the nation....

On that you're wrong. Free trade is the beating heart of capitalism and we rocketed to #1 with that wind in our sails

 

[kaz]

Free trade is a recent issue, America did just fine before without it,,,and TPP is not free trade

At least you're honest you're not for free trade. The Trumpette chorus keep saying they are against free trade because they are for it ...

I am against because I am from the Rust Belt and that part of the nation was destroyed because of it.

Bull. And I'm from the rust belt too, "kaz" is short for my home town, Kalamazoo, Michigan. It was labor, management and government that screwed industry in the region. You're advocating more of what destroyed it

 

[Manonthestreet]

Free trade is a recent issue, America did just fine before without it,,,and TPP is not free trade

At least you're honest you're not for free trade. The Trumpette chorus keep saying they are against free trade because they are for it ...

It is a side issue...not something that is going to decide fate of the nation....

On that you're wrong. Free trade is the beating heart of capitalism and we rocketed to #1 with that wind in our sails

PErot was against the "free trade" agreement of his time.............and what he said would happen did........sucking sound you here is jobs being hoovered out of the country

 

[kaz]

Free trade is a recent issue, America did just fine before without it,,,and TPP is not free trade

At least you're honest you're not for free trade. The Trumpette chorus keep saying they are against free trade because they are for it ...

It is a side issue...not something that is going to decide fate of the nation....

On that you're wrong. Free trade is the beating heart of capitalism and we rocketed to #1 with that wind in our sails

PErot was against the "free trade" agreement of his time.............and what he said would happen did........sucking sound you here is jobs being hoovered out of the country

Agreed. I also voted for Nader in 2008. I vote for the Libertarian if they are libertarian, otherwise I'll vote for the strongest third party candidate to make the statement I want something different

 

[Manonthestreet]

Free trade is a recent issue, America did just fine before without it,,,and TPP is not free trade

At least you're honest you're not for free trade. The Trumpette chorus keep saying they are against free trade because they are for it ...

It is a side issue...not something that is going to decide fate of the nation....

On that you're wrong. Free trade is the beating heart of capitalism and we rocketed to #1 with that wind in our sails

PErot was against the "free trade" agreement of his time.............and what he said would happen did........sucking sound you here is jobs being hoovered out of the country

Agreed. I also voted for Nader in 2008. I vote for the Libertarian if they are libertarian, otherwise I'll vote for the strongest third party candidate to make the statement I want something different

SO you voted against your belief in free trade????

 

[kaz]

At least you're honest you're not for free trade. The Trumpette chorus keep saying they are against free trade because they are for it ...

It is a side issue...not something that is going to decide fate of the nation....

On that you're wrong. Free trade is the beating heart of capitalism and we rocketed to #1 with that wind in our sails

PErot was against the "free trade" agreement of his time.............and what he said would happen did........sucking sound you here is jobs being hoovered out of the country

Agreed. I also voted for Nader in 2008. I vote for the Libertarian if they are libertarian, otherwise I'll vote for the strongest third party candidate to make the statement I want something different

SO you voted against your belief in free trade????

By that logic I would never vote in any election. I had to vote against something I support. I decided the most important thing I could vote for is third party

 

[Manonthestreet]

It is a side issue...not something that is going to decide fate of the nation....

On that you're wrong. Free trade is the beating heart of capitalism and we rocketed to #1 with that wind in our sails

PErot was against the "free trade" agreement of his time.............and what he said would happen did........sucking sound you here is jobs being hoovered out of the country

Agreed. I also voted for Nader in 2008. I vote for the Libertarian if they are libertarian, otherwise I'll vote for the strongest third party candidate to make the statement I want something different

SO you voted against your belief in free trade????

By that logic I would never vote in any election. I had to vote against something I support. I decided the most important thing I could vote for is third party

SO the basis of your thread just went away........ and you will hand Supreme court to Hillary.......

 

[kaz]

On that you're wrong. Free trade is the beating heart of capitalism and we rocketed to #1 with that wind in our sails

PErot was against the "free trade" agreement of his time.............and what he said would happen did........sucking sound you here is jobs being hoovered out of the country

Agreed. I also voted for Nader in 2008. I vote for the Libertarian if they are libertarian, otherwise I'll vote for the strongest third party candidate to make the statement I want something different

SO you voted against your belief in free trade????

By that logic I would never vote in any election. I had to vote against something I support. I decided the most important thing I could vote for is third party

SO the basis of your thread just went away........ and you will hand Supreme court to Hillary.......

That made no sense. You asked about the 1992 election. In this election, Trump is running as the anti-free trade candidate

 

[Manonthestreet]

PErot was against the "free trade" agreement of his time.............and what he said would happen did........sucking sound you here is jobs being hoovered out of the country

Agreed. I also voted for Nader in 2008. I vote for the Libertarian if they are libertarian, otherwise I'll vote for the strongest third party candidate to make the statement I want something different

SO you voted against your belief in free trade????

By that logic I would never vote in any election. I had to vote against something I support. I decided the most important thing I could vote for is third party

SO the basis of your thread just went away........ and you will hand Supreme court to Hillary.......

That made no sense. You asked about the 1992 election. In this election, Trump is running as the anti-free trade candidate

and you have voted against free trade so whats your prob

 

[kaz]

Agreed. I also voted for Nader in 2008. I vote for the Libertarian if they are libertarian, otherwise I'll vote for the strongest third party candidate to make the statement I want something different

SO you voted against your belief in free trade????

By that logic I would never vote in any election. I had to vote against something I support. I decided the most important thing I could vote for is third party

SO the basis of your thread just went away........ and you will hand Supreme court to Hillary.......

That made no sense. You asked about the 1992 election. In this election, Trump is running as the anti-free trade candidate

and you have voted against free trade so whats your prob

So you follow your standard to not vote unless you agree with everything you are voting for? I'm thinking no, you don't

 

[Manonthestreet]

SO you voted against your belief in free trade????

By that logic I would never vote in any election. I had to vote against something I support. I decided the most important thing I could vote for is third party

SO the basis of your thread just went away........ and you will hand Supreme court to Hillary.......

That made no sense. You asked about the 1992 election. In this election, Trump is running as the anti-free trade candidate

and you have voted against free trade so whats your prob

So you follow your standard to not vote unless you agree with everything you are voting for? I'm thinking no, you don't

Alrdy stated there is no perfect candidate............you contradict yourself in your own thread though..........this whole thing has been a circlejerk

 

[kaz]

By that logic I would never vote in any election. I had to vote against something I support. I decided the most important thing I could vote for is third party

SO the basis of your thread just went away........ and you will hand Supreme court to Hillary.......

That made no sense. You asked about the 1992 election. In this election, Trump is running as the anti-free trade candidate

and you have voted against free trade so whats your prob

So you follow your standard to not vote unless you agree with everything you are voting for? I'm thinking no, you don't

Alrdy stated there is no perfect candidate............you contradict yourself in your own thread though..........this whole thing has been a circlejerk

If I vote for a major party candidate, they have to support capitalism and free trade (or at least I have to think they do when I vote for them). The first election I was old enough to vote was 84. I supported Reagan in 80, but was only 17 and couldn't vote. So:

- Reagan (84), HW (88), Romney (12)

If I vote for third party, I vote Libertarian if I like the candidate

- Browne (96), Browne (00), Badnarik (04)

or for the strongest third party candidate if I don't

- Perot (92), Nader (08), Johnson (16)

I'm not big on Johnson, but he's the strongest third party candidate. That's why I put him in the other list instead of the Libertarian list

Explain what is contradictory about that, I'm calling you on your shit. Where have I violated that?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I happy in my soul to love my country and vote for liberty over state sponsored tyranny. You are a ******* sheep.

I'm a sheep? Sorry, who am I following?

When did kaz say anything about voting for Clinton? I'm pretty sure he's said multiple times not only that he is voting for Johnson, but that he would emphatically not vote for Clinton.

Thank you, sir! I know we don't always agree. But I appreciate people who actually pay attention

A vote for Johnson is a vote for Hillary.

A vote for Johnson is a vote for Johnson. See how simple that is?

That's pretty fuckin stupid, actually. Wittness Ross Perot back in 92.

Guess what? The 19% of voters who voted for Ross Perot......voted for Ross Perot.

I understand the reasoning behind the idea that voting for a third party candidate is voting for one of the two major party candidates. It is deeply flawed reasoning, however.

Actually with a growing polarized nation, interjecting a third party candidate could likely result in the involvement of the Twelfth Amendment (ratified June 15, 1804) before we come close to seeing a successful third party win.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm a sheep? Sorry, who am I following?

Thank you, sir! I know we don't always agree. But I appreciate people who actually pay attention

A vote for Johnson is a vote for Hillary.

A vote for Johnson is a vote for Johnson. See how simple that is?

That's pretty fuckin stupid, actually. Wittness Ross Perot back in 92.

Guess what? The 19% of voters who voted for Ross Perot......voted for Ross Perot.

I understand the reasoning behind the idea that voting for a third party candidate is voting for one of the two major party candidates. It is deeply flawed reasoning, however.

Actually with a growing polarized nation, interjecting a third party candidate could likely result in the involvement of the Twelfth Amendment (ratified June 15, 1804) before we come close to seeing a successful third party win.

I agree that a third party candidate is more likely to send the election to the House than to win outright. That doesn't make the idea that voting third party is voting for one of the two major party candidates any more legitimacy, though.

 

[HUGGY]

Get serious. Reagan and Bush used HUNDREDS of presidential memoranda instead of going through the process of legislation. This is nothing new. This method has been used nearly a thousand times before Obama took office.

Well then I'm sure you would have no problem providing a link to your information that can prove just that

I'm not your damned secretary. Look it up yourself even if it is something you rarely do. Reagan, Clinton, Bush each used the executive order hundreds of times. I'm sure Obama did too. Who cares? It has been SOP for decades.

Obama had the Supreme Court slap him down and say he went beyond his Constitutional Authority. Yeah, it's on you to show what you base your crap on

I base "my crap" on a huge portion of I don't Give a ****. I never was taken in by Obama's rhetoric in the first place so as long as the country has made a steady recovery from the absolute flaming bag of dog shit left by Bush I have little to whine about.

You morons were dead sure Obama would take our guns. Never happened. You thought he would destroy the economy. Never happened. It looks like YOU fools were/are the liars doesn't it? If you were the patriots you insist you are I would be MORE concerned why congress has been sitting on their hands for the last 5 years.

You're full of shit, no one thought Obama could "take our guns," we said he wants to and he's going to keep undermining our rights. We were right on both counts. And the pimp runs out every time there's a shooting and prostitutes the victims for gun laws telling you that. And you think that's a point for you? LMAO

Obama is going to be the first President to not have a single quarter of GDP growth of 3%. What's really shocking is he started at the bottom of a recession when GDP growth is typically high just to get back to where we were. Labor participation is at historic lows. Just go out on the street man, the economy sucks and has through is entire Presidency.

You Obama boot lickers are pathetic, no matter how bad he is, you just keep lying for him

And YOU made no effort to explain why congress has done NOTHING to help improve the economy in the last s 5 1/2 years. The president is just one small part of the legislative process. He signs the bills or veto's them. Congress is the reason for poor growth, not Obama.

 

[kaz]

Well then I'm sure you would have no problem providing a link to your information that can prove just that

I'm not your damned secretary. Look it up yourself even if it is something you rarely do. Reagan, Clinton, Bush each used the executive order hundreds of times. I'm sure Obama did too. Who cares? It has been SOP for decades.

Obama had the Supreme Court slap him down and say he went beyond his Constitutional Authority. Yeah, it's on you to show what you base your crap on

I base "my crap" on a huge portion of I don't Give a ****. I never was taken in by Obama's rhetoric in the first place so as long as the country has made a steady recovery from the absolute flaming bag of dog shit left by Bush I have little to whine about.

You morons were dead sure Obama would take our guns. Never happened. You thought he would destroy the economy. Never happened. It looks like YOU fools were/are the liars doesn't it? If you were the patriots you insist you are I would be MORE concerned why congress has been sitting on their hands for the last 5 years.

You're full of shit, no one thought Obama could "take our guns," we said he wants to and he's going to keep undermining our rights. We were right on both counts. And the pimp runs out every time there's a shooting and prostitutes the victims for gun laws telling you that. And you think that's a point for you? LMAO

Obama is going to be the first President to not have a single quarter of GDP growth of 3%. What's really shocking is he started at the bottom of a recession when GDP growth is typically high just to get back to where we were. Labor participation is at historic lows. Just go out on the street man, the economy sucks and has through is entire Presidency.

You Obama boot lickers are pathetic, no matter how bad he is, you just keep lying for him

And YOU made no effort to explain why congress has done NOTHING to help improve the economy in the last s 5 1/2 years. The president is just one small part of the legislative process. He signs the bills or veto's them. Congress is the reason for poor growth, not Obama.

So you admit it's the Republican congress, not Slick that caused the 90s boom?

 

[jc456]

Give an example that is comparable to Obama rewriting our immigration laws and saying he won't enforce DOMA

You got that right. Have you known of an administration that uses his executive power to go around Congress and intentionally undermine Federal law, the way Obama has done with immigration? Then he doubles down by wasting our taxpayer dollars on pursuing Federal action to withhold state funding over "bathroom policy", while ignoring Congress efforts to reign in on sanctuary cities that defies Federal Inmigration Laws by withholding illegals from the knowledge of ICE. When hasn't Obama tried a power grab to single handedly enact new policy?

Supreme Court won’t revive Obama plan to shield illegal immigrants from deportation

I think Huggy ran away. He's just pumping his girl, Hillary

HUGGY has REAL responsibilities in the REAL WORLD. Slapping you pussies around comes in a distant last place in my priorities.

Ridem Cowboy!

Save that for your *** boyfriend.

Such a typical left response. When you got nothing