No.

This link.

Your question isn't impolite or wrongheaded, and there are plenty of good reasons to ask it. But as a voter, I don't think we're compelled to answer at the ballot box.

This kid is one of my favorite Twitterbeasts: She's sparky and young and certain she's right about everything... But I was kind of surprised by her insistence that we "can only choose one." (She too meant no offense, certainly.)

But on...

...But on today's 5C podcast, Welch, Foster and the Mighty Moynihan make the point that there's no reason to pigeonhole the Orlando bloodbath as anything in particular (hate/Islam/immigration/guns)... It's perfectly acceptable to investigate and regard it for blended and other contexts.

(Those guys put a lot of contexts into an hour ten... It's a good commute distraction.)

I can't believe I'm writing this, but I may vote for Trump. I know it's crazy, but the more the power players (so called "elites") scream about Trump the closer I get to voting for him. I just can't figure out what's so great about the last sixteen years that gives either party something to crow about.

Having said that when the day comes my vote will most likely be for Gary Johnson.

Anybody remember this event? There were several good columns about it at the time, and though I can't find my favorite, these links cover most of the territory:

Clinton knows how to wield a mike and mug to the audience. And like a good talk-show host, Clinton knows how to pander to the crowd by going after the least popular guest: Abigail Thernstrom, co-author of "America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible."

The Bill Clinton presidency did much to bring us to this mindset... So maybe my comments are on-topic after all!

☑ JFP at June 14, 2016 10:19 PM

Maybe you should have voted mitt Romney last time, and we'd have avoided all this. That said, I'll vote Trump. I'll do it to burn the entire thing down. Because when the elites give us a felon and a thief, they deserve to burn. And I'd rather die than have "I deserve it, I rode my hubby's coattails, give it to me or die" Clinton redux in the whitehouse.

And I say that as someone who, at the time and at my young naive age, supported her husband.

I'm with momof4, burning the thing down is preferable to the appalling polical-elite-media machine that goes on making up the conversation and rules. The college safe spaces, identify peddlers, carefully crafted speaking pols, and special interest or non citizenry organizations are, essentially, captains of this ship.
If nothing else Trump will chop off one part of the leg of this power cabal. The path to successfully defying this power cabal will be shone. I can't imagine why anyone considers that a bad possibility.

Every election you have well crafted, well staged, well packaged, proper name or proper look empty suit to vote for. And don't worry you'll have this option again and again. Yet this one time it is very nice to see something else even a someone else that needs to learn The meaning of restraint.

Trump, because at least Trump will be unorganized in his corruption and faced with a house and senate that hate him.

I admire these, because I've been assuming that blowing it up real good was where most of Trump's support comes from.

I fear the machinery is too strong to blow up into sufficiently accountable fragments. We might wind up the Kanye as Secretary of State, etc.

As momof4 says, 'Because when the elites give us a felon and a thief, they deserve to burn . . .'

We don't have to choose between Clinton and Trump. Both are terrible choices, for a multitude of reasons, and both are manifestly unfit for the office they seek. So they are both, in a sense, no choice at all. If you needed brain surgery, would you choose the janitor or the clerk from Accounts Payable to perform it? Well, neither, of course.

I won't vote for either one. Ever. The only Presidential candidate I can see myself voting for right now is Gary Johnson. But I absolutely, positively will note vote for either Clinton or Trump, whether it be to support one or un-support the other - which are the only valid reasons for voting.

All of the current talk about 'the lesser of two evils' is simply non-applicable - they are both as bad as each other, and both are horrible to contemplate being elected. The only possible way to avoid being burdened with one or the other of them is if enough people will stand up and say 'No. A plague on both your houses' and affirmatively vote for (someone else).

llater,

llamas

"The only possible way to avoid being burdened with one or the other of them is if enough people will stand up and say 'No..."

But we know that won't happen. So you're just making a meaningless gesture.

Hope it makes you feel good.

I'm also with momof4. Burn the house down. I can't count how many times I've seen Amy Alkon bitching about how poor her health insurance has become, but she wants to reelect the machine that made it that way. If a machine had done to my insurance what the machine did to Amy's insurance I'd vote for Trump out of spite and revenge. Her endorsement of Clinton is odd, to my way of thinking. Scott Adams has been doing yeoman's work in analyzing Trump's words and actions since he entered the race, and he claims that Trump is a "Master Persuader", and that absolutely nothing he has said is spontaneous, that everything is calculated for maximum effect. Some time spent with Adams might better explain Donald Trump, our next president.

Don't kid yourself. This could be down to choosing the less bad of the two worst people in the world, and one of them will still be president. A smart person knows he will lose, and make the choice that minimizes the long term loss.

Trump is a negotiator at heart.

HRC is an evil person at heart.

Easy choice.

I'm with momof4: it is essential to elect Trump, to show the political elite that we just aren't having it anymore. Hillary is not only corrupt, she's frigging waving it in people's faces. If we elect her, our government will have fallen to the level of every other corrupt banana republic out there - only with more nukes.

A secondary consideration: I don't think Trump is unstable. I think he's putting on a populist show. This is the way he has found to actually reach lots of voters who had otherwise just given up on elections. If these people actually turn out in November, he will win by a landslide

Yeah, I'm voting Trump. Under a Trump administration, the probability of some reform happening is small. But under Clinton, the probability is zero. She's already committed at least one felony that we know of, in regard to her disclosing highly classified information, and it's clear that she regards herself as above the law. Bill and Hillary are machine politicians of the first order; Bill learned at the feet of former Arkansas governor Orval Farbus, one of the Southern machine politicians of the George Wallace / Lester Maddux / Ray Blanton mold. Hillary will have a huge apparatus at her command. Trump won't; he'll have to form coalitions in order to govern.

Under Hillary, we'll see a nationwide implementation of the Curley effect that has begun under Obama. (Don't think for a minute that the GOP leadership won't go along with it.) What will be the result of that? The whole nation becomes East St. Louis. Bill DeBlasio is busy implementing it in New York now, and he's likely to win re-election despite being widely despised, because his machine and his client classes will control the election, and people who might pose political opposition are already moving away. Hello, David Dinkins. Enjoy Times Square while you can.

Everyone who has been around Trump seems to find him polite, charming and good mannered.

I'll take that any day over an alcoholic Cluster B grifter who throws things at her husband, and other people, and says "fuck you" to the military and secret service.

It is probably too late to stop the total collapse of the US economy because of the doubling of the national debt, but with Trump as President, and a republican congress, there is less chance of a bailout of the failing blue states funded by the tax payers and bond holders in the red states. There is also a better chance that obamacare will just be allowed to quietly fail, and we can go back to a slightly saner health insurance industry,

Right now, I would be happy for just a reduction is the speed of the ship of state heading towards the iceberg.

There will be no miracle candidate. If Mitt Romney ran again, he would simply ensure Hillary's victory.

There is no one to vote for. And those who vote for Trump because they believe he will somehow "blow up the whole machine" are idealistic idiots. Yes, I mean those who, in this thread, will say they will vote for Trump because he cam blow up the Washington machine. You're morons.

If the President becomes problematic for Congress, they will simply impeach and remove. As I explained before, there is no judicial oversight in the impeachment process; Congress can impeach for any reason or no reason. They can call wearing mismatched socks a "high crime or misdemeanor" if they want.

I cannot, with good conscience, vote for someone whom I know is a racist and misogynist. Although, I can't help but think that would be a good thing. It might quell the entitled spoiled brats that have infested our college campuses as the world capitulates to their demands when they claim "I don't feel safe."

Then don't feel safe, flunk out of college and still be on the hook for your student loans.

Minorities have simply gotten out of hand with their victim privilege.

On the other side, if Hillary is elected, and will invite Muslim immigrants without even vetting them, perhaps these third wave feminists who claim we live in a rape culture will get a taste of what a real rape culture is like. When the news starts showing a previously unheard of crime, the "pool assault" in which a Middle Eastern or North African barbarian seems to think it's his God-given right to put unwanted hands on the nearest woman or child and sexually violate them to gratify his "sexual emergency," then we will be able to say, "That is what a rape culture is like."

Merkel has essentially ruined Germany forever, and, by extension, the rest of Europe. And the U.S. will follow suit.

But despite the fact that either candidate will ultimately put these entitled pampered snowflakes in their place, I will not cooperate with the destruction of my own society. So, I will vote for neither. I will write in a third party if at all.

Maybe you should have voted mitt Romney last time, and we'd have avoided all this.

Trump is an unintentional creation of the GOP establishment, for whom Mitt was their fellow. Even if Mittens had won, the Trump phenomena would have still boiled up, either this year or in 2020.

Why? because the establishment Democrats and Republicans have more in common with each other than any of us. The GOP hasn't even tried to pay lip service to the conservative base, and likely would like to see more of them leave the party so they can become DemocratLite.

Trump's position on illegal immigration would still be quite valid because the establishment of both parties wants open borders and the influx of unskilled labor.

Additionally Trump challenges the media on their baked in assumptions. If you don't do that, you're trying to rhetorically grind your way out of a have you stopped beating your children? set piece argument.

As far as Clinton goes, they'll sell our country out. Bill did, to China. Hillary, probably to the highest bidder. And she'll do whatever it takes to mollify her base, so expect single payer HillaryCare to replace ObamaCare. And a lot of the "freebies" that teh BERN promised.

But hey, she'll look Presidential even as she grinds what's left of your rights into the dust, so there is that.

Ultimately, it comes down to the devil you know, against the devil you fear. But as I see it, Trump would have to work hard to be as bad as Hillary will be.

Trump, because at least Trump will be unorganized in his corruption and faced with a house and senate that hate him.

This. Also: the media will watch him like a freakin' hawk and not give him a lick of cover. You'll know about every dirty deal, in detail.

Instead of crickets and "it's a VAST right wing conspiracy".

I just can't figure out what's so great about the last sixteen years that gives either party something to crow about. ~ JFP at June 14, 2016 10:19 PM

Exactly.

Last 16 years? Hmmm. Second Bush and two Obama administrations. That sounds about right since the first Bush administration was consumed with recovery from the dot-com bubble bursting and the 9/11 attacks; and featured steady albeit slow economic growth.

Unlike many who will vote for Trump, I don't want to blow the whole thing up. It works. Mostly. A few bad players doesn't mean you burn the playhouse down. We elected and re-elected those bad players, so the blame is at least partly on us.

That said, I'll probably vote Trump because he'll face hostile opposition from and be kept in check by both parties. Clinton will have carte blanche from the Democrats to do her worst.

Short of murdering someone on camera, any offense she commits will be abetted and defended by the same scorched earth tactics and willful blindness the party employed to keep her husband in office.

Any attempt to oppose her or her policies will be met with charges of sexism. I'm already emotionally exhausted by the -ism charges being used to attack anyone who opposes the policies of the current "milestone" president. I just can't handle another "milestone" president at this point.

Will Trump be a good president? Probably not. Will Hillary? Definitely not.

Trump's corruption was bounded by the scope of laws and enterprise. He was a private citizen who "bought" government officials to complete his projects. Hillary was a government official who betrayed the public trust. Who is the more corrupt, the one who buys a government official to complete an endeavor or the government official who allows himself to be bought?

What about Johnson-Weld? An intriguing ticket, but with no default support from either party in Congress, President Johnson will be selling his soul to get his agenda enacted, diluting it mightily along the way. Trump will go in with at least limited support from the Republicans. And he'll have Paul Ryan to lend an air of rationality to the Republican support/opposition. Johnson will have the support of all the other Libertarian Party candidates holding public office, all ... well ... none of them.

The Libertarians love to pass themselves off as an alternative to the major parties. And in this election, folks desperately want an alternative. But when your party's convention features a candidate for party chairman stripping to his underwear and dancing around the stage, you lose the ability to call yourself the adult in the room. The Libertarian Party is too much the party of arrested adolescence to be trusted with the keys to the country's economy, polity, and military.

I R A Darth Aggie:

This. Also: the media will watch him like a freakin' hawk and not give him a lick of cover. You'll know about every dirty deal, in detail.

No, they will not. You obviously didn't see Trump during his birther craze. The media allowed Trump to make the most outrageous and implausible claims, without ever once asking him to produce a single shard of evidence, name names or tell us where the bodies were buried.

All while Trump boo-hoo-hooed uncontrollably about how the media is protective of Obama but not protective of him.

The media is cowed by Trump. Always was, always will be.

Gary Johnson still isn't on the ballot in 18 states and DC:

https://www.lp.org/2016-presidential-ballot-access-map

those who support him might want to help work on that process. Counting up the electoral votes in the locations were they're not on the ballot, it comes to: 206. You need 270 of 538, and they're eligible for 332. Now, if they don't get on the ballot in those locales, Johnson will have to win at about 82% rate in the states he's on the ballot.

If I were a betting man, I'd give you points and still tell you Johnson hasn't got a ghost of a prayer. Even if he manages to keep either Clinton and Trump from 270, the election will go to the House for final disposition.

Can't imagine who they'd choose...

"I don't think Trump is unstable .."

I do. I don't know anyone who puts on a pretend show that they're an asshole only to actually be a good guy. His narcissism leaks out of him because he talks before his handlers can handle him. Every event somehow has something to do with him - he thought of it first, he predicted it, he knows what's best, he would do this different - and the true empathy is an afterthought. I honestly don't think anyone who has an opposite viewpoint could reason with Trump. His nasty derision of Megyn Kelly did it for me a long time ago. That man is 70 years old. He is who he is and I can't vote for such an A1 grade asshole to be the leader of the free world.

Hillary? I'd rather walk blindfolded to the bayou at sunset.

Gary Johnson or I'll write in Mitt.

If the President becomes problematic for Congress, they will simply impeach and remove. As I explained before, there is no judicial oversight in the impeachment process; Congress can impeach for any reason or no reason. They can call wearing mismatched socks a "high crime or misdemeanor" if they want.

That's true. Let's consult with a former President, Andrew Jackson:

"The decision of the supreme court has fell still born, and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate."

If Trump refuses to step down, who will step in and enforce the Senate's verdict?

And would the linguini spined House and Senate precipitate such a Constitutional crisis? they didn't when Obama delayed ObamaCare multiple times, nor did they oppose him when he spent money in ways they didn't appropriate.

Between the two of 'em?

Trump.

Between whoever is going to be the (D) nominee and whoever is going to be the (R) nominee?

We'll see.

Obama is not trending well with his antigun nonsense.

The GOP hasn't even tried to pay lip service to the conservative base, and likely would like to see more of them leave the party so they can become DemocratLite.

That's because the Republican Party establishment doesn't like the conservatives, social or fiscal. It didn't want them as members. From Truman to Carter, the Democrats have been trying to get the evangelicals out of the party. Until 1980, they were scattered throughout both parties and mostly inert politically, getting politically active in time for the 1980 election. They joined Reagan's coalition and the Republican establishment, bewildered by this turn of events and eager for a win, allowed them in.

The Republican Party started as a party of enterprise-friendly Northeastern liberals. WASPs. Prep school elites.

Barry Goldwater rocked the boat and introduced a new fiscally conservative political philosophy into the party, one based in his Western experiences: fiscal frugality, limited government regulation, and barely-constrained individual liberty. This split the party in 1964, allowing Lyndon Johnson to claim his only presidential election victory. Reagan carried Goldwater's torch into the 1980 election, melding together a coalition of social and fiscal conservatives, while dragging along, kicking and screaming, the Northeastern liberal party establishment.

Mitt Romney, Thomas Dewey, and George HW Bush fit the party establishment's idea of a perfect candidate - moneyed, experienced, educated, entrepreneurial, mannered, and a member of the right clubs. George W. Bush fit the mold, mostly, if you overlook his gone-native Texas twang and public religiosity. All of them were big government Republicans.

Fiscal and social conservatives have been searching for a party to call home since 1964. The Libertarians have courted the fiscal conservatives with little luck due to the more outrageous antics of the Libertarian standard bearers. The evangelical and non-evangelical social conservatives have been trying with mixed results to take over the Republican Party since 1980, imagining themselves to be the party's "base."

The GOP is trying to get back to its roots. The social conservatives can either let them and form a new party or stage a violent coup and finally take the party for themselves once and for all.

The fiscal conservatives who don't lean conservative socially will be left out and will probably finally drift into the Libertarian Party, hopefully infusing it with the adult sensibility it so desperately needs.

"they will not. You obviously didn't see Trump during his birther craze. The media allowed Trump to make the most outrageous and implausible claims, without ever once asking him to produce a single shard of evidence, name names or tell us where the bodies were buried."

I think you missed the part where at that point in the campaign, the media wanted Trump to be the Republican nominee.

They figured, wrongly, I think, that he would be the easiest of all the candidates for Hillary to beat, and they were more than willing to make Trump the nominee and unleash the dogs during the general election.

I think they are mistaken on both counts. And Obama has said so much bizarre, and untrue shit, that no one even pays any attention anymore to what a candidate says.

And no one cares how much Trump is worth or what his tax returns look like either.

His opponent in the general is not only a careless entitled crook who should be stripped of her security clearance but also a psychiatric basket case, with both a rage, and a serious drinking problem.

Saying Hillary is the saner one, based on insider reports is quite a stretch.

The media is cowed by Trump. Always was, always will be. ~ Patrick at June 15, 2016 7:43 AM

And yet, the cowed media seems to always ask Ivanka Trump how she feels about the way her father reportedly treats women. Chelsea Clinton, on the other hand, seemingly never gets asked that question.

Double standard. And not in favor of Trump.

Of course, Bill is not running for president. However, he will be turned loose with the country's economy, according to Hillary's own campaign promise. So, his past conduct, like Trump's, is examinable and fair game for such questions.

And Trump was not let off easily or handled with kid gloves during the birther scandal. The Atlantic called it "libel." He was generally portrayed as a lunatic during the whole thing. Late night commedians had a field day making fun of him.

It was the Democrats who actually started the questioning of Obama's birth circumstances. During the 2008 Democratic primary, Phillip Berg, a former Pennsylvania deputy attorney general and Clinton supporter filed a lawsuit over Obama's birth certificate. It was dismissed because Berg had no standing to file it. Clinton supporters were desperate for something that would derail Obama's seemingly inevitable nomination.

Don't mistake media-friendly with media-cowing. The media report everything Trump does, good and bad. They follow him like lap dogs. And, despite all his bluster against them, Trump is very media friendly. Clinton's campaign, on the other hand, often avoids the media and tries to handle them. So, they follow Trump, from whom they'll get crumbs instead of Hillary who will turn the hose on them.

Saying Hillary is the saner one, based on insider reports is quite a stretch. ~ Isab at June 15, 2016 8:12 AM

From the reports I've seen, Trump is generally acknowledged to be much calmer and saner in private than he is in public. Clinton, the reverse.

Perhaps, it's in their post-college experience, how they were trained or judged after college.

For Trump, despite the bluster, it was about results. Somebody had to get rich doing a deal with Trump for the next guy to be willing to do the next deal.

Hillary was mostly involved in academic exercises and influence peddling after college. She subordinated her political ambition to Bill's. She got her job with the Rose Law Firm because her husband was the Attorney General. Legal results were not necessary as long as she could act as a rainmaker, steering business to the firm and creating good will with the state's Attorney General. Same with her positions on various boards of directors. They weren't purchasing Hillary's business expertise, but her husband's good will. She became a Senator not because she'd shown some expertise, but because she was the wife of a popular president. That and her only name opponent dropped out of the race. Obama did not use his Cabinet secretaries as administrative executives or subject-matter experts, but as political window dressing (Sibelius' active role in the Obamacare exchange setup notwithstanding). He preferred to use a close coterie of advisors to do the real work. So, Clinton was never really expected to produce results as Sec State. And she didn't. She's never been held to a non-academic or non-political standard. Trump has.

And would the linguini spined House and Senate precipitate such a Constitutional crisis? they didn't when Obama delayed ObamaCare multiple times, nor did they oppose him when he spent money in ways they didn't appropriate. ~ I R A Darth Aggie at June 15, 2016 7:56 AM

The Democrats, in their blind support of Bill Clinton, ensured that impeaching a Democratic president without an overwhelming majority in the Senate would be pointless.

Republican House leaders were told in private that the Senate would not remove or censure Clinton, before the trial even began.

The public opinion backlash was severe. When the media and the Democrats refused to publicize the evidence against Clinton and furthered the calumny that the issue was really about sex, the Republicans received a public relations black eye from which they've still not recovered. With an African-American president and no supermajority, the Republicans were not about to compound their mistake. So, Obama got a pass.

"Obama is not trending well with this antigun nonsense" -

Wtf? I'm a proponent of the second amendment but even I think our forefathers would have tried harder to keep a gun out of the hands of Omar Mateen. I (in my ignorance of tactical firearms) should not be able to just go and purchase a semi-automatic or automatic rifle. I believe it should be an EARNED right to obtain those weapons. By way of progressive gun ownership over the course of years of safe handling of small arms and single-shot weapons, and before you can get a semi or auto you should undergo a psychological profile and be entered into a database.

Because US citizens also have a right to be safe from assholes with semis and autos. I'm sick and tired of this nonsense. Yes we should be able to acquire a weapon, but it should be damn difficult to do so.

Conan:

"That said, I'll probably vote Trump because he'll face hostile opposition from and be kept in check by both parties. Clinton will have carte blanche from the Democrats to do her worst.

Short of murdering someone on camera, any offense she commits will be abetted and defended by the same scorched earth tactics and willful blindness the party employed to keep her husband in office."

This.

I'd much rather a President who manages to do absolutely nothing because of opposition than the corrupt Clinton.

Wtf? I'm a proponent of the second amendment but even I think our forefathers would have tried harder to keep a gun out of the hands of Omar Mateen. I (in my ignorance of tactical firearms) should not be able to just go and purchase a semi-automatic or automatic rifle. I believe it should be an EARNED right to obtain those weapons."

A couple of points, gun ownership is a constitutional right. You don't have to *earn* it anymore than you should have to earn the right to vote or your first amendment rights.

Our forefathers would have done no such thing. The gun isn't the problem.

Big difference between a semi automatic firearm and an automatic one.
And again, the type of gun isn't the problem.

A pump shotgun, (even legal in no gun Japan) would have done just as much damage, perhaps even more so in the three hours Mateen spent inside the club.
So would a couple of pressure cookers.

Both guns were legally purchased, and he had a security job, and a clearance.

How much more screening do you think would have prevented a purchase, and do you think if he couldn't buy them legally, he wouldn't have been able to pick them up on the black market?

In tight gun control France, the Paris terrorists used Kalisnikovs. Not sold legally in France at all. Do you think perhaps those *fully automatic rifles* were hard to acquire?

There are over three hundred million legally owned firearms in the US. Half of them, at least, are untraceable, because they have not changed hands through an FFL.

In addition we have several thousand miles of coast line, and a Swiss cheese national border. Along with a million machine shops, and CNC machines, that can crank out a semi automatic rifle or handgun faster than you can get one on order from Glock.

Good luck with making guns *hard to get*

Trump. And not as the lesser of two bad choices -- I'm affirmatively for Trump. Short version: what Bob in Texas said. Like Obama, Clinton thinks winning = making my will prevail. Trump thinks winning = we've got a deal. He's reputed to be a tough negotiator who doesn't always get what he wants, but once he makes a deal, he sticks to it. Above all, he's not an ideologue. I'm hoping for the landslide Scott Adams predicted last summer.

Say what you want about the Libertarian Party, but at the end of the day, their ticket consists of two former governors, neither of whom ever did anything to disgrace himself so far as I know. Seems to me like the sane alternative. (Granted, I'm biased, having voted Libertarian in every election since the party was formed.)

Seriously, Amy--Mitt Romney?? The guy who brought Obamacare to Massachusetts before Obama did?

Once I remembered that my state has gone Democrat since almost before I was born, I was pleased that I don't have to vote for either of them and my vote will neither contribute to nor prevent Clinton from winning here.

It's Prohibition Party all the way down the ticket for me (again).

-Jut

"Say what you want about the Libertarian Party, but at the end of the day, their ticket consists of two former governors, neither of whom ever did anything to disgrace himself so far as I know. Seems to me like the sane alternative. (Granted, I'm biased, having voted Libertarian in every election since the party was formed.)"

And what has that gotten you, in terms of political representation?

Virtue signaling? A few gallons of gas getting back and forth to the polls that you will never see again?

"Maybe you should have voted mitt Romney last time, and we'd have avoided all this."

And if the Republicans hadn't forced Nixon to repeatedly break the law then Mars bars would only cost a dime! One thin dime!

Say what you want about the Libertarian Party, but at the end of the day, their ticket consists of two former governors ~ Rex Little at June 15, 2016 10:00 AM

Not only a former governor, but a novelist as well.

The New York Times reviews Weld's book here.

Oops, here's there review.

"...the three hours Mateen spent inside the club. "

This is the critical point. Look at how much time he had. There was no opposition inside, no organization outside. I'm not blaming the victims at all. But think about how much different the outcome might have been if there had been one CC'er in there. Yeah, some people might have gotten shot in crossfire. But how much worse could it be than it actually came out? We saw the same thing at Virginia Tech. The shooter had time to reload multiple times. He could have gone in with a musket or a crossbow and achieved the same result. There was no one equipped, physically or mentally, to oppose him.

Why shouldn't gays carry? Why shouldn't they be allowed to? I can't think of any good reason to deny them the right to defend themselves. (I might suggest that it would be prudent for a few more of them to take advantage of that right, but that's for them to decide.)

Trump. For his proposed health care reforms, immigration policy, and stance on China.

I (in my ignorance of tactical firearms) should not be able to just go and purchase a semi-automatic or automatic rifle. I believe it should be an EARNED right to obtain those weapons.

A question, and an observation:

Q: where might I purchase an automatic weapon? between the NFA (1934) and the FOPA (1986) it is next to impossible and horrifyingly expensive to purchase an automatic weapon.

Since when are the enumerated rights earned? FFS, the Orlando shooter worked for a contractor that provides contract security for DHS. He passed the employer's background checks twice.

What you're angling towards is the terrorist watch list and the so-called "terrorist loophole". What is being proposed is suspending someone's rights simply because POTUS put their name on a list.

That's not how we do things. If we get to that point, you should expect that all the rest of your rights are also suspended just because.

"it is next to impossible and horrifyingly expensive to purchase an automatic weapon."

Yeah, this. I know a guy who collects automatic weapons. The amount of paperwork and government hoops one has to jump through in order to engage in that avocation is astounding. It's also a money sink. The guns, and parts for them, are really expensive, as is the ammunition if you want to actually go shoot one occasionally. If you're looking for something to commit a few murders with, there are far more cost-effective solutions.

Wow. You have all this good advice about feminism and masculinity under attack...and then you want to ignore it in favor of someone like Hillary?

Guess it's time to unsub. Lost another one.

P.S. - I already voted for Trump in the CA primary. Will do so again in November.

But think about how much different the outcome might have been if there had been one CC'er in there.

It was a gun free zone. Florida Statute 790.06 12:

A license issued under this section does not authorize any person to openly carry a handgun or carry a concealed weapon or firearm into:

...

Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0790/0790.html

You'll have to scroll down a ways. Almost all CCL holders are law abiding citizens - if you don't want to abide by the law there's little point in getting a CCL - so they wouldn't have been carrying. The law is a bit fuzzy, but I suspect this club fits the above description to a T.

You'll have to scroll down a ways. Almost all CCL holders are law abiding citizens - if you don't want to abide by the law there's little point in getting a CCL - so they wouldn't have been carrying. The law is a bit fuzzy, but I suspect this club fits the above description to a T.
I R A Darth Aggie at June 15, 2016 12:48 PM

Puts law abiding citizens in a real conundrum. Do I just not go into places the government establishes as gun free zones, or do I ignore the law and pack anyway?

Expect that calculation to be leaning towards the later option after Orlando, further eroding both respect for the law, and the law makers.

Hello, Conan.

I said "cowed" and I meant "cowed." I will post the links later or you could Google them. I can't do it now and won't be home until after church. I'm not impressed by The Atlantic calling it libel unless they're willing to confront Trump in it or at least explain why it is libel.

When Trump was being questioned by Meredith Vieira, she had the facts on her side, but instead she allowed Trump to talk over her and promote bullshit, clearly having no idea what he was talking about. That is a cowed media.

Or at Trump's self-congratulatory press conference, when he announced how "very proud" of himself he was for getting Obama to release his birth certificate. Not one reporter called him out for supposedly getting Obama to release his birth certificate, when Obama had alrwady done so in 2008.

Or for his disgusting insinuation that Obama was a bad student and only got into Harvard because he was black.

That is a cowed media, complete with udder and horns.

Of course, a lot of those gun-free zones are government facilities, such as courthouses, which you must visit from time to time in order to carry out your responsibilities as a citizen.

"Or for his disgusting insinuation that Obama was a bad student and only got into Harvard because he was black."

You think Obama got into Harvard because of his 80th percentile score on the LSAT?

I'm not academic wunderkind, and I managed a 92nd percentile.

The fact that we don't seem to be able to talk about it without being labeled some kind of racist, is pretty clearly a reason why Trump has so much support.

He seems to have the guts to say what everyone else is thinking.

It's pretty clear based on what I have read, that Obama got into both Columbia and Harvard by posing as a foreign exchange student from Kenya.

When both the records, and the grades are released, we will know for sure.

Of course, a lot of those gun-free zones are government facilities, such as courthouses, which you must visit from time to time in order to carry out your responsibilities as a citizen.

In theory, they have better security than a single officer moonlighting. Oh, yeah, the shooter served for a couple of months as a courthouse security officer.

Expect that calculation to be leaning towards the later option after Orlando, further eroding both respect for the law, and the law makers.

✅ almost like it is a feature, not a flaw.

What could go wrong by backing the same "blue-state" mentality over and over?

I'd vote Trump for many of the reasons mentioned, and I figure if he even just starts actually letting ICE follow the laws that are already on the books about immigration, it could start shifting things re: illegal immigrants.

People talk about needing immigration reform.. we don't need to reform it, we need to actually follow the laws already on the books, start really deporting people caught and punishing companies hiring illegals (and get something like e-verify finally going) to change things and get those already here to self-deport when the jobs and free-rides dry up.

Isab:

You think Obama got into Harvard because of his 80th percentile score on the LSAT?

I don't know how you know this, or what you think you've read that allows you to arrive at this conclusion. Obama has never released is LSAT scores, and I don't know how you would have access to them.

But Obama did graduate magna cum laude (in the top 14%) and was named editor of the Harvard Law Review.

Seems unlikely that someone with his supposedly lackluster LSAT scores could have done so well as a student at Harvard, of all places.

All the sites I've checked out so far (though they can only speculate), maintain that Obama must have been one of two African-American students (they make no mention of any foreign exchange student from Kenya) from Occidental who scored in the 94-98 percentile.

Forget Bengazi. Forget her lies and destruction of evidence. Just look at what the FBI says they have from the e-mails that survived the wipe:'

--Over 2,000 classified documents exposed on a poorly secured private server. (When I was in the Air Force, leaving ONE classified document - of much lower classification and importance than what Clinton would have been receiving - on my desk while I went to the bathroom would have at a minimum caused a change of job and non-judicial punishment, or if they didn't like my attitude, it could have been a prison term.)

--E-mail from Clinton instructing her aides to REMOVE SECURITY MARKINGS and transfer documents from the closed and secured government system to her private e-mail.

--All because she wouldn't bother to learn to use any of the approved devices for accessing the secure e-mail - or even enter a password (according to FBI accounts of interviews with her IT people).

This is NOT someone who can be trusted with the nuclear launch codes.

I maintain that during the birther fiasco, Trump enjoyed a thoroughly cowed media.

For example, this exchange from The Today Show with Meredith Vieira, where she has been right criticized for allowing Trump to "steamroll" her.

Meredith Vieira: Recently, you've spent a lot of time talking about President Obama's birth certificate, or lack thereof. You don't seem convinced that he has one.

Donald Trump: No, I'm not convinced that he has one. I've had very smart people say, “Donald, stay on the China issue. Stay on the Saudi Arabia issue. Stay on the India taking our jobs and the Mexico which is NAFTA [sic]...”

Vieira: “Get off the birth certificate issue.”

Trump: “...Get off the birth certificate issue.”

Vieira: Why don't you?

Trump: Because you know, ah, three weeks ago, when I started, I thought he was probably born in this country. Now I have a really bigger doubt than I did before.

Vieira: But based on what?

Trump: And you know what? His grandmother in Kenya said he was born in Kenya, and she was there and witnessed the birth. Okay? He doesn't have a birth certificate, or he hasn't shown it. He has what's called a Certificate [sic] of Live Birth. That is something that's easy to get. When you want a birth certificate, it's very hard to get.

Vieira: But it's considered the equivalent – the equivalent –

Trump (talking over): Excuse me. Excuse me. It's not the equivalent.

Vieira: And in the state of Hawai'i they said they have seen his document...

Trump: Meredith...It's not the equivalent.

Vieira: It's evidence that he was born in the United States, that's good enough for them. Scholars have...

Trump: A birth certificate is not even close. A Certificate [sic] of Live Birth is not even signed by anybody. I saw his. I read it very carefully. Doesn't have a serial number, doesn't have a signature. There's not even a signature.

Vieira: Do you believe he's lying?

Trump: I'm starting to think he was not born here.

Vieira: Do you believe he's lying, Donald? Come on. Just answer.

Trump: Meredith, he spent two million dollars in legal fees trying to get away from this issue. And if he weren't lying, why wouldn't he just solve it?

Trump lied without restraint and Vieira let him.

Obama's grandmother did not claim he was born in Kenya and she witnessed the birth. Obama's grandmother was asked a very loaded question by Ron McRae, lying piece of shit and self-appointed bishop of The Anabaptist Church of North America.

He asked if she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. When she replied in the affirmative, McRae the liar cut off the rest of the recording, in which it became obvious that either Sarah Obama or the translator (who speaks very poor English) assumed that the question was if she was present in Kenya when Obama was born in Hawaii.

She said repeatedly he was born in Hawaii, but McRae didn't want you to hear that part.

The two million dollars is also bullshit. The birthers found Obama's expense account reported to the federal government as required by law and discovered that he paid 1.6 million dollars to Perkins Coie law firm. Then after the election, further payments to Perkins Coie raised the grand total to well over 2 million dollars.

What the money was spent on is not given. There were no itemized bills to be turned in. The law doesn't require it and the campaign didn't do it.

The birthers merely assumed (or pretended to assume) that this money was spent on defending himself from birther lawsuits.

Finally, Trump's bullshit claim that the short-form birth certificate (that he claimed to have read "very carefully") is the equivalent.

If Trump had bothered, during his careful reading, to look at the bottom edge of the document, he would find a statement that the short form (a self-authenticating document) is considered prima facie evidence, which means, when it comes to court, the statements on the document are presumed fact. The judge does not even need to rule on it.

Yes, I'm well aware of that this doesn't mean it's irrefutable or unimpeachable proof; however, it is strong enough evidence to place the burden of proof on the other side.

Or if that's too legalese for you, you could have taken a hint from Ann Coulter, who, in a rare moment of lucidness, made the commonsense observation that the long form should not be considered more credible than the short form, since "they're both from the same office" and that the State Department accepts the short form.

Donald credits himself for making Obama release his long-form birth certificate (which, if Trump didn't have his head so far up his ass), would actually be ashamed of this.

Personally, I blame that epic idiot, Neil Abercrombie for compelling Obama to release his long-form birth certificate.

But why was this information not presented? Why has no reporter come forward and confronted Trump with this, which should be and would be common knowledge, if the media could impose upon the tailors to remove those massive yellow streaks from their collective backs.

And I just love the way the media lapped up every word from Trump during his press conference, as Trump sobbed uncontrollably that the media was not "protective" of him.

Not one person bothered to tell Trump, "Obama already released his birth certificate in 2008, dipshit. And way to lay on the racist insinuations that he was the beneficiary of affirmative action and took the place of a more qualified white student when you have no evidence for that whatsoever."

That is a cowed media, by any standard.

To say nothing of the fact that Trump claimed to have "his people" investigating Obama's birth and claimed that the birth certificate was missing or that Obama doesn't have one.

Anderson Cooper is the only one who made even a half-hearted attempt to confront Trump on his obscene lies. And every journalist in America who covered that episode of Trump's life needs to be ashamed.

Despite the apparent (apparent, because I didn't read every post) overwhelming pro-Trump/anti-Clinton sentiment here, that sentiment is, of course, not reflective of the country at large.

I don't know a single person ("know" as in personally, not on internet boards) who is voting for Trump (or says they're voting for him; perhaps a couple of them may actually vote for him while saying they're voting for Clinton...who knows.) But that's one of the reasons I like this board. People here view the world differently than people I know, and I like seeing different perspectives, even if I don't agree with them.

I give Clinton a 80-90% chance of beating Trump. Most people I know feel it's impossible for him to win. I don't. I don't think it's impossible but I think it's highly unlikely. If I'm proven wrong in November, all of you may feel free to gloat. But I suspect I'll be the one saying "what'd I tell ya?"

I give Clinton a 80-90% chance of beating Trump. Most people I know feel it's impossible for him to win. I don't. I don't think it's impossible but I think it's highly unlikely. If I'm proven wrong in November, all of you may feel free to gloat. But I suspect I'll be the one saying "what'd I tell ya?"

JD at June 15, 2016 6:57 PM

Don't confuse anti Clinton sentiment with pro Trump sentiment.

The two aren't the same and whether either one translates into an electoral college victory on election all day is anyone's guess.

On a side note, Pauline Kael remains unavailable for comment on JD's predictions.

What I do know, is that Hillary Clinton does a lot better in the polls when people can't see her or hear her, for some obvious reasons.
Hillary Clinton is a very poor debater, and a very poor public speaker.
This is a woman who *barely* managed to put away a geriatric socialist, through the magic of super delegates.

I'm going to wait until early November before making any predictions. A lot can happen between now and then, and I suspect this might be an election, where both polls and money spent on mass market media aren't going to matter very much.

A few more pro illegal immigrant demonstrations/ near riots and a couple more terrorist attacks can change a lot of hearts, and minds.

Don't confuse anti Clinton sentiment with pro Trump sentiment.

I don't, and didn't. I realize that people will be voting for Trump because they like him (and hate Clinton) and also simply because they hate Clinton. That's why I wrote "pro-Trump/anti-Clinton sentiment."

A few more pro illegal immigrant demonstrations/ near riots and a couple more terrorist attacks can change a lot of hearts, and minds.

True. But it's not as if that change can only happen in one direction, against Clinton. Things could happen that could also work against Trump.

On a side note, Pauline Kael remains unavailable for comment on JD's predictions.

As one would expect since dead people typically do not comment on anything.

JD:

As one would expect since dead people typically do not comment on anything.

Minor details. Get her dead ass on television right now and let's hear from her.

But it's not as if that change can only happen in one direction, against Clinton. Things could happen that could also work against Trump.

JD at June 15, 2016 8:16 PM

Give me an example. Fairly or not the party in power and generally the party of the presidency gets saddled with things that go wrong whether they be natural disasters, riots or terrorism.

The dems can try to blame Trump for riots at the Republican convention, but chances are, illegal immigrants throwing eggs and waving Mexcian flags aren't going to get people excited about voting for Hillary.

I think it will have exactly the opposite effect.

The Iranian hostage crisis easily got Reagan a million votes, because Americans were sick and tired of Jimmy Carter sitting there with his thumb up his ass after destabilizing the entire Middle East by tacitly deposing the Shah of Iran.

.

Get her dead ass on television right now and let's hear from her.

Monty Python could've done something with that idea: interviewing dead people (or dead film critics reviewing movies.)

One of my favorite sketches of theirs.

Give me an example.

Give me a prediction.

Give me an example.

Give me a prediction.

JD at June 15, 2016 9:03 PM

I just did. Any disaster will work against the democrats. Now it is your turn to think of an event that would work against Donald Trump.

If you think Pauline Kael is famous for reviewing movies, when her name comes up in a political conversation, you must be very young.

How many elections have you voted in JD? How about your friends? Were you even alive in the 80's or does history for you begin, in 2008?

And it predates Monty Python by 1000 years! I refer you to the infamous Cadaver Synod.

Stephen VI was arguably the most insane person ever to hold the office of Pope. And when some of the batshit loons who held the title, that's saying something!

Good Monty Python sketch, by the way, assembling the dead guys like Karl Marx, Lenin, Che Guevara and Mao.

My favorite observation by Monty Python, "American beer is like making love in a canoe. You're fucking close to water."

Another joke of theirs I enjoyed comes from the Flying Circus. Such a shame the joke doesn't work any more because televisions are now less than three inches thick.

"I object to all of this sex on the television. I mean, I keep fallin' off!"

>aren't going to get people excited about voting for Hillary.

Not everyone needs to get excited about Clinton in order to vote for her over Trump. You have the same two factors at work for Clinton as you do for Trump. You have people who are excited about them, but also people who are going to vote for them because they fear/despise the other one more.

I just did.

A prediction for who is going to win in November.

Were you even alive in the 80's

Alive in the 80's? Fuck no. I died way before that. Pauline and I are best buds now. Last night was typical. We got together with Trotsky, Sacagawea, André Malraux, Prince, Thor Heyerdahl and some guy that was on the Hindenburg and had a blast scaring the shit out of people in an old house in Newcastle.

And then there's third party. I don't know who Gary Johnson will seemingly pull more votes away from - Clinton or Trump, but I suspect Trump.

And don't forget the looming possible indictment. Wouldn't that be something.

And it predates Monty Python by 1000 years! I refer you to the infamous Cadaver Synod.

How funny...thanks. It was Pontiff Python!

My favorite observation by Monty Python, "American beer is like making love in a canoe. You're fucking close to water."

Thanks for that also. In all my watching of Python, I missed that one. I do remember the "sex on the television" line, though. Too bad about losing Graham Chapman. After Michael Palin, he was my favorite. (Being from Minnesota, I always thought it was cool that the only American in the group, Terry Gilliam, was from there.)

I don't know who Gary Johnson will seemingly pull more votes away from - Clinton or Trump, but I suspect Trump.

I agree. In my experience, Libertarians lean to the right. I think that's why a lot of people on the left think of Libertarians as not much different than Republicans/conservatives.

I don't know why I didn't think to do this at first, JD.

"The dems can try to blame Trump for riots at the Republican convention, but chances are, illegal immigrants throwing eggs and waving Mexcian flags aren't going to get people excited about voting for Hillary"

It is almost like you forget there is a big sizable Hispanic community who can vote and had exactly that reaction.

Thank you Trump for uniting Hispanic groups that generally loathe each other.

As far as the odds for which candidate will win, I don't have a good feel for that right now... most of the polls are un-trustworthy, and they've had some big misses the past four cycles.

"Say what you want about the Libertarian Party"

Libertarian party chairman strips to his underwear on stage.

Trigger Warning: Not Safe For Posprandial Viewing.

Correction: Libertarian party chairman CANDIDATE.

http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/the-trump-show-hits-dallas-protest-organizers-ban-mexican-flags-8397108

"The dems can try to blame Trump for riots at the Republican convention, but chances are, illegal immigrants throwing eggs and waving Mexcian flags aren't going to get people excited about voting for Hillary"

It is almost like you forget there is a big sizable Hispanic community who can vote and had exactly that reaction.

Thank you Trump for uniting Hispanic groups that generally loathe each other.

ppen at June 16, 2016 7:14 AM

Apparently the Hispanics organizing the Trump protests in Texas, disagree with you.

And I doubt if the Cubans are onboard with Hillary either.

Yes well I am glad your "doubt" is meaningless....as Cubans are shifting towards the Democratic party.

The only die-hard Republicans are the old Castro hating Cubanos who are nothing but a dying breed.

How fucking shitty do you have to be as a party to loose both Mexican-Americans (who hate illegal immigrants and love sucking Reagan cock) and Cubans? Pretty fucking shitty.

Like I said Hispanics are unified pro-Hilary. Yes, like any group there are a few here and there that are not. But all you have to do is look at Univision and Telemundo to know who Hispanics are really for.

"How fucking shitty do you have to be as a party to loose both Mexican-Americans (who hate illegal immigrants and love sucking Reagan cock) and Cubans? Pretty fucking shitty."

You moved the goal posts agin PPen. Good job.

Unfortunately neither Hispanics or blacks are very reliable voters. For a Trump victory, a lot of them don't need to get out and vote for Hillary. They just have to be unenthusiastic enough to stay home.

Speaking of an off topic comment.

I have been reading your statements about sex, and male female relationships for several years now.

Just a word of advice, Women don't use this kind of graphic sexual imagery in their derogatory political comments.

Women talk around sex, and don't have direct sexual conversations about sex, virginity, and hook ups with their dads, moms, male friends or other women unless they come from a really sick family.

This is something that *men* do.

If you want to *pass* as a woman, you will need to get better at writing like one.

"Women talk around sex, and don't have direct sexual conversations about sex, virginity, and hook ups with their dads, moms, male friends or other women unless they come from a really sick family.

This is something that *men* do. "

I've never had those conversations with my parents and I come from a really sick family.

"But Obama did graduate magna cum laude (in the top 14%) and was named editor of the Harvard Law Review."

So we have a guy who can't speak without teleprompters, who gives no indication that he has ever heard of the Constitution and blames the NRA for keeping him from doing what he wants.

Long ago, I noted that an author has a distinctive "voice" in his or her writing that corresponds to their voice when they speak, unscripted. I don't think Obama wrote any books himself, and I don't think he's very smart, either.

This is the world in which Kerry and Gore hid their transcripts, which would show they weren't the geniuses compared to "W" the Democrats insisted; this is the world in which Gore debated Perot while wearing an earpiece visible to the TV cameras, which Democrats denied.

Thanks for the Eric Idle clip, Patrick.

It's serendipitous that you mentioned that "sex on the television" line in the middle of my back-and-forth with Isab. As I mentioned, I had missed that bit in all my Python-watching so I didn't know who said the line. When I saw it, and found out it was Chapman in one of his drag bits, I cracked up because it's kinda how I picture Isab.

As far as the odds for which candidate will win, I don't have a good feel for that right now... most of the polls are un-trustworthy,

Aw, c'mon Cousin Dave. Forget the polls, go with your gut and make a prediction. If I end up being wrong about Clinton winning (spoiler alert: I won't be), I won't mind if people gloat.

Meh. First you state Trump riots didn't rally anyone rabidly towards Hilary. When I say Hispanics, you remind me that they don't matter anyways because they aren't reliable voters. Except that's exactly what I am arguing Trump managed to do---align all the Hispanic groups together to actively campaign for Hilary. Every Hispanic media outlet is overwhelmingly biased and pro-Hilary. I've never seen anything like it. I have never seen such a unified voting drive among all the bickering Hispanic groups.

Kudos to Trump. Such unity ;), brings a tear to my manly eyes. Maybe Jorge Ramos can suck my cock while we are both voting for Hilary and converting more Cubans to the Democratic Party.

(Weren't you the one that was sure Cruz would beat Trump?? )

most of the polls are un-trustworthy

I strongly suspect that the poll numbers for Trump support are especially untrustworthy because a lot of people who support him won't admit it except in the privacy of the voting booth.

Snort. For Isab -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-7uw1tcsJ0