Write-in candidate Evan McMullin admits his purpose in running for president is to prevent Donald Trump from winning. McMullin acknowledged his strategy is "not conventional" and the goal is not to win 270 electoral votes. The write-in candidate said he hopes the race is a close one because he wants to play spoiler and stop the authoritarian candidate from taking power, Donald Trump.
McMullin is really just an agent (either knowingly or unknowingly) for Hillary. His stated goal is to help her win.
Oh look, another stalking horse candidate. I have 0.00% doubt the Clintons/DNC/Media are behind this as well. Think about it - running someone who wears the special pajamas in Utah (and Nevada) is a great way to steal some electoral votes from the R candidate.
Completely rigged election
Going all-in on the "rigged election" garbage I see...
You guys are cute. Seems like just yesterday your party was bitching about citizens united. Now we have irrefutable proof of Hillary illegally colluding with PACs/unions/DNC, peddling her influence to businesses and foreign entities in exchange for cash.......and you're silent.
You're cowards...your whole party and the media included.
Write-in candidate Evan McMullin admits his purpose in running for president is to prevent Donald Trump from winning. McMullin acknowledged his strategy is "not conventional" and the goal is not to win 270 electoral votes. The write-in candidate said he hopes the race is a close one because he wants to play spoiler and stop the authoritarian candidate from taking power, Donald Trump.
McMullin is really just an agent (either knowingly or unknowingly) for Hillary. His stated goal is to help her win.
Oh look, another stalking horse candidate. I have 0.00% doubt the Clintons/DNC/Media are behind this as well. Think about it - running someone who wears the special pajamas in Utah (and Nevada) is a great way to steal some electoral votes from the R candidate.
Completely rigged election
Going all-in on the "rigged election" garbage I see...
You guys are cute. Seems like just yesterday your party was bitching about citizens united. Now we have irrefutable proof of Hillary illegally colluding with PACs/unions/DNC, peddling her influence to businesses and foreign entities in exchange for cash.......and you're silent.
You're cowards...your whole party and the media included.
They're partisan hacks, blind followers of the DNC because they're just as arrogant.
Write-in candidate Evan McMullin admits his purpose in running for president is to prevent Donald Trump from winning. McMullin acknowledged his strategy is "not conventional" and the goal is not to win 270 electoral votes. The write-in candidate said he hopes the race is a close one because he wants to play spoiler and stop the authoritarian candidate from taking power, Donald Trump.
McMullin is really just an agent (either knowingly or unknowingly) for Hillary. His stated goal is to help her win.
Oh look, another stalking horse candidate. I have 0.00% doubt the Clintons/DNC/Media are behind this as well. Think about it - running someone who wears the special pajamas in Utah (and Nevada) is a great way to steal some electoral votes from the R candidate.
Completely rigged election
Going all-in on the "rigged election" garbage I see...
You guys are cute. Seems like just yesterday your party was bitching about citizens united. Now we have irrefutable proof of Hillary illegally colluding with PACs/unions/DNC, peddling her influence to businesses and foreign entities in exchange for cash.......and you're silent.
You're cowards...your whole party and the media included.
Yup. Where is the DOJ on this shiRt?.......oh, they're corrupt too!
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
Write-in candidate Evan McMullin admits his purpose in running for president is to prevent Donald Trump from winning. McMullin acknowledged his strategy is "not conventional" and the goal is not to win 270 electoral votes. The write-in candidate said he hopes the race is a close one because he wants to play spoiler and stop the authoritarian candidate from taking power, Donald Trump.
McMullin is really just an agent (either knowingly or unknowingly) for Hillary. His stated goal is to help her win.
Oh look, another stalking horse candidate. I have 0.00% doubt the Clintons/DNC/Media are behind this as well. Think about it - running someone who wears the special pajamas in Utah (and Nevada) is a great way to steal some electoral votes from the R candidate.
Completely rigged election
Going all-in on the "rigged election" garbage I see...
You guys are cute. Seems like just yesterday your party was bitching about citizens united. Now we have irrefutable proof of Hillary illegally colluding with PACs/unions/DNC, peddling her influence to businesses and foreign entities in exchange for cash.......and you're silent.
You're cowards...your whole party and the media included.
Here you are again trying to make up an argument for me. Show me one post where I've "bitched about citizens united". You can't because that's literally the first time I've ever typed that. It's amusing to watch you sit safely behind a computer screen and lie your ass off while calling other people cowards.
Forum rules: Please be civil. "You do suck and are a terrible human being." - awesome guy "maybe because you're autistic" - USN_Hokie
Seriously... there's only ONE rule.
Write-in candidate Evan McMullin admits his purpose in running for president is to prevent Donald Trump from winning. McMullin acknowledged his strategy is "not conventional" and the goal is not to win 270 electoral votes. The write-in candidate said he hopes the race is a close one because he wants to play spoiler and stop the authoritarian candidate from taking power, Donald Trump.
McMullin is really just an agent (either knowingly or unknowingly) for Hillary. His stated goal is to help her win.
Oh look, another stalking horse candidate. I have 0.00% doubt the Clintons/DNC/Media are behind this as well. Think about it - running someone who wears the special pajamas in Utah (and Nevada) is a great way to steal some electoral votes from the R candidate.
Completely rigged election
Going all-in on the "rigged election" garbage I see...
You guys are cute. Seems like just yesterday your party was bitching about citizens united. Now we have irrefutable proof of Hillary illegally colluding with PACs/unions/DNC, peddling her influence to businesses and foreign entities in exchange for cash.......and you're silent.
You're cowards...your whole party and the media included.
Here you are again trying to make up an argument for me. Show me one post where I've "bitched about citizens united". You can't because that's literally the first time I've ever typed that. It's amusing to watch you sit safely behind a computer screen and lie your ass off while calling other people cowards.
Are you telling us you support the citizens united case? I'll wait for you to answer because I don't want you to say we're putting words in your mouth. You're contorting yourself into a pretzel trying to justify this BS but it's just making you look more foolish.
Go on, tell us how you support the supreme court decision Democrats have been bitching about for years.
USN_Hokie wrote:
Are you telling us you support the citizens united case? I'll wait for you to answer because I don't want you to say we're putting words in your mouth. You're contorting yourself into a pretzel trying to justify this BS but it's just making you look more foolish.
Go on, tell us how you support the supreme court decision Democrats have been bitching about for years.
No I'm telling you I've never said word one about it one way or the other. You yet again are making up an argument. You especially love to put forth false binary choices. I'm not "contorting" anything, you are the one trying to backpedal because you made up yet another position for someone with zero evidence to support it. I'll ask again. Show me where I've posted an opinion on it or admit you're pulling stuff out of your ass.
Nevermind that you're deflecting from your ridiculous "rigged" claims.
Forum rules: Please be civil. "You do suck and are a terrible human being." - awesome guy "maybe because you're autistic" - USN_Hokie
Seriously... there's only ONE rule.
USN_Hokie wrote:
Are you telling us you support the citizens united case? I'll wait for you to answer because I don't want you to say we're putting words in your mouth. You're contorting yourself into a pretzel trying to justify this BS but it's just making you look more foolish.
Go on, tell us how you support the supreme court decision Democrats have been bitching about for years.
No I'm telling you I've never said word one about it one way or the other. You yet again are making up an argument. You especially love to put forth false binary choices. I'm not "contorting" anything, you are the one trying to backpedal because you made up yet another position for someone with zero evidence to support it. I'll ask again. Show me where I've posted an opinion on it or admit you're pulling stuff out of your ass.
Nevermind that you're deflecting from your ridiculous "rigged" claims.
I was using the plural you, for the record. That you concede you disapproved of the citizens united outcome shows my usage was correct. That you didnt post about it on UWS is a deflection from the fact that you're a spineless hypocrite.
I've fired folks for less egregious demonstrations of a lack of ethics than you and other Democrats have put forth here.
USN_Hokie wrote:
Are you telling us you support the citizens united case? I'll wait for you to answer because I don't want you to say we're putting words in your mouth. You're contorting yourself into a pretzel trying to justify this BS but it's just making you look more foolish.
Go on, tell us how you support the supreme court decision Democrats have been bitching about for years.
No I'm telling you I've never said word one about it one way or the other. You yet again are making up an argument. You especially love to put forth false binary choices. I'm not "contorting" anything, you are the one trying to backpedal because you made up yet another position for someone with zero evidence to support it. I'll ask again. Show me where I've posted an opinion on it or admit you're pulling stuff out of your ass.
Nevermind that you're deflecting from your ridiculous "rigged" claims.
Define rigged........
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
USN_Hokie wrote:
Are you telling us you support the citizens united case? I'll wait for you to answer because I don't want you to say we're putting words in your mouth. You're contorting yourself into a pretzel trying to justify this BS but it's just making you look more foolish.
Go on, tell us how you support the supreme court decision Democrats have been bitching about for years.
No I'm telling you I've never said word one about it one way or the other. You yet again are making up an argument. You especially love to put forth false binary choices. I'm not "contorting" anything, you are the one trying to backpedal because you made up yet another position for someone with zero evidence to support it. I'll ask again. Show me where I've posted an opinion on it or admit you're pulling stuff out of your ass.
Nevermind that you're deflecting from your ridiculous "rigged" claims.
I was using the plural you, for the record. That you concede you disapproved of the citizens united outcome shows my usage was correct. That you didnt post about it on UWS is a deflection from the fact that you're a spineless hypocrite.
I've fired folks for less egregious demonstrations of a lack of ethics than you and other Democrats have put forth here.
You were responding to my post. Hard to claim it wasn't directed at me. And I "conceded" no such thing. I'm not sure where you got that. I appreciate that you acknowledge that I've never said anything about it thus confirming that you made up a position and assigned it to me. No need to apologize, I'm not sure you even realize you're doing it. When you talk about lack of ethics does that include making up blatant lies and acting like an internet tough guy? You trying to lecture anyone about ethics is hilarious.
Forum rules: Please be civil. "You do suck and are a terrible human being." - awesome guy "maybe because you're autistic" - USN_Hokie
Seriously... there's only ONE rule.
USN_Hokie wrote:
Are you telling us you support the citizens united case? I'll wait for you to answer because I don't want you to say we're putting words in your mouth. You're contorting yourself into a pretzel trying to justify this BS but it's just making you look more foolish.
Go on, tell us how you support the supreme court decision Democrats have been bitching about for years.
No I'm telling you I've never said word one about it one way or the other. You yet again are making up an argument. You especially love to put forth false binary choices. I'm not "contorting" anything, you are the one trying to backpedal because you made up yet another position for someone with zero evidence to support it. I'll ask again. Show me where I've posted an opinion on it or admit you're pulling stuff out of your ass.
Nevermind that you're deflecting from your ridiculous "rigged" claims.
Define rigged........
make (a sailing ship or boat) ready for sailing by providing it with sails and rigging
Forum rules: Please be civil. "You do suck and are a terrible human being." - awesome guy "maybe because you're autistic" - USN_Hokie
Seriously... there's only ONE rule.
Write-in candidate Evan McMullin admits his purpose in running for president is to prevent Donald Trump from winning. McMullin acknowledged his strategy is "not conventional" and the goal is not to win 270 electoral votes. The write-in candidate said he hopes the race is a close one because he wants to play spoiler and stop the authoritarian candidate from taking power, Donald Trump.
McMullin is really just an agent (either knowingly or unknowingly) for Hillary. His stated goal is to help her win.
His primary goal is to prevent either from winning. His secondary goal is to prevent Trump from winning.
QUESTION: How many states are you going to be on the ballot would you say?
EVAN MCMULLIN: Right now we're either on the ballot or registered as a write-in in 34 states. By the time we get to November 8th it will be 40 to 45. And that's plenty for our strategy which is not a conventional strategy. We're not trying to win 270 votes. Of course that would be great but it's just not going to happen, his is a three-month presidential campaign.
So, what we're trying to do is earn enough electoral votes to block Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump if the race between both of them is so close that we are able to do that by winning 1 or 2 states. So, that's the idea. But if not that then we will be happy to have prevented someone who I believe is a true authoritarian from taking power in the United States and that's Donald Trump
He's a Mormon. What states do you think he's planning on taking Hillary electoral votes from? Rhode Island? Connecticut? Maine? Maryland? California? New York?
I wonder what Ambassadorship this guy is going to get under Clinton?
I'm waiting for him to announce his support for single payer and welfare.
It's maddening that people still fall for this stuff.
So in your mind, he's liberal and is staging this whole campaign to elect Clinton?
He's a #NeverTrump d!psh!t. Why not #NeverHillary?
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
USN_Hokie wrote:
Are you telling us you support the citizens united case? I'll wait for you to answer because I don't want you to say we're putting words in your mouth. You're contorting yourself into a pretzel trying to justify this BS but it's just making you look more foolish.
Go on, tell us how you support the supreme court decision Democrats have been bitching about for years.
No I'm telling you I've never said word one about it one way or the other. You yet again are making up an argument. You especially love to put forth false binary choices. I'm not "contorting" anything, you are the one trying to backpedal because you made up yet another position for someone with zero evidence to support it. I'll ask again. Show me where I've posted an opinion on it or admit you're pulling stuff out of your ass.
Nevermind that you're deflecting from your ridiculous "rigged" claims.
Define rigged........
make (a sailing ship or boat) ready for sailing by providing it with sails and rigging
Exactly the answer I expected. Just like Nolan.
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
USN_Hokie wrote:
Are you telling us you support the citizens united case? I'll wait for you to answer because I don't want you to say we're putting words in your mouth. You're contorting yourself into a pretzel trying to justify this BS but it's just making you look more foolish.
Go on, tell us how you support the supreme court decision Democrats have been bitching about for years.
No I'm telling you I've never said word one about it one way or the other. You yet again are making up an argument. You especially love to put forth false binary choices. I'm not "contorting" anything, you are the one trying to backpedal because you made up yet another position for someone with zero evidence to support it. I'll ask again. Show me where I've posted an opinion on it or admit you're pulling stuff out of your ass.
Nevermind that you're deflecting from your ridiculous "rigged" claims.
Define rigged........
make (a sailing ship or boat) ready for sailing by providing it with sails and rigging
USN_Hokie wrote:
Are you telling us you support the citizens united case? I'll wait for you to answer because I don't want you to say we're putting words in your mouth. You're contorting yourself into a pretzel trying to justify this BS but it's just making you look more foolish.
Go on, tell us how you support the supreme court decision Democrats have been bitching about for years.
No I'm telling you I've never said word one about it one way or the other. You yet again are making up an argument. You especially love to put forth false binary choices. I'm not "contorting" anything, you are the one trying to backpedal because you made up yet another position for someone with zero evidence to support it. I'll ask again. Show me where I've posted an opinion on it or admit you're pulling stuff out of your ass.
Nevermind that you're deflecting from your ridiculous "rigged" claims.
Define rigged........
make (a sailing ship or boat) ready for sailing by providing it with sails and rigging
Exactly the answer I expected. Just like Nolan.
sup
You earned your reputation......live with it.
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
USN_Hokie wrote:
Are you telling us you support the citizens united case? I'll wait for you to answer because I don't want you to say we're putting words in your mouth. You're contorting yourself into a pretzel trying to justify this BS but it's just making you look more foolish.
Go on, tell us how you support the supreme court decision Democrats have been bitching about for years.
No I'm telling you I've never said word one about it one way or the other. You yet again are making up an argument. You especially love to put forth false binary choices. I'm not "contorting" anything, you are the one trying to backpedal because you made up yet another position for someone with zero evidence to support it. I'll ask again. Show me where I've posted an opinion on it or admit you're pulling stuff out of your ass.
Nevermind that you're deflecting from your ridiculous "rigged" claims.
I was using the plural you, for the record. That you concede you disapproved of the citizens united outcome shows my usage was correct. That you didnt post about it on UWS is a deflection from the fact that you're a spineless hypocrite.
I've fired folks for less egregious demonstrations of a lack of ethics than you and other Democrats have put forth here.
You were responding to my post. Hard to claim it wasn't directed at me. And I "conceded" no such thing. I'm not sure where you got that. I appreciate that you acknowledge that I've never said anything about it thus confirming that you made up a position and assigned it to me. No need to apologize, I'm not sure you even realize you're doing it. When you talk about lack of ethics does that include making up blatant lies and acting like an internet tough guy? You trying to lecture anyone about ethics is hilarious.
Oh, you aren't conceding that you disapproved of citizens united now? Go on. This is fun. You're going to get dizzy with all this spinning little guy.
HokieHam wrote:You earned your reputation......live with it.
What am I 'living with'?
Your reputation here......exactly what I said.
Why would I be 'living with' a reputation among anonymous message board posters who I've never met, never will meet, and don't affect any aspect of my life as if it's something I should be concerned with?
HokieHam wrote:
Exactly the answer I expected. Just like Nolan.
Or maybe I was making a joke?
I'm not the one claiming anything is "rigged". Maybe you should ask the people who are to "define" it.
Forum rules: Please be civil. "You do suck and are a terrible human being." - awesome guy "maybe because you're autistic" - USN_Hokie
Seriously... there's only ONE rule.
USN_Hokie wrote:
Oh, you aren't conceding that you disapproved of citizens united now? Go on. This is fun. You're going to get dizzy with all this spinning little guy.
Again why would you think I conceded that? What have I said to indicate that? I honestly don't care about citizens united one way or the other. As I said previously the first time I've even thought about it was when I typed it in response to your post. I'm glad you're having fun while admitting that you're just making stuff up. Try reading my posts instead of fabricating positions for people.
Of course none of this is relevant to the point I was making which was that you're chugging the "rigged" Kool-Aid instead of just admitting that maybe Trump wasn't a great candidate to start with and did nothing but hurt himself throughout his campaign. Maybe Trump's losing because of his own words and actions... but it's easier to stamp your feet and hold your breath and cry about things being rigged.
Forum rules: Please be civil. "You do suck and are a terrible human being." - awesome guy "maybe because you're autistic" - USN_Hokie
Seriously... there's only ONE rule.
USN_Hokie wrote:
Oh, you aren't conceding that you disapproved of citizens united now? Go on. This is fun. You're going to get dizzy with all this spinning little guy.
Again why would you think I conceded that? What have I said to indicate that? I honestly don't care about citizens united one way or the other. As I said previously the first time I've even thought about it was when I typed it in response to your post. I'm glad you're having fun while admitting that you're just making stuff up. Try reading my posts instead of fabricating positions for people.
Of course none of this is relevant to the point I was making which was that you're chugging the "rigged" Kool-Aid instead of just admitting that maybe Trump wasn't a great candidate to start with and did nothing but hurt himself throughout his campaign. Maybe Trump's losing because of his own words and actions... but it's easier to stamp your feet and hold your breath and cry about things being rigged.
Lol...so citizens united is the one political issue you have no opinion on? This coming from the guy whose entire posting style is to make little petty snipes on everything?
My post was still fine in the context I provided, and you're (plural) still spineless to support a criminal candidate with no respect for the law for the highest office in the country. You folks should be ashamed of yourselves.
Trump's efficacy as a candidate has nothing to do with this. You're either incapable of understanding this, or lying...or maybe both. Pick one.
Write-in candidate Evan McMullin admits his purpose in running for president is to prevent Donald Trump from winning. McMullin acknowledged his strategy is "not conventional" and the goal is not to win 270 electoral votes. The write-in candidate said he hopes the race is a close one because he wants to play spoiler and stop the authoritarian candidate from taking power, Donald Trump.
McMullin is really just an agent (either knowingly or unknowingly) for Hillary. His stated goal is to help her win.
Oh look, another stalking horse candidate. I have 0.00% doubt the Clintons/DNC/Media are behind this as well. Think about it - running someone who wears the special pajamas in Utah (and Nevada) is a great way to steal some electoral votes from the R candidate.
Completely rigged election
Going all-in on the "rigged election" garbage I see...
You guys are cute. Seems like just yesterday your party was bitching about citizens united. Now we have irrefutable proof of Hillary illegally colluding with PACs/unions/DNC, peddling her influence to businesses and foreign entities in exchange for cash.......and you're silent.
You're cowards...your whole party and the media included.
So 'rigged' means colluding with PACs? That's not the first definition most people think of when the claim that an election is rigged is alleged. As to the colluding with Super PACs (still just allegations), that is one of the weaknesses of Citizens United. There's no oversight mechanism and really there can't possibly be one. And then there's the gray area between "collusion" and off the record sharing a beer and shooting the breeze with a friend.
lazyrebel wrote:You are voting for the SCOTUS. We need to keep justices that will follow the constitution and not think like the libs that it is a living document.
That's a bunch of bull that no justice can stick to, not even Scalia.
The underlying principle is pretty good but it is impossible to put into practice. WTF does equal protection under the law mean? How does that not change over time as we go from a country that had slaves, to one that does not.
It is a shame that our politicians can't do there job and avoid some decisions going to the Supreme Court. In that sense, Scalia is right, the elected politicians should be deciding these things, not judges.
USN_Hokie wrote:
Oh, you aren't conceding that you disapproved of citizens united now? Go on. This is fun. You're going to get dizzy with all this spinning little guy.
Again why would you think I conceded that? What have I said to indicate that? I honestly don't care about citizens united one way or the other. As I said previously the first time I've even thought about it was when I typed it in response to your post. I'm glad you're having fun while admitting that you're just making stuff up. Try reading my posts instead of fabricating positions for people.
Of course none of this is relevant to the point I was making which was that you're chugging the "rigged" Kool-Aid instead of just admitting that maybe Trump wasn't a great candidate to start with and did nothing but hurt himself throughout his campaign. Maybe Trump's losing because of his own words and actions... but it's easier to stamp your feet and hold your breath and cry about things being rigged.
Lol...so citizens united is the one political issue you have no opinion on? This coming from the guy whose entire posting style is to make little petty snipes on everything?
My post was still fine in the context I provided, and you're (plural) still spineless to support a criminal candidate with no respect for the law for the highest office in the country. You folks should be ashamed of yourselves.
Trump's efficacy as a candidate has nothing to do with this. You're either incapable of understanding this, or lying...or maybe both. Pick one.
Just because one is against Citizens United, doesn't mean they think the system is rigged. Presumably, it gives too much say to a select few, but I don't think that fits the definition of rigged. Then again, I'm not a master of the English language.
