Wazzup my favorite klatch of krazies?

[awesome guy]

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.

If only we had a way to write in changes to the constitution instead of just pretending up now means down.

[USN_Hokie]

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.

1. Link or further explanation for the bolded text?

2. The point is that Hillary will appoint Justices who won't meddle in her extra-constitutional activities. She'll turn it into a puppet court. No matter who Trump appoints there will be 5+ Justices who aren't in his pocket.

Did you miss the emails from Soros directing Scalia's replacement? That's what you're voting for if you vote for Hillary.

[awesome guy]

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.

1. Link or further explanation for the bolded text?

2. The point is that Hillary will appoint Justices who won't meddle in her extra-constitutional activities. She'll turn it into a puppet court. No matter who Trump appoints there will be 5+ Justices who aren't in his pocket.

Did you miss the emails from Soros directing Scalia's replacement? That's what you're voting for if you vote for Hillary.

Liberals don't believe in the amendment process. His standard is easily met, as Scalia did. This is government 101 from 6th grade stuff. Initial constitution enabled slavery and excluding slaves of all races from citizenship. 13th Amendment abolishes slavery, 14th grants them citizenship. So presto, equal protection under the law applies to the slaves. It's not magic, it's written down. The magic is in the liberals proclaiming that their isn't a 2nd amendment because they don't like it or that the right to privacy encompases the right to murder your child. That's the magical way to interpret the constitution because instead of changing the text, they contort meaning or just flat out exclude the written text. We're lawless at that point as the law is what it is written, not what is felt in the heart.

[nolanvt]

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.

To clarify, to which candidate are you referring?

[TheH2]

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.

1. Link or further explanation for the bolded text?

The Heller decision. Both judges sited being originalists.

2. The point is that Hillary will appoint Justices who won't meddle in her extra-constitutional activities. She'll turn it into a puppet court. No matter who Trump appoints there will be 5+ Justices who aren't in his pocket.

Did you miss the emails from Soros directing Scalia's replacement? That's what you're voting for if you vote for Hillary.

Last time I asked you for link to emails you failed. So please provide a link to the this batch of emails. Once again, I'm not doubting that they exist.

[USN_Hokie]

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.

My point was as simple as:

A. People who are against the citizens united decision are concerned with the influence of money / PAC on the electoral system in this country. (I think we can agree on this)

B. The Hillary campaign email leaks have shown a disturbing, often illegal collusion between her campaign and the press, DNC, and PACs. It's shown an illegal collusion between donors and political influence.

To be for A but not B is flagrantly hypocritical. Conveniently for Absolut, he has no opinion on A or B apparently.

[USN_Hokie]

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.

1. Link or further explanation for the bolded text?

The Heller decision. Both judges sited being originalists.

2. The point is that Hillary will appoint Justices who won't meddle in her extra-constitutional activities. She'll turn it into a puppet court. No matter who Trump appoints there will be 5+ Justices who aren't in his pocket.

Did you miss the emails from Soros directing Scalia's replacement? That's what you're voting for if you vote for Hillary.

Last time I asked you for link to emails you failed. So please provide a link to the this batch of emails. Once again, I'm not doubting that they exist.

1. That's false I challenge you to show me otherwise. I'd happily invite that debate.

2. No idea what you're talking about. If I missed a post from you I apologize. I linked the email from one of Soros' minions here last week. I'll see if I can find it. In the meantime, here's a link:

https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/wik ... placement/

[TheH2]

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.

1. Link or further explanation for the bolded text?

The Heller decision. Both judges sited being originalists.

2. The point is that Hillary will appoint Justices who won't meddle in her extra-constitutional activities. She'll turn it into a puppet court. No matter who Trump appoints there will be 5+ Justices who aren't in his pocket.

Did you miss the emails from Soros directing Scalia's replacement? That's what you're voting for if you vote for Hillary.

Last time I asked you for link to emails you failed. So please provide a link to the this batch of emails. Once again, I'm not doubting that they exist.

1. That's false I challenge you to show me otherwise. I'd happily invite that debate.

2. No idea what you're talking about. If I missed a post from you I apologize. I linked the email from one of Soros' minions here last week. I'll see if I can find it. In the meantime, here's a link:

https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/wik ... placement/

1. has to do with self defense. There are other decisions as well, including equal protection under the law.

Thanks for the link. Here is my other post that you probably missed:
http://uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t ... ls#p158053

[TheH2]

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.

1. Link or further explanation for the bolded text?

The Heller decision. Both judges sited being originalists.

2. The point is that Hillary will appoint Justices who won't meddle in her extra-constitutional activities. She'll turn it into a puppet court. No matter who Trump appoints there will be 5+ Justices who aren't in his pocket.

Did you miss the emails from Soros directing Scalia's replacement? That's what you're voting for if you vote for Hillary.

Last time I asked you for link to emails you failed. So please provide a link to the this batch of emails. Once again, I'm not doubting that they exist.

1. That's false I challenge you to show me otherwise. I'd happily invite that debate.

2. No idea what you're talking about. If I missed a post from you I apologize. I linked the email from one of Soros' minions here last week. I'll see if I can find it. In the meantime, here's a link:

https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/wik ... placement/

1. has to do with self defense. There are other decisions as well, including equal protection under the law.

Thanks for the link. Here is my other post that you probably missed:
http://uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t ... ls#p158053

This guy, appointed by a republican governor and former favorite of RWNJs everywhere?
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas/20 ... ign-oct.-1

[absolutvt03]

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.

That's a weird way of saying you were both wrong and a liar. And no there are plenty of political issues I have little to no opinion on. Abortion is a great example (and I've said as much in these very forums multiple times). Just admit that you made a dumbass assumption, stuck your foot in your mouth, and instead of just coming clean and/or letting it go you kept digging the hole deeper.

And Trump's "efficacy as a candidate" most certainly has to do with him winning or losing the election. I'm not sure how you could claim otherwise. Unless you think being a bad candidate somehow translates to having a better chance of winning an election.

I do like that you trotted out your false binary choice again... it's one of your signature moves along with making up arguments and assigning them to people. And then you have the nerve to imply someone else is lying in the same topic where you've admitted to fabricating other people's arguments. You're either extremely ignorant or a gigantic hypocrite. Pick one. (Hopefully you see what I did there)...

[USN_Hokie]

[

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.

1. Link or further explanation for the bolded text?

The Heller decision. Both judges sited being originalists.

2. The point is that Hillary will appoint Justices who won't meddle in her extra-constitutional activities. She'll turn it into a puppet court. No matter who Trump appoints there will be 5+ Justices who aren't in his pocket.

Did you miss the emails from Soros directing Scalia's replacement? That's what you're voting for if you vote for Hillary.

Last time I asked you for link to emails you failed. So please provide a link to the this batch of emails. Once again, I'm not doubting that they exist.

1. That's false I challenge you to show me otherwise. I'd happily invite that debate.

2. No idea what you're talking about. If I missed a post from you I apologize. I linked the email from one of Soros' minions here last week. I'll see if I can find it. In the meantime, here's a link:

https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/wik ... placement/

1. has to do with self defense. There are other decisions as well, including equal protection under the law.

Thanks for the link. Here is my other post that you probably missed:
http://uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t ... ls#p158053

This guy, appointed by a republican governor and former favorite of RWNJs everywhere?
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas/20 ... ign-oct.-1

Where's the argument that you want me to respond to?

[USN_Hokie]

1. has to do with self defense. There are other decisions as well, including equal protection under the law.

Not an argument. How am I supposed to respond to that?

[TheH2]

1. Link or further explanation for the bolded text?

The Heller decision. Both judges sited being originalists.

2. The point is that Hillary will appoint Justices who won't meddle in her extra-constitutional activities. She'll turn it into a puppet court. No matter who Trump appoints there will be 5+ Justices who aren't in his pocket.

Did you miss the emails from Soros directing Scalia's replacement? That's what you're voting for if you vote for Hillary.

Last time I asked you for link to emails you failed. So please provide a link to the this batch of emails. Once again, I'm not doubting that they exist.

1. That's false I challenge you to show me otherwise. I'd happily invite that debate.

2. No idea what you're talking about. If I missed a post from you I apologize. I linked the email from one of Soros' minions here last week. I'll see if I can find it. In the meantime, here's a link:

https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/wik ... placement/

1. has to do with self defense. There are other decisions as well, including equal protection under the law.

Thanks for the link. Here is my other post that you probably missed:
http://uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t ... ls#p158053

This guy, appointed by a republican governor and former favorite of RWNJs everywhere?
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas/20 ... ign-oct.-1

Where's the argument that you want me to respond to?

Great question, I don't think there was one. I'm just shocked that talking about appointing a judge appointed by a republican (presidential candidate no less - well, who wasn't?) is something that is damming in the Clinton emails.

[USN_Hokie]

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.

That's a weird way of saying you were both wrong and a liar. And no there are plenty of political issues I have little to no opinion on. Abortion is a great example (and I've said as much in these very forums multiple times). Just admit that you made a dumbass assumption, stuck your foot in your mouth, and instead of just coming clean and/or letting it go you kept digging the hole deeper.

And Trump's "efficacy as a candidate" most certainly has to do with him winning or losing the election. I'm not sure how you could claim otherwise. Unless you think being a bad candidate somehow translates to having a better chance of winning an election.

I do like that you trotted out your false binary choice again... it's one of your signature moves along with making up arguments and assigning them to people. And then you have the nerve to imply someone else is lying in the same topic where you've admitted to fabricating other people's arguments. You're either extremely ignorant or a gigantic hypocrite. Pick one. (Hopefully you see what I did there)...

That pigeon playing chess analogy comes to mind....sigh.

[absolutvt03]

That pigeon playing chess analogy comes to mind....sigh.

Cool random thought... maybe respond to my post now instead of whatever stream of consciousness pops into your head?

[USN_Hokie]

Great question, I don't think there was one. I'm just shocked that talking about appointing a judge appointed by a republican (presidential candidate no less - well, who wasn't?) is something that is damming in the Clinton emails.

Okay I thought you were saying this judge had an argument that scalia's opinion in Heller it's not originalist.

So your argument is that Soros wants to appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court? This judges's resume is irrelevant to the question. The problem is a corrupt system where unelected people choose not only the laws but also the judges who enforce them.

[TheH2]

Great question, I don't think there was one. I'm just shocked that talking about appointing a judge appointed by a republican (presidential candidate no less - well, who wasn't?) is something that is damming in the Clinton emails.

Okay I thought you were saying this judge had an argument that scalia's opinion in Heller it's not originalist.

So your argument is that Soros wants to appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court? This judges's resume is irrelevant to the question. The problem is a corrupt system where unelected people choose not only the laws but also the judges who enforce them.

Ok. That email is in no way surprising to me.

[HokieHam]

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.

A joke......okay.

I'm not afraid to define terms I use, so you can get where I'm coming from. When I see the term rigged being used, I believe it is referring to the media, which is obviously biased against Trump. It is also referring to some of the anomalies we are seeing at certain polling places. It's a combination of both. So, that is my definition.

[absolutvt03]

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.

A joke......okay.

I'm not afraid to define terms I use, so you can get where I'm coming from. When I see the term rigged being used, I believe it is referring to the media, which is obviously biased against Trump. It is also referring to some of the anomalies we are seeing at certain polling places. It's a combination of both. So, that is my definition.

I don't watch any news shows so I can't speak to bias there. I would assume they're covering what they think gets them the best ratings. If you'll recall during the primaries Trump received way more coverage than any of his rivals and he benefitted from it massively. He seemed to go out of his way to keep his name in the headlines (whether it was good or bad) and media covered it again I can only assume because it was working for them. From that respect are they really being biased against Trump or are they doing what they've been doing for over a year now because it worked previously.

I also add that I think just about any media has some sort of bias. I'm not sure it's possible for a writer or reporter or producer to be 100% neutral. I just try to take what I read with a grain of salt. I also try to verify things that are said by seeking out other sources. But at least as far as print/online media goes there are plenty of sites that skew either liberal or conservative. I imagine conservative people read and believe the conservative sites and liberal people read and believe the liberal sites. The problem with believing the media is biased is that people just start flat out dismissing anything from any source which I think is a mistake. Just because there may be bias from a certain outlet doesn't mean the story or the facts aren't correct. There are people out there that will believe convoluted conspiracies and then turn around and dismiss basic, easily proven facts (such as a candidate saying something) simply because of the source. That's a case of the individual's own bias showing more so than any media one.

As far as the polling anomalies there isn't really any compelling evidence that there's something widespread or nefarious going on. Yes I'm sure voter fraud happens (on both sides I'll add) but I don't personally believe it's anywhere near the level needed to impact the election. Many of the issues have either had rational explanations or have been misrepresented or both. The issues with Romney not receiving any votes in certain areas are an example.

[USN_Hokie]

Great question, I don't think there was one. I'm just shocked that talking about appointing a judge appointed by a republican (presidential candidate no less - well, who wasn't?) is something that is damming in the Clinton emails.

Okay I thought you were saying this judge had an argument that scalia's opinion in Heller it's not originalist.

So your argument is that Soros wants to appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court? This judges's resume is irrelevant to the question. The problem is a corrupt system where unelected people choose not only the laws but also the judges who enforce them.

Ok. That email is in no way surprising to me.

Ok. Mob bosses putting hits on informants is in no way surprising to me. Does that mean we should accept it? Is that a system of government? You'd be better off living in an outright aristocracy; at least then you would know who your masters are.

Do you expect to be held to the rule of law in your everyday life? Why would you not expect the same for the politicians you elect to represent YOU? Do you think reclusive billionaires are the right people to appoint supreme court justices? What do you think the chances are that Soros has a similar (directive) line of communication with that judge?

WADR, "ok" is not the response of a free citizen living in a representative republic.

[TheH2]

Great question, I don't think there was one. I'm just shocked that talking about appointing a judge appointed by a republican (presidential candidate no less - well, who wasn't?) is something that is damming in the Clinton emails.

Okay I thought you were saying this judge had an argument that scalia's opinion in Heller it's not originalist.

So your argument is that Soros wants to appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court? This judges's resume is irrelevant to the question. The problem is a corrupt system where unelected people choose not only the laws but also the judges who enforce them.

Ok. That email is in no way surprising to me.

Ok. Mob bosses putting hits on informants is in no way surprising to me. Does that mean we should accept it? Is that a system of government? You'd be better off living in an outright aristocracy; at least then you would know who your masters are.

Do you expect to be held to the rule of law in your everyday life? Why would you not expect the same for the politicians you elect to represent YOU? Do you think reclusive billionaires are the right people to appoint supreme court justices? What do you think the chances are that Soros has a similar (directive) line of communication with that judge?

WADR, "ok" is not the response of a free citizen living in a representative republic.

I don't see a billionaire appointing a judge. I see a billionaire that had conversations with Clinton campaign manager (please excuse me on not having the exact title) about a potential appointee and sent an email. There is a long process from there to being appointed. No, I don't think our Supreme Court judges are getting their opinions from billionaires.

I also find it funny that this guy was appointed by the presidential hopeful that wants to eliminate the department of I can't remember. I was really expecting to be a judge that tried to throw a Doc in jail for calling in sick instead of doing an abortion. This isn't what corruption looks like to me. Now, show me some emails where they orchestrate, pay off, and get this guy to be judge, then yes. Hell, even if Clinton nominates this guy (if she wins) then I still don't see anything corrupt.

Do people with more money have better access to politicians than me, yes. Could that be bad for our country, yes.

What should be done to stop it?

Edit, that was the nicest use of WADR I've ever seen. Or, maybe I'm just obtuse.

[USN_Hokie]

I also find it funny that this guy was appointed by the presidential hopeful that wants to eliminate the department of I can't remember. I was really expecting to be a judge that tried to throw a Doc in jail for calling in sick instead of doing an abortion.

That's what you do when the opposition controls the Senate.

This isn't what corruption looks like to me. Now, show me some emails where they orchestrate, pay off, and get this guy to be judge, then yes.

That's what happens via phone call - or better yet - conversations behind closed doors.

The difference in opinion between you and I here boils down to this: You would (appear to) give Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt. I would not. The question I pose to you then is: What has Hillary or her career shown you to make you trust her unless evidence is shown otherwise? As you read through the emails, do you see the actions of good people? Remember, I'm not saying to incarcerate her based on this (along with all the other mountains of evidence) - just making the argument that she has a demonstrated history of abusing power and is unfit to be given more power.

Edit, that was the nicest use of WADR I've ever seen. Or, maybe I'm just obtuse.

I'm the nicest guy you'd ever meet in real life.

[USN_Hokie]

Thanks for the link. Here is my other post that you probably missed:
http://uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t ... ls#p158053

Responded.

[TheH2]

I also find it funny that this guy was appointed by the presidential hopeful that wants to eliminate the department of I can't remember. I was really expecting to be a judge that tried to throw a Doc in jail for calling in sick instead of doing an abortion.

That's what you do when the opposition controls the Senate.

Agree. Sometimes a "broken" government works.

This isn't what corruption looks like to me. Now, show me some emails where they orchestrate, pay off, and get this guy to be judge, then yes.

That's what happens via phone call - or better yet - conversations behind closed doors.

The difference in opinion between you and I here boils down to this: You would (appear to) give Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt. I would not. The question I pose to you then is: What has Hillary or her career shown you to make you trust her unless evidence is shown otherwise? As you read through the emails, do you see the actions of good people? Remember, I'm not saying to incarcerate her based on this (along with all the other mountains of evidence) - just making the argument that she has a demonstrated history of abusing power and is unfit to be given more power.

I don't fault you for that conclusion. This is going to be the first (maybe not quite) and last time I make an absolute statement on UWS - This is the worst choice for president the U.S. has ever had (wow that reads poorly).

Edit, that was the nicest use of WADR I've ever seen. Or, maybe I'm just obtuse.

I'm the nicest guy you'd ever meet in real life.

Maybe top 10.

[HokieFanDC]

How's the election cycle treating UWS? Destructively divided as always?

Aaaaanyhoo...Any third party candidates getting air time here? If so, who?

I looked into Johnson pretty seriously and I came away disappointed. He doesn't really seem to have a plan - AT ALL. Just random closing of government agencies (without much thought) and legalizing pot. Lot's of talking points I like but no real substance. Don't think I can vote for him.

This guy is getting a lot of play in my circles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_McMullin

If for no other reason than if he can carry a few key states, he keeps HC or DT from getting the needed number of EC votes and the vote goes to congress and MAYBE they pick a much more reasonable candidate.

P.S. I'm here under the auspices of FloHo's pledge(s) so I won't take your inflammatory bait. I'm here to show the love. At least for a few minutes today.

XOXO

I voted McMullin/Pence. Had to write in McMullin.