If you're a Reagan Republican and a Trump supporter ...

[Correll]

You're very confused.

-Reagan believed America is great, he was right
-Trump believes Trump is great, but he'll make America great ... if we elect him

-Reagan was all about optimism that our business is the best open the economic borders and we'll kick ass, he was right
-Trump is all about fear we can't compete so those feriners are going to steal our jobs

-Reagan was about wanting to lower taxes and regulations and our companies will want to be here, he was right
-Trump is about punishing them if they try to leave

If you're a Reagan Republican and support Trump, you believe light is dark, up is down and government can best decide who we can do business with.

Johnson's not perfect for sure, but he's far more like Reagan than Trump is, and Trump isn't nearly different enough from Hillary for it to matter.

The last, desperate argument of the Republicans is the Supreme Court. Well, we've had decades of courts with Republican nominated majorities. At one point it was 7-2. We got shit for it. And John Roberts ignoring even the argument of the Obama administration and just declaring it a "tax" was the final nail in the coffin.

Healthcare exchanges, government deciding what policies need to include and all the rest of the Obamacare regulations are a "tax?" He's full of shit. And what Supreme Court ever told a side here's what you should have argued, and I'm going to pretend you did and rule for you?

Then there's this crap Trump is a capitalist, he only wants "fair" trade deals. Even if you believe someone who says he's for free trade keeps saying he isn't, his proposals go way beyond that. Punitive taxes on American businesses trying to escape our oppressive taxes and regulations isn't about trade and it's not capitalist, which is what made us so rich to start with.

That Trump thinks America isn't great, but he personally can make it great is frankly scary. But that he's anti-free trade and anti-Capitalist is unacceptable.

If you're a Reagan Republican ... vote for Johnson ...

I was optimistic then, that we could kick ass.


Reagan was wrong. I was wrong.


We got our asses kicked.

Yeah, 20 years of abounding growth, who needs that?

Tell the Working and Middle Class how great the last 40 years has been.


Life Expectancy for White Americans Declines


"Life expectancy fell for the U.S. white population in 2014 and remained flat for all population groups combined, according to data released Wednesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, showing how increases in death rates from suicides, drug overdoses and related causes are threatening an important measure of health and prosperity."


"There have been signs for years that health and socioeconomic problems might be chipping away at improvements in longevity for parts of the U.S. population. In 2008, the IHME reported that life expectancy had stagnated or declined for about 4% of men and 19% of women in the U.S. in the 1980s and 1990s. The report cited diseases related to smoking, high blood pressure and obesity as contributors and noted wide disparities in life expectancy between poor and wealthy U.S. counties.

Now, deaths from suicide, drug overdoses and similar causes appear to be playing a bigger role. Research published in November showed that white middle-aged Americans—both men and women—have been dying at a rising rate since the beginning of this century, due in large part to suicide, alcohol abuse and chronic liver diseases. "


Bolding added.

"Working" class, that always cracked me up. Yeah, they're the ones who work. So in the businesses I owned, why were there cars the first ones out of the parking lot every day? The higher in the org you are, the more hours you put in. Funny how the people feeding off the backs of workers are the ones who work the hardest and the workers work the least.

Spent my career in management and management consulting before going entrepreneurial and that's the way it always works. Maybe you can explain that one

That does not reflect my personal experience.

My point about the beating the Working Class and Middle Class have taken, to the point of a decline in life span still stands.

 

[Onyx]

If we are attacked, then taking out the enemy is the best defense.

After a nuclear missile launch is detected, and even that is brought into question by Deterrence theory.

Sorry, no weapon should be taken off the table when dealing with those that would chop of our heads, or moonbats.

If they are not launching nuclear weapons, then we should not risk global destruction.

Reagan understood that nuclear war was lose-lose, even if the other side does not return fire.

Educate yourself on....

- Deterrence theory

- MAD theory

- Nuclear Peace theory

Do this quick, before your MASSIVE idiocy destroys humanity.

 

[Correll]

If we are attacked, then taking out the enemy is the best defense.

After a nuclear missile launch is detected, and even that is brought into question by Deterrence theory.

Sorry, no weapon should be taken off the table when dealing with those that would chop of our heads, or moonbats.

If they are not launching nuclear weapons, then we should not risk global destruction.

Reagan understood that nuclear war was lose-lose, even if the other side does not return fire.

Educate yourself on....

- Deterrence theory

- MAD theory

- Nuclear Peace theory

Do this quick, before your MASSIVE idiocy destroys humanity.

Point: if the other side does not have nuclear weapons, then bombing them in no way risks global destruction.

 

[Onyx]

Politics can be nice fun and games. I do not find it very amusing when we have morons talking about the usage of nuclear weapons, without the slightest understanding of game theory.

 

[Onyx]

Point: if the other side does not have nuclear weapons, then bombing them in no way risks global destruction.

Actually it does.

The United States policy of MAD also accounted for the usage of nuclear weapons on unarmed nations.

Usage of a nuclear weapon is the fastest way to move from DEFCON 1 to DEFCON 5, break off all ties with allies, and lose the support of every intergovernmental organization and NGO.

Seriously, check yourself before you wreck the world.

 

[Correll]

Point: if the other side does not have nuclear weapons, then bombing them in no way risks global destruction.

Actually it does.

The United States policy of MAD also accounted for the usage of nuclear weapons on unarmed nations.

Usage of a nuclear weapon is the fastest way to move from DEFCON 1 to DEFCON 5, break off all ties with your allies, and lose the support of every intergovernmental organization and NGO.

Seriously, check yourself before you wreck the world.

"Unarmed nations"?


I think you mean "Allied nations".


Russian isn't going to launch because we bomb Iran.

 

[Onyx]

"Unarmed nations"?

I think you mean "Allied nations".

No, I meant unarmed nations.

Bombing a defenseless country into oblivion with weapons of mass destruction makes every nuclear armed nation edgy on the trigger.

It also causes a major hit on diplomatic relations, and earns the scorn of every individual with humanitarian tendencies on earth.

Russian isn't going to launch because we bomb Iran.

You are risking the fate of humanity on broken game theory.

Russia has been making threats with nuclear weapons and military mobilizations close to NATO borders since the beginning of the Donbass war 2 years ago.

It does not help that Iran is a major Russian ally, and their nuclear program and military modernization was or still is being funded by Russia.

Gouging an ancient country in nuclear fire may not lead directly to nuclear war, but it will put the world on the brink with another cold war (which technically is already happening).

Now stop playing with forces you do not understand and go back to arguing petty politics about building a wall.

 

[Correll]

"Unarmed nations"?

I think you mean "Allied nations".

No, I meant unarmed nations.

Bombing a defenseless country into oblivion with weapons of mass destruction makes every nuclear armed nation edgy on the trigger.

It also causes a major hit on diplomatic relations, and earns the scorn of every individual with humanitarian tendencies on earth.

Russian isn't going to launch because we bomb Iran.

You are risking the fate of humanity on broken game theory.

Russia has been making threats with nuclear weapons and military mobilizations close to NATO borders since the beginning of the Donbass war 2 years ago.

It does not help that Iran is a major Russian ally, and their nuclear program and military modernization was or still is being funded by Russia.

Gouging an ancient country in nuclear fire may not lead directly to nuclear war, but it will put the world on the brink with another cold war (which technically is already happening).

Now stop playing with forces you do not understand and go back to arguing petty politics about building a wall.

1. Other than maybe Costa Rica no nation is unarmed. The diplomatic effects of course will depend on the context. It did not hurt US last time.

2. So, moving the goal post from global destruction to new cold war. Got it.

 

[Pop23]

If we are attacked, then taking out the enemy is the best defense.

After a nuclear missile launch is detected, and even that is brought into question by Deterrence theory.

Sorry, no weapon should be taken off the table when dealing with those that would chop of our heads, or moonbats.

If they are not launching nuclear weapons, then we should not risk global destruction.

Reagan understood that nuclear war was lose-lose, even if the other side does not return fire.

Educate yourself on....

- Deterrence theory

- MAD theory

- Nuclear Peace theory

Do this quick, before your MASSIVE idiocy destroys humanity.

Dude, you ramble about nothing.

They scare the shit out of our enemies, and if needed.......

Let em rip.

 

[Onyx]

They scare the shit out of our enemies, and if needed.......

Let em rip.

Normally your naivety would be funny, but the fact that some people are this fucking stupid about weapons of mass destruction is just outright frightening.

 

[Onyx]

1. Other than maybe Costa Rica no nation is unarmed. The diplomatic effects of course will depend on the context. It did not hurt US last time.

Obviously I mean having no nuclear arsenal when I say unarmed. That brings up another point though.

Every nation on earth has an arsenal of tactical ballistic missiles. Shoot Iran and they scorch Israel into utter nothingness. They even have intercontinental launch capabilities, so your whole city wont be up in flames, but the White House would probably be up in smoke.

And yes, the usage of nuclear weapons did hurt geopolitically and diplomatically. It streamlined a Soviet nuclear program, and if you want to be on the brink again, you best stop acting like an incredible moron.

2. So, moving the goal post from global destruction to new cold war. Got it.

Global destruction is a very likely possibility. More likely than moving to DEFCON 2.

 

[bripat9643]

Nevertheless, you are content to allow Hillary to become president.

strawman, and a lame one

Not at all. You've said so many times.

I've said I want neither of them to be President, they both suck. You said I'm content to allow Hillary to be President, which I've never said. Stop projectile vomiting your shit. We're screwed either way. I'm "content to allow" neither of them to be President. You're saying I need to vote for one of them or I'm in favor of the other. Which is a load of crap

We are not equally screwed either way. Trump is proposing some good things. About the only thing I dislike are his threat to impose tariffs and his plan for maternity leave. He wants to appoint good judges, cut government regulations, and cut government in general.

Clinton, on the other hand, would be a complete disaster. Our 2nd Amendment rights would be the first thing to go. Our First Amendment rights would be next. She would legalize 30 million illegal aliens and open the flood gates for more. How you imagine there is any equivalence between the two defies comprehension.

Trump keeps pounding his anti-capitalist message. He's a lot more threat to actually do the crap he's proposing than Hillary is. I doubt she's going to follow through with reducing free trade

His message is not "anti-capitalist" any more than George W Bush's message was capitalist. Trump may be against free trade, but he's not against free enterprise. Being for the TPP doesn't mean you favor free trade. The TPP is a nightmare that destroys American sovereignty.

The idea that Trump is more of a threat to capitalism than Hillary is a joke. You obviously aren't to be taken seriously. You keep making ridiculous statements like that.

 

[bripat9643]

Apparently "rejecting the legitimacy of the entire system" means allowing the worst part of it to win.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Like I said, it is a very dangerous and counterproductive attitude.

Exactly

So you're OK with allowing a greater evil?

So you're in favor of melting the polar ice caps?

Let's try to have an adult conversation, OK?

If you have no trouble with Hillary winning, then you are for allowing a greater evil. That's undeniable.

 

[oreo]

I imagine most Reaganites will be voting for Hillary Clinton or a 3rd party--Gary Johnson more liberal than Darell Castle (not sure if Castle is on all 50 state ballots) but that's probably who Utah is going to favor. Honestly I don't know much about either of these candidates but have heard that Castle is more conservative than Johnson.

But clearly the most qualified candidate is Hillary Clinton, and Republicans are endorsing her like crazy. Bush Sr. told his daughter that he will be voting for her, but refused to admit it publicly. You can bet G.W. & Jeb will be voting for her, and I imagine most Republican Senators and House members will also be voting for her. Every ballot is a "secret ballot."

We recommend Hillary Clinton for president | Editorials | Dallas News
ANOTHER Major Republican Endorses Hillary...Trump Is LIVID, Fears Campaign Is OVER
Trump sends unprecedented numbers of GOP fleeing to Clinton
Republicans for Hillary? - CNNPolitics.com

And there's a reason for that. Many Republicans have praised Hillary Clinton in the past, and like her, "when they're not campaigning against her." So it's no surprise they're kicking this ASS CLOWN Trump to the curb to endorse and vote for her.
Republicans Have Praised Hillary Clinton’s Secretary Of State Tenure
Hillary's secret weapon? GOP praise

And this is the silver bullet that was shot into the ass of the Chimpanzee nominee. Doug Elmet's was a long time friend and former staffer of RONALD REAGAN who says it all in 3 minutes.

 

[bripat9643]

I imagine most Reaganites will be voting for Hillary Clinton or a 3rd party--Gary Johnson more liberal than Darell Castle (not sure if Castle is on all 50 state ballots) but that's probably who Utah is going to favor. Honestly I don't know much about either of these candidates but have heard that Castle is more conservative than Johnson.

But clearly the most qualified candidate is Hillary Clinton, and Republicans are endorsing her like crazy. Bush Sr. told his daughter that he will be voting for her, but refused to admit it publicly. You can bet G.W. & Jeb will be voting for her, and I imagine most Republican Senators and House members will also be voting for her. Every ballot is a "secret ballot."

We recommend Hillary Clinton for president | Editorials | Dallas News
ANOTHER Major Republican Endorses Hillary...Trump Is LIVID, Fears Campaign Is OVER
Trump sends unprecedented numbers of GOP fleeing to Clinton
Republicans for Hillary? - CNNPolitics.com

And there's a reason for that. Many Republicans have praised Hillary Clinton in the past, and like her, "when they're not campaigning against her." So it's no surprise they're kicking this ASS CLOWN Trump to the curb to endorse and vote for her.
Republicans Have Praised Hillary Clinton’s Secretary Of State Tenure
Hillary's secret weapon? GOP praise

And this is the silver bullet that was shot into the ass of the Chimpanzee nominee.

A reaganite vote for Hillary? You must be joking. That's like saying Stalin would have voted for Calvin Coolidge.

 

[kaz]

You're very confused.

-Reagan believed America is great, he was right
-Trump believes Trump is great, but he'll make America great ... if we elect him

-Reagan was all about optimism that our business is the best open the economic borders and we'll kick ass, he was right
-Trump is all about fear we can't compete so those feriners are going to steal our jobs

-Reagan was about wanting to lower taxes and regulations and our companies will want to be here, he was right
-Trump is about punishing them if they try to leave

If you're a Reagan Republican and support Trump, you believe light is dark, up is down and government can best decide who we can do business with.

Johnson's not perfect for sure, but he's far more like Reagan than Trump is, and Trump isn't nearly different enough from Hillary for it to matter.

The last, desperate argument of the Republicans is the Supreme Court. Well, we've had decades of courts with Republican nominated majorities. At one point it was 7-2. We got shit for it. And John Roberts ignoring even the argument of the Obama administration and just declaring it a "tax" was the final nail in the coffin.

Healthcare exchanges, government deciding what policies need to include and all the rest of the Obamacare regulations are a "tax?" He's full of shit. And what Supreme Court ever told a side here's what you should have argued, and I'm going to pretend you did and rule for you?

Then there's this crap Trump is a capitalist, he only wants "fair" trade deals. Even if you believe someone who says he's for free trade keeps saying he isn't, his proposals go way beyond that. Punitive taxes on American businesses trying to escape our oppressive taxes and regulations isn't about trade and it's not capitalist, which is what made us so rich to start with.

That Trump thinks America isn't great, but he personally can make it great is frankly scary. But that he's anti-free trade and anti-Capitalist is unacceptable.

If you're a Reagan Republican ... vote for Johnson ...

I was optimistic then, that we could kick ass.


Reagan was wrong. I was wrong.


We got our asses kicked.

Yeah, 20 years of abounding growth, who needs that?

Tell the Working and Middle Class how great the last 40 years has been.


Life Expectancy for White Americans Declines


"Life expectancy fell for the U.S. white population in 2014 and remained flat for all population groups combined, according to data released Wednesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, showing how increases in death rates from suicides, drug overdoses and related causes are threatening an important measure of health and prosperity."


"There have been signs for years that health and socioeconomic problems might be chipping away at improvements in longevity for parts of the U.S. population. In 2008, the IHME reported that life expectancy had stagnated or declined for about 4% of men and 19% of women in the U.S. in the 1980s and 1990s. The report cited diseases related to smoking, high blood pressure and obesity as contributors and noted wide disparities in life expectancy between poor and wealthy U.S. counties.

Now, deaths from suicide, drug overdoses and similar causes appear to be playing a bigger role. Research published in November showed that white middle-aged Americans—both men and women—have been dying at a rising rate since the beginning of this century, due in large part to suicide, alcohol abuse and chronic liver diseases. "


Bolding added.

"Working" class, that always cracked me up. Yeah, they're the ones who work. So in the businesses I owned, why were there cars the first ones out of the parking lot every day? The higher in the org you are, the more hours you put in. Funny how the people feeding off the backs of workers are the ones who work the hardest and the workers work the least.

Spent my career in management and management consulting before going entrepreneurial and that's the way it always works. Maybe you can explain that one

That does not reflect my personal experience.

My point about the beating the Working Class and Middle Class have taken, to the point of a decline in life span still stands.

Exactly, you think the "working class" are people who live life skating by with as little work as possible. Leftist much?

 

[Onyx]

Exactly, you think the "working class" are people who live life skating by with as little work as possible. Leftist much?

That does not work.

Communists centered their whole revolution on fighting for the working class. It worked better for the factory workers than it did the peasants (who usually radicalized as anarchists during communist uprisings)

 

[kaz]

strawman, and a lame one

Not at all. You've said so many times.

I've said I want neither of them to be President, they both suck. You said I'm content to allow Hillary to be President, which I've never said. Stop projectile vomiting your shit. We're screwed either way. I'm "content to allow" neither of them to be President. You're saying I need to vote for one of them or I'm in favor of the other. Which is a load of crap

We are not equally screwed either way. Trump is proposing some good things. About the only thing I dislike are his threat to impose tariffs and his plan for maternity leave. He wants to appoint good judges, cut government regulations, and cut government in general.

Clinton, on the other hand, would be a complete disaster. Our 2nd Amendment rights would be the first thing to go. Our First Amendment rights would be next. She would legalize 30 million illegal aliens and open the flood gates for more. How you imagine there is any equivalence between the two defies comprehension.

Trump keeps pounding his anti-capitalist message. He's a lot more threat to actually do the crap he's proposing than Hillary is. I doubt she's going to follow through with reducing free trade

His message is not "anti-capitalist" any more than George W Bush's message was capitalist. Trump may be against free trade, but he's not against free enterprise. Being for the TPP doesn't mean you favor free trade. The TPP is a nightmare that destroys American sovereignty.

The idea that Trump is more of a threat to capitalism than Hillary is a joke. You obviously aren't to be taken seriously. You keep making ridiculous statements like that.

Look man. You've made a lot of good points through the years. But you're being a stupid twat right now.

I never said "Trump is more of a threat to capitalism than Hillary."

Shove it up your vagina

 

[kaz]

Apparently "rejecting the legitimacy of the entire system" means allowing the worst part of it to win.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Like I said, it is a very dangerous and counterproductive attitude.

Exactly

So you're OK with allowing a greater evil?

So you're in favor of melting the polar ice caps?

Let's try to have an adult conversation, OK?

If you have no trouble with Hillary winning, then you are for allowing a greater evil. That's undeniable.

Well, pussy, I never said I "have no trouble with Hillary winning." Stick your finger up your pussy, finger boy. You're just losing it

 

[bripat9643]

Not at all. You've said so many times.

I've said I want neither of them to be President, they both suck. You said I'm content to allow Hillary to be President, which I've never said. Stop projectile vomiting your shit. We're screwed either way. I'm "content to allow" neither of them to be President. You're saying I need to vote for one of them or I'm in favor of the other. Which is a load of crap

We are not equally screwed either way. Trump is proposing some good things. About the only thing I dislike are his threat to impose tariffs and his plan for maternity leave. He wants to appoint good judges, cut government regulations, and cut government in general.

Clinton, on the other hand, would be a complete disaster. Our 2nd Amendment rights would be the first thing to go. Our First Amendment rights would be next. She would legalize 30 million illegal aliens and open the flood gates for more. How you imagine there is any equivalence between the two defies comprehension.

Trump keeps pounding his anti-capitalist message. He's a lot more threat to actually do the crap he's proposing than Hillary is. I doubt she's going to follow through with reducing free trade

His message is not "anti-capitalist" any more than George W Bush's message was capitalist. Trump may be against free trade, but he's not against free enterprise. Being for the TPP doesn't mean you favor free trade. The TPP is a nightmare that destroys American sovereignty.

The idea that Trump is more of a threat to capitalism than Hillary is a joke. You obviously aren't to be taken seriously. You keep making ridiculous statements like that.

Look man. You've made a lot of good points through the years. But you're being a stupid twat right now.

I never said "Trump is more of a threat to capitalism than Hillary."

Shove it up your vagina

Of course you did. Allow me to quote you:

"Trump keeps pounding his anti-capitalist message. He's a lot more threat to actually do the crap he's proposing than Hillary is. I doubt she's going to follow through with reducing free trade"