I don't know about "fancy" but the imagery is pretty explicit. I'm all for people dreaming the impossible dream but I'd rather they not clutter up my politics with fantasies.
"Please dont bother to support people who i dont like and deem impossible to win because its an inconvenience for me to have to read simple news titles."
Its a simple local news story of someone who Ill be working with so sorry for shitting up your feed. Do you have an issue with people supporting the candidate who best represents them, even if that candidate doesn't have a large base of support?
I have an issue with candidates who promote economic fantasies as public policy. The good news is that there's no chance he'll be given the power to damage the nation with them.
Don't mind /u/Spaceghoti, he's projecting his ambivalence and resentment for his own candidate onto yours. I know, I know. It's a totally Republican, even Rovian move. Then again, so's the candidate he's backing, so that makes sense.
Me, I like that Johnson's for there being such a thing as drivers' licenses, unlike so many Libertarians. What do you make of his absolute, unqualified support for TPP in exactly the form it's in now? Does that accord with Libertarian principles in your view?
That's progress. A while ago it seemed you were trying to say Clinton's militarily belligerent, Goldwater Conservative authoritarianism was a brilliant eleven-dimensional chess tactic to steal Republican votes. If you knew right now a Clinton Administration would mean U.S. forces would be in direct combat with Russian forces within two years, would you still vote for Clinton rather than not voting [for president] at all?
I don't know about "fancy" but the imagery is pretty explicit. I'm all for people dreaming the impossible dream but I'd rather they not clutter up my politics with fantasies.
"Please dont bother to support people who i dont like and deem impossible to win because its an inconvenience for me to have to read simple news titles."
Its a simple local news story of someone who Ill be working with so sorry for shitting up your feed. Do you have an issue with people supporting the candidate who best represents them, even if that candidate doesn't have a large base of support?
I have an issue with candidates who promote economic fantasies as public policy. The good news is that there's no chance he'll be given the power to damage the nation with them.
Nice opinion you got there.
Thank you. I spent years researching and verifying it.
Don't mind /u/Spaceghoti, he's projecting his ambivalence and resentment for his own candidate onto yours. I know, I know. It's a totally Republican, even Rovian move. Then again, so's the candidate he's backing, so that makes sense.
Me, I like that Johnson's for there being such a thing as drivers' licenses, unlike so many Libertarians. What do you make of his absolute, unqualified support for TPP in exactly the form it's in now? Does that accord with Libertarian principles in your view?
TIL I'm ambivalent over my second choice candidate.
That's progress. A while ago it seemed you were trying to say Clinton's militarily belligerent, Goldwater Conservative authoritarianism was a brilliant eleven-dimensional chess tactic to steal Republican votes. If you knew right now a Clinton Administration would mean U.S. forces would be in direct combat with Russian forces within two years, would you still vote for Clinton rather than not voting [for president] at all?