I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Indeed.

I'll do a short response - Sebby, where you live, a vote for Johnson is a vote for Trump. If you just want to give the Libertarian Party some numbers, we can vote switch. Trump is going to clean up here, so I'm happy to trade - you vote for HRC, I'll vote for the guy whose staff issues a release condemning sexual assault, but can't spell "women."

well Pa looks safe. If Pa isn't safe, then Trump is getting a Bradley bounce and will win. but none of that calculus works this year. For the country's future trump needs to lose very very badly. PS so you live in podunk where trump will win anyway?

[LessinSF]

Shit, now I am inhouse counsel at a Moot Court (for a case I have worked on for 2 years) trying to help this guy prepare for oral argument in the Court of Appeal next week - http://horvitzlevy.com/attorneys/bio.cfm?id=49. I'm not quite sure what is wrong, except for I felt really old.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Shit, now I am inhouse counsel at a Moot Court (for a case I have worked on for 2 years) trying to help this guy prepare for oral argument in the Court of Appeal next week - http://horvitzlevy.com/attorneys/bio.cfm?id=49. I'm not quite sure what is wrong, except for I felt really old.

It's OK, here's a shot of me at my job:

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

well Pa looks safe. If Pa isn't safe, then Trump is getting a Bradley bounce and will win. but none of that calculus works this year. For the country's future trump needs to lose very very badly. PS so you live in podunk where trump will win anyway?

You're probably right about PA - who is the poster from Ohio? Should offer that trade to him/her.

The only hope Hillary has in Podunk is that the hippie potheads showing up to the polls for the "medical" marijuana ballot initiative leave such a lingering scent of patchouli that some of the religious right soccer moms get the giggles and decide to cast their ballots for Jill Stein.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Shit, now I am inhouse counsel at a Moot Court (for a case I have worked on for 2 years) trying to help this guy prepare for oral argument in the Court of Appeal next week - http://horvitzlevy.com/attorneys/bio.cfm?id=49. I'm not quite sure what is wrong, except for I felt really old.

I feel your pain. The world has changed (several times) since you and your fellow Flounders* led us out of the desert and into the Promised Land.

Heck, the Not Bobette is now to old to date Donald Trump. Not Joking.

*Sniff.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Indeed.

I'll do a short response - Sebby, where you live, a vote for Johnson is a vote for Trump. If you just want to give the Libertarian Party some numbers, we can vote switch. Trump is going to clean up here, so I'm happy to trade - you vote for HRC, I'll vote for the guy whose staff issues a release condemning sexual assault, but can't spell "women."

My state's HRC. She's going to kill him here. If there's any Bradley Effect here, it's women remaining quiet about voting against Trump.

I'm voting for Johnson. I decided that months ago, and nothing has changed my mind since.

I don't care whether Trump or Hillary wins. Either way, it's a lousy choice, and I'm not going to be forced to make it anymore. She'll be fine. He'd be a total mess, but forces would keep him and check and things would be fine nevertheless.

And I'm sure as hell not going to vote based on anything but policy. You all can focus on his vile behavior, and there's a whole lot of vileness there to go around. But I pretty much expected to see something like this come out about the man, in much the same way I expected to learn more about HRC's corruption. To me, this stuff is "shiny objects." On policy, she's interventionist. That disqualifies her. On policy, Trump is... well, I don't know what the hell he is. He has no policy. He's an ADD addled imbecile who knows nothing but to ramble. That lack of focus disqualifies him.

And neither of these people want to shrink the Government, and neither respects liberty. Under Trump or HRC, we'll have no criminal justice reform, and increased surveillance. The only good I see in this choice of deplorables is under either, there'll be less regulation and relaxed lending.

I hear ya, Bob, but I'm voting Johnson. And I'm not going to bother having a moral freakout over the fact that a dirtball like Trump turned out to be exactly the cur we expected. Moral harrumphing's for the low information voters. Not interested. Not buying. Sell it elsewhere.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Damn. One cold burn.

His cool kid cred just fell like the price of sterling.

I conceded incorrectness in the main regarding horns long ago. Little Feat's Waiting for Columbus is a favorite all time record.

Must I offer the mea culpa every six months? Is this an original sin, indelible?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Adder

Which, of course, leads someone like me to have to ponder whether we'd vote again for Bill Clinton in today's world. I'd like to think not, but I might be fooling myself.

I'd vote for Bubba all day long.

You need to read Ty's link and apply some introspection.

Nope.

It would have been much shorter to write, "I do not care about women being sexually assaulted."

No. I could write, I vote based on platform. Trump was disqualified long before the instant shitstorm.

Like, perhaps the safety of women?

Indeed. If Trump were to win, he'd assault the whole country!

As usual, your economic predictions are crap.

Put a pin in it. 18-24 months.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This is the loopiest thing you have said in quite some time. Go nuts reading all of this, and thank me later.

eta: The bigger point is that unless the House and Senate flip, she has no chance of getting legislation passed, so it may not matter. Happily, Trump's implosion may give us a government prepared to do something.

eat: Krugman today:

Maybe 1/10th of that is actually going to be pushed forward. And perhaps 1/5 of that 1/10 has a chance of being enacted.

She's going to be stuck with an ACA disaster (10 year budgeting window looms in 2020, and the thing's already disintegrating in numerous markets). She's going to be stuck with endless GOP investigations. Assange and Putin are going to drip her to death with discrediting leaks.

We're electing an automatic lame duck. And honestly, that's not a bad thing. I don't have to vote for her, but if my vote made a difference, I might do so. A vote for gridlock is a vote I can make. But I don't have to do that. I have the luxury of casting a protest vote for an ideology in which I deeply believe, and I think represents the best of the ideals of this country. So that's what I'm going to do. Happily.

As to the rest of the offices on the ballot, I'm going to split my vote - some Rs, some Ds. As I always do.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I conceded incorrectness in the main regarding horns long ago. Little Feat's Waiting for Columbus is a favorite all time record.

Must I offer the mea culpa every six months? Is this an original sin, indelible?

If you ever take on a governmental role, expect right-thinking Americans to insist on an investigation of your sordid horn history every six to eight months in perpetuity.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

The way things are going, he may actually not get more than 35%.

Think about this for a second. This colossal shit stain is going to get at least 35% of the vote in this country. Jesus Christ.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And I'm sure as hell not going to vote based on anything but policy. You all can focus on his vile behavior, and there's a whole lot of vileness there to go around. But I pretty much expected to see something like this come out about the man, in much the same way I expected to learn more about HRC's corruption.

I'm curious why the fact that your expectations of Trump engaging in negative behavior have been confirmed removes such negative behavior from the scope of issues on which you decide how to cast your vote, but not enough to wait for an answer. I also do not understand why vile behavior isn't a factor in your decision-making process, but not enough to actually ask you about it.

I would ask for further clarification on what it means to vote on nothing but policy, when Trump has no policy to speak of, but I'm not going to. I would also wonder whether you think his vile behavior would be reflected in whatever policy decisions he makes once in office, but that's just me thinking out loud.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

in much the same way I expected to learn more about HRC's corruption.

What corruption?

Enormous amounts of money have been spent trying to identify such corruption. None have been identified.

None.

It's all bullshit, it's all the big lie, fomented by Rs since the days of gingrich and co. And you bought it.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I'm curious why the fact that your expectations of Trump engaging in negative behavior have been confirmed removes such negative behavior from the scope of issues on which you decide how to cast your vote, but not enough to wait for an answer. I also do not understand why vile behavior isn't a factor in your decision-making process, but not enough to actually ask you about it.

I would ask for further clarification on what it means to vote on nothing but policy, when Trump has no policy to speak of, but I'm not going to. I would also wonder whether you think his vile behavior would be reflected in whatever policy decisions he makes once in office, but that's just me thinking out loud.

TM

I am clearly biased, but is there anyone but the most fervent Trump supporter denying that what we are seeing is the steady unraveling of an emotionally and intellectually stunted man? The election is rigged! There should be pre-debate drug tests! The media is part of an anti-American conspiracy controlled by global financial interests! Aliens have abducted Hillary and replaced her with a demonic robot! But Sebastian is right, none of this is specifically related to economic policy, so I should take the high road like he is and focus on the real issues. Um . . . .

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I'm curious why the fact that your expectations of Trump engaging in negative behavior have been confirmed removes such negative behavior from the scope of issues on which you decide how to cast your vote, but not enough to wait for an answer. I also do not understand why vile behavior isn't a factor in your decision-making process, but not enough to actually ask you about it.

I would ask for further clarification on what it means to vote on nothing but policy, when Trump has no policy to speak of, but I'm not going to. I would also wonder whether you think his vile behavior would be reflected in whatever policy decisions he makes once in office, but that's just me thinking out loud.

TM

I'm going to post the most charitable interpretation of Sebby's post that I can think of.* Sebby's OK with gridlock, because he's a libertarian. He doesn't like what either candidate would do. He thinks Clinton will face a GOP Congress and won't get anything done, which he's OK with, and a masturbatory vote for Johnson is essentially a vote for Clinton in his state, since she is in the lead.

* except for the word "masturbatory"