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

You're not the only special snowflake who can criticize Hillary (hi!), but you seem to be the only one here who thinks your criticism of Hillary are in some way equivalent to what one can say about Trump.

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

Ummm, we were talking threats to liberty, and here you decide to not respond but pivot to a bunch of BS on another topic. What do you think this is, CNN?

I take this as a concession that Trump is a greater threat to liberty than Clinton. Now do you want to argue over whether water is wet, too?

Um, also, what Ty said.

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

This information made the rounds in conservative circles the morning after the election. You'll be reassured to know that the only Dem state legislature up for election in the off cycle next year is New Jersey, IIRC, so we can cross our fingers for 2018, when it is still pretty unlikely.

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

I am pretty sure that Hillary is a threat to my liberty to not pay for elective abortions with my tax dollars.

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

I have to disagree with you. Bitch dog I've got whines a lot less than Sebby.

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

And you think Trump isn't? Is that because of the extra steps where he takes your tax money, puts it into his pocket, and then pays for his next mistress's abortion? Or something else?

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

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

Just a question on this. Has anyone ever seen milquetoast with a spine?

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

Your question makes no sense w/r/t the conversation. It's another of your strawmen. I've already pointed out why the electorate who uses their votes to chase magical, impossible jobs is full of morons. Asking, essentially, whether it makes sense to promise impossible things to idiots as a political strategy is completely beside the point. But, sure. I'll answer. Taking advantage of idiots to get elected is very clever.

But your "Dude, uh...robots, man!" response is just silly. Will technology continue to destroy jobs? Yes. Are there industries that we could fund that would bring different (but not as many) jobs, bring down energy costs, and keep us near the top spot when it comes to competing with other countries on who gets to dominate that market? Yes.

It may have been poor strategy for Clinton (and the Democratic Party generally) to base policies on fucking reality. Hell, I'll even buy that you think she was wholly ineffective at delivering the appropriate message. But there are two options there even though we all know how uninvested you are in the outcome of the election. And maybe, given the fact that Republicans will always block the type of funding and support necessary to make us competitive when it comes to new opportunities, that it ends up not mattering a whit if the Democrats win the Presidency. But your constant Democrats-do-nothing crap is tiresome given the fact that actual policy plans could actually improve many morons' lives (or at least the next generation of morons).

TM

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

You are completely fucking full of shit.

TM

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

Trump's going to bring back the buggy whip. We're going to make the best buggy whips in the world. It's going to be huge.

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

If libertarianism is all about whether one objects to the way the government spends money, then everyone is a libertarian. E.g., "Trump is a threat to my liberty to not pay the salaries of white supremacists," and so on.

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

Except for the part where she repeatedly said she wanted to repeal the 40 year old Hyde Amendment, which isn't exactly a moderate position.

I don't think Trump is pro-life, by any stretch of the imagination, as evidenced by his 5 positions on it over a three day period earlier this year. I also don't generally believe he intends to keep his promises to the Evangelicals he conned. And he no doubt advocated for his mistress to have an abortion, but I think that most of his cabinet would strongly advise him otherwise, and no Republican congress would ever bring up such a bill.

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

I believe that the proper role of the federal government should be less than 10% of what it is now. It's not just or even mostly a taxes thing, but that is one expression of it.

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

Of course, they also want to deny me the liberty of having my tax dollars go to fund women's health services at secular institutions rather than funding discriminatory services at religiously affiliated institutions.

If the red states really want to address spending, and want a balanced budget amendment, here's the quid pro quo I'd look for: a provision that says no state as a whole can receive federal spending benefits that exceed what they pay in total federal taxes by more than 10%.