Why Brexit should scare anti-Trump Americans

If you are fine with a liberal activist supremes you have outed yourself as a leftist which you try hard in here not to admit. You have a Che T shirt in your dresses drawer don't you.

 

Look again.

 

You can pin any idiotic label your little heart can dream up. Your opinion means absolutely nothing to me.
If the only reason you can come up with to vote trump is the SC nominee then you have very very little.
And as I said, there is a nominee up now, the R's refuse to hold a vote. So whatever happens is because the R's caused it.
So take your phony BS and do something beside whine.

 

No it is an anti establishment sentiment emerging among the losers of the world and most of them are too darned dumb to realize Trump is the establishment, just not the government establishment.

 

The liberal activist supremes is just another hobgoblin of the fruit loop Conservatives, The concept has no more validity than pretending that that four of the current justices are Conservative activist judges. Just mind boggling stupid to claim that any decision that goes against your beliefs is an activist attempt to change the Constitution.

 

Just come out of the closet and admit you are a leftist, at least be honest

 

A real judge looks at a law and tries to figure out if it's constitutional while a liberal activist judge looks at a law and tries to figure out a way to skirt the constitution or even modify it.They believe it is a living document open to change at their discretion. In essence they ignore it to make law from the bench which in and of itself is unconstitutional and destroys the seperation of powers the constitution is based upon

 

Perhaps you should of thought of the Supreme Court vacancy, perhaps two or three more to come over the next 4 years before you guys nominated Trump. But no, you were too interested in making a statement instead of winning an election in November.

It's too late to start throwing around the Supreme Court now when none of you gave a dang about it during the primaries. It didn't even enter your head. Only now once you realize you probably nominated a loser, a candidate over 60% of America view very negatively, you care? Some how you guys managed to nominate a candidate that could very well lose to a baggage laden, scandal filled candidate which put our national security information at risk. A candidate that any decent GOP candidate would be 10 or 15 points ahead of instead of 5 or 6 down.

How many more Angle's, Mourdock's, Aiken's and O'Donnell's are you guys going to nominate. Okay, those were senate nominations, but Trump falls right in line with them. As far as I am concerned if Hillary stacks the Supreme Court, look in the mirror. I hope you take responsibility for your actions. You guys had a choice, you could have decided to nominate a candidate the majority of Americans could and would have supported. You didn't. Personally, I could have supported any other Republican candidate against Hillary other than Trump. So too could around 10-20% of America who will be voting third party and that number would be higher if one included those taking a pass on this election. Simply because of the choice given by the two major parties are Clinton and Trump


Decisions and actions have consequences, we'll see where your's lead in November.

 

I am on many social issues. I am all about equal opportunities. I don't care what skin color, sex attraction, or what gender one is inside.
All humans are to be treated the same, unless they want to infringe on someone else's rights.

I am sure that doesn't sit well with you.

 

So only those darned liberal judges look at the Constitution and try to use it to further their own agenda? Obviously the only real judges are those who support Conservative positions. Sorry, but that kind of stupidity doesn't really carry much validity except perhaps in the conservative fruit loop self validating imaginary universe.

 

Apparently Rotherham voted to leave by 68 to 32. I wonder why that is...

 

What doesn't sit well with me is being labeled a racist bigot homophobe by the likes of you and your brainwashed zombie robots. You say you are for equal rights but what you mean is you want some groups to have extra rights. I am for rights based solely on merit not race gender or religion. In this wackadoodle world we live in today that somehow translates to being racist.

 

Liberal judges express disdain for the Constitution so how can you expect them to use it as a guiding principle? Ruth told South Africa they should not use our Constitution as a guide for theirs because its outdated. With that attitude she and other liberal activist are free to make law from the bench.

 

Where is the substance in your post?

 

LOL!
It's gotta fit on a bumper sticker for the cons to understand it!
LOL!

 

I was looking at the graph for the Dow Jones when I posted. I'm right, you're wrong.

 

The irony is that Trump really isn't the establishment. He's a wanna be. The establishment looks down on his bombastic, ignorant act. They view him as an uncouth low class bounder.

 

The way I look at it, the country will go to hell if Trump wins and it will also go to hell if Clinton wins. The only way to save the country is to not let either win. You are free to vote to let this country go to hell, I choose be to the vote in the wilderness, voting for someone who will be good for this country even though he has no chance to win.

Call it my Alamo stance. no hope, but the stance must be made. Trump, Clinton, irrelevant. Two rotten apples, either one place in the bushel will begin turning the whole bushel rotten. The only way to save the bushel is not to put either rotten apple into it. The only way to save the country is not to put either into the White House.

Whether one considers Trump or Clinton as the lesser evil, the fact remains evil will reign in the oval office.

 

Yes, we will see. You don't know what evil is. I'm only addressing part of your rant because it wasn't a reply to me. Perotista, I like most of your posts but you are making a big mistake when you say Aiken was nominated by republicans. However, I will give you the benefit of not knowing the real story behind that.

Aiken was the only Tea Party candidate in the Missouri primary but he had a lot political baggage, like Hillary today but Hillary far exceeds Aiken in that regard. MOST of Aiken's baggage was overblown by the media from the beginning because he was a Tea Party candidate.

Brunner, and Steelman were BOTH polled at least 10 points ahead of Aiken during the Missouri primary in 2012 to unseat Claire McCaskill in the Senate. Aiken didn't stand a chance. I voted in that primary for Brunner. During the primary, McCaskill could NOT win against Brunner or Steelman, but was tied against Aiken in the general election. The people in Missouri are unhappy with McCaskiil after she backed Obamacare and everything Obama has stood for but now that she is coming up for reelection again, she has changed her tune again just like she did in 2012, like any lying other democrat.

The only primary restrictions Missouri has is that registered Rs vote in the R primary, likewise for Ds, but it is ONLY a matter of saying what party you want to be associated with. When the primary election rolled around Aiken not only moved up 10 points, but exceeded that by ANOTHER 10 points above the previous poll leader Brunner. It was a 20 point swing increase in a short period. Tell me that isn't shady.

McCaskill openly admits in a recent book she wrote that she paid for advertising to nominate Todd Aiken. I saw the ads but stayed with Brunner in the primary because I knew BRUNNER COULD WIN. If McCaskill isn't using dirty tricks enough for you, I strongly suspect that democrats crossed over to nominate Aiken in the primary so McCaskill could win back the Senate seat. That's the BEST explanation for the last minute 20-point swing. Missourians knew Aiken couldn't beat McCaskill and he didn't. This is the kind of dirty tricks democrats use all the time. Hillary is even worse and Trump is a far better candidate than Clinton. You can't pay me enough money to ever vote democrat now.

If Clinton wins in 2012 then we can no longer proudly say this country is the greatest in the world, it will be thoroughly corrupt, just another banana republic, Clinton-Obama style.

Steve

 

I usually have respect for his opinions too but the man has gone off the rails here.

 

Yeah, I knew of some of what you talked about going on in Missouri. Before this election I referred to Missouri as the ultimate failure of our two party system. One candidate with something above 70 or 75% unfavorable rating, Aiken and McCaskill in the 60's. Most Missourian's wanted neither. But were forced to choose between them. Much like this election, except this time it is most Americans.

I suppose this is what our politics have come to. But at sometime or another, either we the people hold our two major parties responsible for the candidates they offer, or we will continue to get bum candidates like Aiken, McCaskill, Trump and Clinton. If we do not, we deserve the candidates they offer. The two major parties know they have a monopoly on our political system, they write our election laws to ensure that monopoly will always remain. With a monopoly, you don't have to worry about price, the quality of goods, etc. You either buy what they offer or do without.

With the total lack of quality with both Trump and Clinton, I'll do without until at least a hint of quality returns. I never bought into this voting for the lesser of two evils, as I have stated many time, evil still wins.

 

You have survived 7 years of Obama, just as the Democrats have survived 8 years of Bush. And we'll survive 4 years of either Trump or Clinton as well.

Why? Because the oval office changes its occupant more than the occupant changes the oval office. At the end, most of what the president does is reacting to crisis and keep the ship steady. That's why Trump wouldn't be building the wall and he wouldn't pull out of all trade agreements, because he would realize that pushing change is very hard when the first principle is to do no harm.

What is the biggest issue a president has affected in the last 20 years? Maybe the Iraq war. Other than that, Bush was pretty ineffective in pushing his ownership society and dismantling SS, as he had intended. So was Obama, with the only signature legislation pushed was the ACA, which ended up as a giveway to the health insurance industry, instead of doing the right thing with the public option.

The president is not going to be the death of the country, anyone who is saying this is just projecting hyperbole.

 

WRONG! I am a veteran of Vietnam using the VA now with a bachelor's degree in economics and 30+ year career in electronics. I have NOT survived Obama's term, economically speaking. I am looking at drawing social security soon and that's all I have now. Thank YOU democrats!

Steve

 

Sorry to hear.

But, what exactly did Obama do to cause your personal economic predicament?

Also, what could Romney have done to improve your situation?

If you are now on social security as your only income, you should be glad that the GOP has been unsuccessful dismantling it and/or privatizing it. If they had succeeded, you may have nothing now.

 

And yet you think your opinions should matter to us.

It's official, we're at a standstill.