HuskerNation1

As I've said before, both are terrible candidates and we are faced with bad choices. I am not happy with the current trajectory in this country, as most Americans feel the same with nearly 70% claiming the US is on the wrong track. With Hillary, we would be getting more of the same, but likely worse as she has the corruption to go along with the failed policies of the past 7 years, especially when it comes to ISIS and foreign policy. With Trump, he's a wildcard, and he's obnoxious and says a lot of crazy things to get attention, but we really don't know how he would govern. So yes, there is a risk there, but given the 70% wrong track of this country (which I agree with), I am willing to take that risk. Now if the Dems had nominated someone like Jim Webb, I would agree with you that he would be far better than Trump. Hillary, not so much. Or, if Johnson would agree to move down to the VP slot and let Romney lead the Libertarian ticket, I would vote for that in a heartbeat. I would love to see the poll on here add another option with a Romney/Johnson ticket just to see if it changes the results. Both are poor candidates, but it's plain as day that one is definitively worse than the other. No one wants Hillary in office but it's very clear that Trump is grossly unfit for office at any level, let alone POTUS. It's not even a risk with Trump. There is absolutely no way that a Trump presidency would be anything but detrimental to the American people. He needs to be defeated and defeated soundly. If you can't see this then you must be entirely removed from logic. And that is YOUR opinion, and I know a few others on this tiny board we post on. I know just as many non-political individuals that I work with as well as some of my friends that fear Hillary more than Trump as they believe Trump says some of the things he does as part of his TV personality. When you look at Trump's proposals (outside of the Muslim ban), which proposals are you most concerned with? Securing our border? Removing unfair trade deals? Increase the child tax credit? Not starting more wars like Iraq?

Demopublicans Or Demopublitarians might be better. All you Johnson lovers crack me up thinking this guy is perfect and the only honest politician out there. He's lied about his past record as governor when running in 2012, and is just your typical politician. https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=210816 Also, it seems that the Johnson supporters on here are following the lead of Johnson himself, always taking a chance to criticize Trump, but taking it much easier on Hillary. It's not a shock to anyone on here on why this is happening given there is much more overlap between the GOP and Libertarian platforms than there are between the Libertarian and Democratic platforms. http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/gary-johnson-criticize-hillary-trump/ Wat? Nobody on here has said they are in love with Johnson lock step. We've just said he's the only true alternative that isn't an embarrassment. Trump is a POS and Hillary is about as slimmy as a hagfish. Johnson at least has something to offer to both conservatives and liberals in his agenda. He doesn't offer anything to this liberal. I can see why conservatives may think him an option but it really depends on the issues that are important to you. AND, he's not going to win. A vote for him will make the chances of Don being elected higher. I would think it's conservative voters that don't want Trump and vote Johnson who are gonna take votes away from Trump. Surprisingly Johnson is taking more votes from Hillary than Trump, but not by much. But you are right that Johnson is targeting Trump to try to attract Conservatives.

As I've said before, both are terrible candidates and we are faced with bad choices. I am not happy with the current trajectory in this country, as most Americans feel the same with nearly 70% claiming the US is on the wrong track. With Hillary, we would be getting more of the same, but likely worse as she has the corruption to go along with the failed policies of the past 7 years, especially when it comes to ISIS and foreign policy. With Trump, he's a wildcard, and he's obnoxious and says a lot of crazy things to get attention, but we really don't know how he would govern. So yes, there is a risk there, but given the 70% wrong track of this country (which I agree with), I am willing to take that risk. Now if the Dems had nominated someone like Jim Webb, I would agree with you that he would be far better than Trump. Hillary, not so much. Or, if Johnson would agree to move down to the VP slot and let Romney lead the Libertarian ticket, I would vote for that in a heartbeat. I would love to see the poll on here add another option with a Romney/Johnson ticket just to see if it changes the results.

Wow, it appears I have gotten a rise out of the Johnson lovers on here. You should vote for whoever you want to vote for. All I'm saying is that I have seen a trend on here from Johnson supporters to spend more of their time trying to tear Trump down compared to Hillary. If both are evil in your minds, that is fine, but the minute someone posts something anti-Hillary it seems there is a defense of her or a desire to try to bring Trump into the conversation. This trend is also what Johnson the candidate also appears to be doing. When given the chance to criticize Hillary, he claimed "she's been a great public servant" while not holding back against Trump. If Johnson really thinks Hillary is "a great public servant," that diminishes his judgment in my mind big time.

Demopublicans Or Demopublitarians might be better. All you Johnson lovers crack me up thinking this guy is perfect and the only honest politician out there. He's lied about his past record as governor when running in 2012, and is just your typical politician. https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=210816 Also, it seems that the Johnson supporters on here are following the lead of Johnson himself, always taking a chance to criticize Trump, but taking it much easier on Hillary. It's not a shock to anyone on here on why this is happening given there is much more overlap between the GOP and Libertarian platforms than there are between the Libertarian and Democratic platforms. http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/gary-johnson-criticize-hillary-trump/ Wat? Nobody on here has said they are in love with Johnson lock step. We've just said he's the only true alternative that isn't an embarrassment. Trump is a POS and Hillary is about as slimmy as a hagfish. Johnson at least has something to offer to both conservatives and liberals in his agenda. I wasn't really speaking to you Zrod, but there are some on here that constantly bash Trump, rarely bash Hillary, and consistently prop up Johnson as though he doesn't act like a typical politician himself. I don't really like any of those 3 options. With Johnson, I like that he's anti-tax, and he says he's a fiscal conservative but his record is sketchy at best on that. I don't like that he's not focused on border security and that he's so pro-drugs/marijuana. Now if someone like Romney had gotten the libertarian nomination, I would be voting for him easily. If Johnson were smart, he would steal some of Trump's tactics and do something outrageous to get attention in order to give him a chance of getting to 15% before the primary cutoffs (which is coming up soon). That is the only way a 3rd party really has a chance of making a major move is getting on the debate stage. I would say the same for Stein as well as she has a whole bunch of far lefties out there that supported Bernie that don't like Hillary.

I believe I would be numb to that article as I already constantly get that feeling while reading your posts. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! You would be numb...is that implying you didn't really read it but still decided to make a comment to reply to it?

Lol...you are too funny zoogs.

Demopublicans Or Demopublitarians might be better. All you Johnson lovers crack me up thinking this guy is perfect and the only honest politician out there. He's lied about his past record as governor when running in 2012, and is just your typical politician. https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=210816 Also, it seems that the Johnson supporters on here are following the lead of Johnson himself, always taking a chance to criticize Trump, but taking it much easier on Hillary. It's not a shock to anyone on here on why this is happening given there is much more overlap between the GOP and Libertarian platforms than there are between the Libertarian and Democratic platforms. http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/gary-johnson-criticize-hillary-trump/

Here's an intriguing article about "Twinks for Trump" if you are looking for something that will have you scratching your head at the end saying "what did I just read?" http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/08/11/trump-brought-subversion-decadence-back-gay-culture/

There is no such syndrome. Yes there is...Compulsive Lying Disorder. http://www.compulsivelyingdisorder.com/what-is-compulsive-lying-disorder/ A pathological liar enjoys lying just to see what they can get away with. A compulsive liar does it more to benefit themselves personally or to avoid a bad situation. Hillary has compulsive lying disorder I believe instead of pathological lying disorder. It's not recognized by the DSM-IV. Who cares...as with any medical condition, there are varying opinions about different disorders. You of all people I thought would be interested since you started your Narcissistic Disorder thread. http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/compulsive-lying I care - medical professionals verify meds and disorders with unbiased, scientific information that they then review and agree upon. They haven't done so on this. They have however, agreed that NPD is a real thing. They do say that lying (pathological and compulsive) is often a symptom of a disorder, but not a disorder itself. And I will guarantee you that not every physician is in 100% agreement on what is deemed a disorder or not. With that said, since you seem to be an expert on what is and isn't a disorder, what would you call Hillary's compulsion to lie, including lying about lies? That may be true, but what one doctor may think doesn't exactly cut it when it comes to medicine and defining ailments, diseases and syndromes. Medicine isn't based on opinion it is fact based. Pathologic liars lie about everything. They can't help it. My understanding (don't have a PhD or Psych MD) is that compulsive liars are more motivated to get gain from their lies, and they are specific, situational. From your perspective, Hillary is a compulsive as her lies are specific to situations. I'm sure though your response will be that she lies about everything. My only point is that factually there is no syndrome. Period. There is no gray area. You just made the point I was making...that she aligns with CLD and not PLD. She lies for personal gain over and over. Take the D of the end of those and I'll agree at least your opinion is a possibility. As we started out with There are no defined disorders - they are symptoms. Fair point. Trump seems to make stuff up to get a reaction and get attention while Hillary does it to avoid jail time.

There is no such syndrome. Yes there is...Compulsive Lying Disorder. http://www.compulsivelyingdisorder.com/what-is-compulsive-lying-disorder/ A pathological liar enjoys lying just to see what they can get away with. A compulsive liar does it more to benefit themselves personally or to avoid a bad situation. Hillary has compulsive lying disorder I believe instead of pathological lying disorder. It's not recognized by the DSM-IV. Who cares...as with any medical condition, there are varying opinions about different disorders. You of all people I thought would be interested since you started your Narcissistic Disorder thread. http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/compulsive-lying I care - medical professionals verify meds and disorders with unbiased, scientific information that they then review and agree upon. They haven't done so on this. They have however, agreed that NPD is a real thing. They do say that lying (pathological and compulsive) is often a symptom of a disorder, but not a disorder itself. And I will guarantee you that not every physician is in 100% agreement on what is deemed a disorder or not. With that said, since you seem to be an expert on what is and isn't a disorder, what would you call Hillary's compulsion to lie, including lying about lies? That may be true, but what one doctor may think doesn't exactly cut it when it comes to medicine and defining ailments, diseases and syndromes. Medicine isn't based on opinion it is fact based. Pathologic liars lie about everything. They can't help it. My understanding (don't have a PhD or Psych MD) is that compulsive liars are more motivated to get gain from their lies, and they are specific, situational. From your perspective, Hillary is a compulsive as her lies are specific to situations. I'm sure though your response will be that she lies about everything. My only point is that factually there is no syndrome. Period. There is no gray area. You just made the point I was making...that she aligns with CLD and not PLD. She lies for personal gain over and over.

There is no such syndrome. Yes there is...Compulsive Lying Disorder. http://www.compulsivelyingdisorder.com/what-is-compulsive-lying-disorder/ A pathological liar enjoys lying just to see what they can get away with. A compulsive liar does it more to benefit themselves personally or to avoid a bad situation. Hillary has compulsive lying disorder I believe instead of pathological lying disorder. It's not recognized by the DSM-IV. Who cares...as with any medical condition, there are varying opinions about different disorders. You of all people I thought would be interested since you started your Narcissistic Disorder thread. http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/compulsive-lying I care - medical professionals verify meds and disorders with unbiased, scientific information that they then review and agree upon. They haven't done so on this. They have however, agreed that NPD is a real thing. They do say that lying (pathological and compulsive) is often a symptom of a disorder, but not a disorder itself. And I will guarantee you that not every physician is in 100% agreement on what is deemed a disorder or not. With that said, since you seem to be an expert on what is and isn't a disorder, what would you call Hillary's compulsion to lie, including lying about lies?

There is no such syndrome. Yes there is...Compulsive Lying Disorder. http://www.compulsivelyingdisorder.com/what-is-compulsive-lying-disorder/ A pathological liar enjoys lying just to see what they can get away with. A compulsive liar does it more to benefit themselves personally or to avoid a bad situation. Hillary has compulsive lying disorder I believe instead of pathological lying disorder. It's not recognized by the DSM-IV. Who cares...as with any medical condition, there are varying opinions about different disorders. You of all people I thought would be interested since you started your Narcissistic Disorder thread. http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/compulsive-lying

There is no such syndrome. Yes there is...Compulsive Lying Disorder. http://www.compulsivelyingdisorder.com/what-is-compulsive-lying-disorder/ A pathological liar enjoys lying just to see what they can get away with. A compulsive liar does it more to benefit themselves personally or to avoid a bad situation. Hillary has compulsive lying disorder I believe instead of pathological lying disorder.

Another swing state paper discussing Hillary's persistent lies. She's now lying about lying. Some have indicated she has pathological liar syndrome, but if you read the breakdown, it's more like compulsive lying syndrome. http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-lying-about-her-lies

This sh#t is so effing old. This is the type of stuff crazed staunch supporters of either party do (after they lose fair and square). Not the damn nominee. It's all getting old. Trump continuing to say crazy things, Hillary continuing to lie about lying and denying she is not corrupt.

Ya, I'm a bit dumbfounded here. Who else would we attribute the Iraq war to? Saying Bush isn't responsible for the Iraq war isn't the same as saying Clinton isn't solely responsible for ISIS getting more powerful. It's the same thing as saying Bin Laden isn't solely responsible for the attacks on the twin towers. Notice you used the word "solely" in one example and not the other. I asked the question for a very specific reason. We can argue that nobody is 100% responsible for any decision that goes the wrong way, but I often find some more willing to say that the Hillary/Obama is not accountable for the world being more dangerous and less safe these past 7 years, yet these same people are the ones to place sole blame on Bush for Iraq. Its complete hypocrisy to blame one and not the other.

Come on down Joseph....Lincoln is a great place to be!

More evidence that we are in the worst economic recovery in the post World War II America. http://blogs.wsj.com...rld-war-ii-era/ Moreover, he's also the only President in US History to never have 3% growth in any of the quarters in which he was POTUS. http://www.zerohedge...ar-3-gdp-growth

In the course of his long career, sure, there is Trump University and I'm sure some complaints from some of his employees. But when you take away all the dumb statements and look at the results on paper (like a resume of what was actually delivered), he has a much stronger track record than she does. She has held many positions in government, but what has Hillary actually made better. The world is far less stable since she was SOS. ISIS is far more powerful now than in 2009. As Senator she promised to bring 200,000 jobs to upstate New York and that did not happen. It is misguided to attribute major world dynamics to one person. Even the Secretary of State. They are our chief diplomat, but the proliferation of terrorist groups and the stability of the world in general don't fall solely on the doorstep of Hillary Clinton. Surely we recognize that there are many other players on the world stage as well. That'd be like saying the housing crash in 2008 happened because of Trump's crappy business practices. This argument was just had in another forum (not with you), but many on the left try to attribute the Iraq war and the 2008 financial downturn to Bush. Lord knows Obama spent his entire first term blaming Bush for everything. So you are on record for not attributing the Iraq war or the 2008 meltdown to Bush?

Out of years of business dealings, I have not seen tons of suppliers, contractors, and employees speaking out against him. All the GOP opponents tried this angle and struggled to find a few. Stop trying to dismiss her corruption and imply there is an equivalency.

In the course of his long career, sure, there is Trump University and I'm sure some complaints from some of his employees. But when you take away all the dumb statements and look at the results on paper (like a resume of what was actually delivered), he has a much stronger track record than she does. She has held many positions in government, but what has Hillary actually made better. The world is far less stable since she was SOS. ISIS is far more powerful now than in 2009. As Senator she promised to bring 200,000 jobs to upstate New York and that did not happen.

More news on the Clinton foundation showing hinting at more shady dealings. http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/291006-critics-seen-signs-of-improper-ties-in-new-clinton-emails We are left with one candidate that says a lot of dumb and offensive things (Trump) and another candidate that has done a lot of bad things (Hillary). The voters will decide the lesser of 2 evils. I'm not a big fan of some of Johnson's positions on marijuana, immigration, and allowing the drinking age to be lowered to age 18, and given this country needs a strong leader, he's not going to win but may play a role in determining who wins. Now if Romney had gotten the libertarian party nomination I think you would have a very tight 3-way race right now. Maybe Johnson could agree to be VP and let Romney at the top.

Yes that is what got the hair on the back of my neck to stand up long ago- his 'solutions' revolve around unconstitutional, authoritarian actions. Like tearing down the unconstitutional and over-reaching policies of the Obama admin? Bringing power back to the states? Reducing taxes and government spending, corruption, and wasteful spending dramatically? Auditing the federal agencies? Supporting law enforcement? Actually taking action instead of using political rhetoric to dance around issues? It's more alarming that in the times that we're in currently of extreme government corruption and wasteful spending that ought to be extremely apparent to everyone, especially with the establishment's resistance to DJT that ordinary people pile on to the horsesh*t that's spewed on a daily basis by liberal media and liberal politicians. If you don't like Trump, whatever, that's fine. Vote for Johnson. It's extremely difficult to get through to those issues when he almost daily says and does things that are alarming and disturbing. If he is such a brilliant man, then why doesn't he simply stick to talking about these issues instead of saying things that take the headlines away from the issues? If you don't find the things he has said disturbing, then you have issues. What's more, the only time we seem to hear from Trump and his surrogates that we DO need to focus on the serious issues facing the country is when they're embroiled in another one of these self-induced fiascoes and desperately trying to force the train back onto its tracks. I WOULD like to talk about the issues. Trump is the one that keeps veering off course. He definitely veered off course with the Khan issue. In watching him the past week he's been pretty on message, and should have chosen his words more wisely regarding the 2nd amendment, but even Susan Collins (who does not like Trump) and Geraldo came out today and stated that this is a case where the media has blown this up. Now given Trump's track record, he has to blame himself for them latching on so closely to everything. That is something we can agree on. The only way that stops is if he stops saying and doing such stupid stuff. He's the one that has caused the media to act like they are. So....now he has to take responsibility to change it by being smarter on the campaign trail. The media isn't rigged against him and that's why they bring this crap up. It's because he's either an idiot or really doesn't want to win. I don't think the media it out to get him anymore than they were Romney and McCain. Studies from the 2008 election showed far more positive stories for Obama in 2008 and far more negative for McCain, and McCain wasn't a guy to be gaffe prone like Trump is. That is the general rule of thumb for GOP nominees...they have to be extra careful to avoid the media scrutiny. Here's a prime example as it relates to a statement Obama made in 2008 in which he said "the chicago way" involves bringing a gun to the fight. I remember when this was said at the time and being surprised there wasn't a full blown media meltdown over it. The McCain campaign tried to make this an issue but the media brushed over it as usual. http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2008/06/obama-brings-a-gun-to-a-knife-fight-009692 Also, Joe Biden joked in 2008 that if Obama took his guns away he might have to get it out and use it. Surprise, surprise, very little coverage of that too.

Yes that is what got the hair on the back of my neck to stand up long ago- his 'solutions' revolve around unconstitutional, authoritarian actions. Like tearing down the unconstitutional and over-reaching policies of the Obama admin? Bringing power back to the states? Reducing taxes and government spending, corruption, and wasteful spending dramatically? Auditing the federal agencies? Supporting law enforcement? Actually taking action instead of using political rhetoric to dance around issues? It's more alarming that in the times that we're in currently of extreme government corruption and wasteful spending that ought to be extremely apparent to everyone, especially with the establishment's resistance to DJT that ordinary people pile on to the horsesh*t that's spewed on a daily basis by liberal media and liberal politicians. If you don't like Trump, whatever, that's fine. Vote for Johnson. It's extremely difficult to get through to those issues when he almost daily says and does things that are alarming and disturbing. If he is such a brilliant man, then why doesn't he simply stick to talking about these issues instead of saying things that take the headlines away from the issues? If you don't find the things he has said disturbing, then you have issues. What's more, the only time we seem to hear from Trump and his surrogates that we DO need to focus on the serious issues facing the country is when they're embroiled in another one of these self-induced fiascoes and desperately trying to force the train back onto its tracks. I WOULD like to talk about the issues. Trump is the one that keeps veering off course. He definitely veered off course with the Khan issue. In watching him the past week he's been pretty on message, and should have chosen his words more wisely regarding the 2nd amendment, but even Susan Collins (who does not like Trump) and Geraldo came out today and stated that this is a case where the media has blown this up. Now given Trump's track record, he has to blame himself for them latching on so closely to everything. That is something we can agree on. The only way that stops is if he stops saying and doing such stupid stuff. He's the one that has caused the media to act like they are. So....now he has to take responsibility to change it by being smarter on the campaign trail. The media isn't rigged against him and that's why they bring this crap up. It's because he's either an idiot or really doesn't want to win. I don't think the media it out to get him anymore than they were Romney and McCain. Studies from the 2008 election showed far more positive stories for Obama in 2008 and far more negative for McCain, and McCain wasn't a guy to be gaffe prone like Trump is. That is the general rule of thumb for GOP nominees...they have to be extra careful to avoid the media scrutiny. Here's a prime example as it relates to a statement Obama made in 2008 in which he said "the chicago way" involves bringing a gun to the fight. I remember when this was said at the time and being surprised there wasn't a full blown media meltdown over it. The McCain campaign tried to make this an issue but the media brushed over it as usual. http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2008/06/obama-brings-a-gun-to-a-knife-fight-009692