CougarCorner

KingCoug wrote:To heck with this guy. He's pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and doesn't to support Israel. He doesn't get my vote just because he's not Hillary or Trump.

What we have is a liberal running as the Democrat nominee. We have a Democrat running as the Republican nominee. And there is a liberal running as the Independent nominee.

SpiffCoug wrote:

KingCoug wrote:To heck with this guy. He's pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and doesn't to support Israel. He doesn't get my vote just because he's not Hillary or Trump.

What we have is a liberal running as the Democrat nominee. We have a Democrat running as the Republican nominee. And there is a liberal running as the Independent nominee.

Nailed it. And his reason to vote for him is "Don't vote for Trump or Hillary just because they're the most popular choices--vote for me because I'm the 3rd most popular!"

SpiffCoug wrote:

KingCoug wrote:To heck with this guy. He's pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and doesn't to support Israel. He doesn't get my vote just because he's not Hillary or Trump.

What we have is a liberal running as the Democrat nominee. We have a Democrat running as the Republican nominee. And there is a liberal running as the Independent nominee.

And Evan McMullin, a conservative running as a conservative.

KingCoug wrote:To heck with this guy. He . . . doesn't to support Israel. He doesn't get my vote just because he's not Hillary or Trump.

Did Israel ask for inclusion as the 51st state? If not, why would it matter if he doesn't support the fascists there? Israeli and Saudi interests in no way align with the US interests in the middle east.

jvquarterback wrote:Did Israel ask for inclusion as the 51st state? If not, why would it matter if he doesn't support the fascists there? Israeli and Saudi interests in no way align with the US interests in the middle east.

Not right now they don't because our current admin is ok with an nuclear armed Iran, which both Israel and Saudi Arabia oppose.

Honest question, because it bugs me each election cycle:

Can someone explain to me why a President's position on abortion and gay marriage should be given much weight anymore?

snoscythe wrote:Honest question, because it bugs me each election cycle:

Can someone explain to me why a President's position on abortion and gay marriage should be given much weight anymore?

exactly.

snoscythe wrote:Honest question, because it bugs me each election cycle:

Can someone explain to me why a President's position on abortion and gay marriage should be given much weight anymore?

Single issue voters (or the general christian right) ... and there a lots of them in the bible belt. frankly, there are a bunch of them in Utah. Every heard of gayle ruzika and the eagle forum? You stray too far from their idea of the moral straight and narrow, and their phone tree goes into full auto telling everyone that you can't be counted on to vote for moral rectitude, therefore you cannot be voted for.

But, yeah, I don't think the president can do much one way or the other. With the exception of stacking the SCOTUS.

SpiffCoug wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:Did Israel ask for inclusion as the 51st state? If not, why would it matter if he doesn't support the fascists there? Israeli and Saudi interests in no way align with the US interests in the middle east.

Not right now they don't because our current admin is ok with an nuclear armed Iran, which both Israel and Saudi Arabia oppose.

I'd say it has more to do with Israel and Saudi Arabia preferring ISIS/Qaeda defeat Syria and working toward that end.

People who think we should side with either of those countries are either in the arms trade or haven't done their homework. And the Iran getting nuclear weapons red herring is just silly. They're a better outfit than Israel to be trusted with nuclear weapons, not that it matters, because they're in no position to develop nuclear weapons anyway (or will they be in the next thirty years thanks to the treaty Obama did with them - one of the few decent things he has done as president).

jvquarterback wrote:People who think we should side with either of those countries are either in the arms trade or haven't done their homework. And the Iran getting nuclear weapons red herring is just silly. They're a better outfit than Israel to be trusted with nuclear weapons, not that it matters, because they're in no position to develop nuclear weapons anyway (or will they be in the next thirty years thanks to the treaty Obama did with them - one of the few decent things he has done as president).

Speaking of not doing homework, this whole paragraph is worthy of someone who hasn't done their homework.