Pidesco

Yep, there were NWN2 forums here during development. Ferret, MCA and Feargus were occasional posters, then.

The two alternative candidates also advocate widely unacceptable policies, I think. Johnson promised to literally end the IRS. I'm not too clear on Stein's campaign, but at the very least, she appears scarily non committal towards stuff life vaccines or GMOs. She seems to represent the bad science side of the left in the US.

Clearly overstating his (potential) impact on the race. Probably. But as we were discussing before, there are other prizes to be had in the race than the White House. A trip to the debates, a strong showing on election day (say 5-7%) and a concerted effort to run congressional candidates in 2018 sets things up nicely for 2020. Assuming a suitable candidate can be found. I don't think Johnson will run again and I don't think they will have Weld without him. As long as the electoral system isn't reformed there is no way a third party becomes a viable option in the US, unfortunately.

Johnson wants to end the IRS.

What he's hiding is one of two things, or probably both. That he's using creative methods to pay less taxes and that he isn't half as rich as he states. Mostly, it's about his own public image, which is, far and away, what he values the most. By the way, did you see the recent one, where Trump was asked what his dad would think about His running for president? He replied, I kid you not, that he was sure his dad would allow it. Talk about daddy issues.

Can you understand 5-4 Conservative majority vs. 5-4 Liberal majority? That still doesn't mean in any way that the second amendment is under attack.

Closed for length and continued here.

Continue to discuss the myriad ways in which Trump is trying to drive his campaign into the ground, here.

I'm not aware of the American car industry's attempts at destroying public transportation. I mean that literally: I am ignorant of the subject. Do you have any links so I can see how that came to be? Public transportation over such a ridiculously large landmass was always going to be a struggle...so I'm curious as to how it was deliberately made worse. What I've read before was that GM bought up public transportation companies in California(in LA, I think) so that they could dismantle them. Looking for it now on Google gave me a wikipedia link that states it's mostly conspiracy theory and/or exaggeration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gm-trolley-conspiracy-what-really-happened/ http://moderntransit.org/ctc/ctc06.html

That's America for you, where the car industry did their best and succeeded to wreck public transportation. The wondrous invisible hand of the free market at work.

I understand that, but tit still doesn't mean that a person can do things within their private property that demonstrably endanger other people around them. Of course, whether eating a muffin while driving is a dangerous activity is certainly a contentious question. And obviously, I don't really see how the hell do you even manage to enforce such a law, but what do I know. I certainly think that if someone drives down a busy highway at 88 mph, while holding a paper cup of scalding coffee with only his teeth, that person should be liable for some sort of prosecution. Reckless endangerment or whatever.

Those questions are valid and I think at least that part of the law should be looked at, at least. Enforcement seems like the biggest issue to me. They do not, however, have anything to do with the whole "encroaching my liberties" argument. By the way, I've seen claims that about anything you usually do while driving a car has a large negative impact on the driving. Even stuff like talking on a hands off phone, to people next to you, eating, listen to the radio. In my experience, driving with two bellicose small children sitting in the back of the car, for example, is a recipe for catastrophe.

It's a matter of personal freedom to be a liability to everyone around you? Actually.. that explains a lot about your country come to think of it It's kind of the same as the whole vaccines deal.

Yes, that will be added to the list of his crimes once the election is over....but nothing can be done now To be fair, Donald Trump did make it a point to say that his caps are made in the USA. Which I don't necessarily doubt. I'm sure that by caps he meant the letters he prints or installs in everything he owns.

A President has to make decisions whether or not to support terrorist organizations, you mean.

Does Clinton have more or less blood than Reagan on her hands?

I'd bet she's not any more criminal than any major political player in the US, say, the past 50 years. At best, perhaps the politicians that were ostensibly figureheads might get to pass go without stopping at the jail. Big emphasis on *might*.

It seems to me that Trump's big advantage on the primary debates was his opponents unwillingness to attack him on the crazier crap he spouted, due to fear of alienating the Republican base. I don't see how he can do well against someone who has no such problems, even if Clinton doesn't strike as a particularly good public speaker.

That must be a result of the "intervention".

10 more years of Obama, and whatever SCOTUS pick he wants? Haha, that would be amazing.

Only if you follow a christian like ethics system.

Trump seems to be going down in flames a lot sooner than I expected. The GOP seems to be ready to throw him under the bus, in order to save Republican Congress seats.

Wait, are you calling Trump a "force of nature?" By the way, the last quote on your sig explains perfectly why Trump's campaign didn't collapse six months ago.

Crossposting from the UK thread: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brexit-hate-crime-racism-immigration-eu-referendum-result-what-it-means-eurospectic-areas-a7165056.html Why you shouldn't vote for the openly racist party.