Whose got your vote for President in 2016?

[CPUd]

I would prefer to be specific. You want to talk about Ron, ok, Bryan. Yes, I think ultimately that is what is happening with him throwing out the good in search of the perfect that doesn't exist. Meanwhile, we are going to sit here and watch the Trans Pacific Partnership go through, 3 or 4 leftist as all hell Supreme Court Justices be appointed, more national sovereignty lost and our country turned into the hell hole that Germany and France currently are, with terrorist attacks every time they turn around.

While you are here, have you made a decision about Johnson/Weld yet? You know, TPP-supporting, gun-grabbing, world govenrment Johnson/Weld. November is coming up soon.

define "good"

 

[GunnyFreedom]

This would be humorous if it wasn't so sad. Do you not even remember the names you called both me and Kahless for daring to say Trump was our 2nd choice?

Provide evidence for your multitudinous accusations against me, or retract them. It's that simple LE.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'm flabbergasted that people are still falling for the same mind game they've been playing for years now... "You better vote for ______(authoritarian phony #1) or else you're going to get ______(authoritarian phony #2)."

They're all globalist sellouts, the PTSB is never going to allow a genuine, good, true libertarian leader to get the nomination. Have we learned nothing in the last 8 years?

Probably not, but then again, we'd have to offer up a genuine, good, true libertarian leader to get the nomination. There is very little libertarian about Johnson/Weld. I'm not even sure if what we want is "libertarian", after seeing what so many seem to believe in these days. Open borders, hating the country, hating the Constitution, hating our Founding Fathers, hating Christians, etc. That doesn't define me. Does it you?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Provide evidence for your multitudinous accusations against me, or retract them. It's that simple LE.

And you go search through the last years of posts and provide evidence of yours against me, Gunbo. And then get down on your knees and ask forgiveness for your rude behavior to Kahless and me, and anyone else who disagreed with your pontifications

I didn't lie about one thing about you and you know it. You just want me to spend hours searching for posts that were long ago archived and unaccessible. Sorry, I have better things to do.

 

[BamaAla]

It's often helpful to gain clarity on someone's position before countering it.

So in summary, you are saying that anyone who doesn't support Trump is supporting Hillary?

You know what she's saying: lesser of two evils. She's correctly suggesting that opposition to Trump provides nonmaterial support for Clinton. That is a basic fact.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Integrity
in·teg·ri·ty
inˈteɡrədē/
noun
1.
the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.
"he is known to be a man of integrity"
synonyms: honesty, probity, rectitude, honor, good character, principle(s), ethics, morals, righteousness, morality, virtue, decency, fairness, scrupulousness, sincerity, truthfulness, trustworthiness
"I never doubted his integrity"
2.
the state of being whole and undivided.
"upholding territorial integrity and national sovereignty"
synonyms: unity, unification, coherence, cohesion, togetherness, solidarity
"the integrity of the federation"

 

[LibertyEagle]

Integrity
in·teg·ri·ty
inˈteɡrədē/
noun
1.
the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.
"he is known to be a man of integrity"
synonyms: honesty, probity, rectitude, honor, good character, principle(s), ethics, morals, righteousness, morality, virtue, decency, fairness, scrupulousness, sincerity, truthfulness, trustworthiness
"I never doubted his integrity"
2.
the state of being whole and undivided.
"upholding territorial integrity and national sovereignty"
synonyms: unity, unification, coherence, cohesion, togetherness, solidarity
"the integrity of the federation"

Yes. I have it. You do not.

Hope that helped you out.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

You know what she's saying: lesser of two evils. She's correctly suggesting that opposition to Trump provides nonmaterial support for Clinton. That is a basic fact.

No, no it is not a "basic fact." Opposition to Trump does not in any way imply support for Clinton. This forum spent the first 8 years of it's life unified in open defiance against that kind of fallacious reasoning.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Yes. I have it. You do not.

Hope that helped you out.

Provide evidence of your accusations or retract them, LE.

 

[BamaAla]

No, no it is not a "basic fact." Opposition to Trump does not in any way imply support for Clinton. This forum spent the first 8 years of it's life unified in open defiance against that kind of fallacious reasoning.

lol, it's not false reason. Please falsify it.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

lol, it's not false reason. Please falsify it.

Um. That's not how positive claims work. You make the claim, you are required to support your claim. In logic, you do not falsify claims, you falsify the arguments and premises behind a claim. For a proper and logical conversation to even begin, you have to support your claims so that your logic can be deconstructed.

But just for the sake of not getting bogged down in the bylaws, I will go ahead and provide some examples of how this fallacious argument has been treated by logicians right, middle, and left:

http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/18/you-dont-need-to-vote-for-the-lesser-evil/

http://truthinmedia.com/donegan-debunking-the-lesser-of-two-evils-voting-strategy/

http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=9409

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm flabbergasted that people are still falling for the same mind game they've been playing for years now... "You better vote for ______(authoritarian phony #1) or else you're going to get ______(authoritarian phony #2)."

They're all globalist sellouts, the PTSB is never going to allow a genuine, good, true libertarian leader to get the nomination. Have we learned nothing in the last 8 years?

+rep

 

[LibertyEagle]

Let me make this simple.

Trump will not sign the TPP agreement. Clinton will. So will Johnson.

I choose the one who will not sign it.

 

[The Gold Standard]

My couch has my vote.

 

[lilymc]

Probably not, but then again, we'd have to offer up a genuine, good, true libertarian leader to get the nomination. There is very little libertarian about Johnson/Weld. I'm not even sure if what we want is "libertarian", after seeing what so many seem to believe in these days. Open borders, hating the country, hating the Constitution, hating our Founding Fathers, hating Christians, etc. That doesn't define me. Does it you?

I'm not a Johnson supporter. And I meant small l libertarian, or someone who cares about liberty, as opposed to an authoritarian. And btw, I'm not saying that people shouldn't vote, but if they do, imo they should vote their conscience, instead of being manipulated into the same game every 4 years, which is giving us frauds/globalists, regardless of the D or R by their name.

 

[BamaAla]

Um. That's not how positive claims work. You make the claim, you are required to support your claim. In logic, you do not falsify claims, you falsify the arguments and premises behind a claim. For a proper and logical conversation to even begin, you have to support your claims so that your logic can be deconstructed.

But just for the sake of not getting bogged down in the bylaws, I will go ahead and provide some examples of how this fallacious argument has been treated by logicians right, middle, and left:

http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/18/you-dont-need-to-vote-for-the-lesser-evil/

http://truthinmedia.com/donegan-debunking-the-lesser-of-two-evils-voting-strategy/

http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=9409

None of that actually addresses my assertion. When 2 options exist, opposition to 1 necessarily provides nonmaterial support to the other.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

None of that actually addresses my assertion. When 2 options exist, opposition to 1 necessarily provides nonmaterial support to the other.

ALL of that addresses your claim, and I will also repeat that the burden of proof is on the claimant.

 

[nikcers]

None of that actually addresses my assertion. When 2 options exist, opposition to 1 necessarily provides nonmaterial support to the other.

None of that is relevant to the argument, there is always more then two options- you are just being closed minded. Some people are even open minded enough to see that voting for a third party in some cases helps Trump which invalidates your opinion.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'm not a Johnson supporter. And I meant small l libertarian, or someone who cares about liberty, as opposed to an authoritarian. And btw, I'm not saying that people shouldn't vote, but if they do, imo they should vote their conscience, instead of being manipulated into the same game every 4 years, which is giving us frauds/globalists, regardless of the D or R by their name.

Don't think you aren't still being manipulated. Hell, the Republicans are STILL throwing in candidates. Anything to cut into Trump votes.

 

[The Gold Standard]

I'm not a Johnson supporter. And I meant small l libertarian, or someone who cares about liberty, as opposed to an authoritarian. And btw, I'm not saying that people shouldn't vote, but if they do, imo they should vote their conscience, instead of being manipulated into the same game every 4 years, which is giving us frauds/globalists, regardless of the D or R by their name.

You are better off stepping back and letting them fight it out. You won't convince her of anything. She loves her chains as long as they were slapped on by a white guy with a R next to his name.