General Discussion

TheKentuckian

(26,314 posts)

280. Maybe but it misses the offered point that the President like other before him may be

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 10:58 PM

Dec 2011

threatening the veto because of interference with Executive authority.

Sitting silent would not solve that objection.

The difference is significant, if the President opposes because he is against indefinte detention he is being about the last firewall against the destruction of the Constitution and damn near a thousand years of advancements in civil liberties OR he is leading the bandwagon and raised objection only because provisions restricted Executive privilege.

Why isn't Obama being clearer than crystal? If Levin is bearing false witness then why aren't his legs being kicked out from under him? Why is the President not going after the Senator as a fucking liar and a traitor to his oath to uphold the Constitution and making it beyond a shadow of doubt that he will oppose this to the very end?

This isn't trivial or a joke, I can think of few hills more worth dying on.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

327 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Don't care what Rahm thinks. :) But IMHO, Trump will run Ivanka for president [View all] servermsh Feb 2021 OP

I share your concern--this needs to be flushed out. Bogart Dec 2011 #1

I SO agree. The solution is definitely to elect a Republican president! kestrel91316 Dec 2011 #66

Obama is too far to the RIGHT and you suggest we'll vote Repug ??? defendandprotect Dec 2011 #74

Hey there, stillwaiting Dec 2011 #123

I wish I could rec this intersectionality Dec 2011 #140

And I wish I could ho-hum it. Jakes Progress Dec 2011 #156

Me too! nt BlueMTexpat Dec 2011 #174

Yes, the "bully and blame the voters" is stale tblue Dec 2011 #165

+1 nt ooglymoogly Dec 2011 #210

+1 nt ooglymoogly Dec 2011 #217

+1 What you describe is something we saw conservatives do for years under GWB. DRoseDARs Dec 2011 #166

worthy of its own thread Skittles Dec 2011 #171

+1 .... Scuba Dec 2011 #178

+ a gazillion chervilant Dec 2011 #179

+1 nt ooglymoogly Dec 2011 #207

+1 n/t ejbr Dec 2011 #183

In agreement up to your last paragraph freedom fighter jh Dec 2011 #185

Not voting, is NOT an option. ooglymoogly Dec 2011 #206

Isn't it? freedom fighter jh Dec 2011 #238

If a tree falls in the forest and no one sees it....yada yada yada, signifying nothing. ooglymoogly Dec 2011 #243

So my one little vote counts but my tiny little abstention does not? freedom fighter jh Dec 2011 #274

You faith in corrupt elections is touching. The system is broken and can not be fixed by working Vincardog Dec 2011 #248

It is sad that this country has evolved into voting avebury Dec 2011 #209

+1 You must always vote. ooglymoogly Dec 2011 #213

If you are not allowed to enter a write in candidate avebury Dec 2011 #237

Totally in agreement. nt ooglymoogly Dec 2011 #245

I daresay you aren't demanding more that way. bigmonkey Dec 2011 #247

What about voting for a liberal 3rd party? Lunacee2012 Dec 2011 #282

It's not your fault, but it is your responsibillity to understand who you're voting for. Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #187

True, Obama was never a liberal Maven Dec 2011 #250

You can criticize him, just as I have done. But I think that people were expecting far too much, and Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #256

Naive? Oh No Honey HangOnKids Dec 2011 #295

Oh yes, HONEY!! Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #297

LOL HangOnKids Dec 2011 #303

Actually, I'm from Georgia, so that works. LOL! Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #307

One has to wonder ooglymoogly Dec 2011 #205

You're right, and yes it IS infuriating. NorthCarolina Dec 2011 #233

You need to repost this as an OP. cleanhippie Dec 2011 #318

By all Means. In fact, give up on the Democrats altogether. Ron Paul, third party, that makes sense. Capn Sunshine Dec 2011 #153

Ron Paul is NO liberal, my friend. Indeed, he is a bigot through and through. Talk about Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #258

Manipulation? pmorlan1 Dec 2011 #284

OFFS Marrah_G Dec 2011 #311

Looks like that isn't necessary. Union Scribe Dec 2011 #167

right, because there's not a dimes worth of difference between Al Gore and George Bush greenman3610 Dec 2011 #186

that dog no longer hunts Marrah_G Dec 2011 #309

I agree with you, but this isn't the only reason. ThomWV Dec 2011 #2

yes, no doubt spooked911 Dec 2011 #29

There have been many 'final straws'. Does Obama care? SammyWinstonJack Dec 2011 #151

It is...if folks think this one through.... ooglymoogly Dec 2011 #220

You have to ask yourself why Carl L. would sponsor such a bill. ooglymoogly Dec 2011 #222

I see 20 percent fact, and 80 percent "spin" in your post emulatorloo Dec 2011 #59

Are you suggesting that he didn't extend the Bush tax cuts or that they are good for the country? ThomWV Dec 2011 #100

Disingenious and hollow argument. Sheepshank Dec 2011 #103

The cost of extending unemployment was way too high. He should have reject the "deal" and turned rhett o rick Dec 2011 #143

I can only imagine the tone of your posts had Obama done just that n/t Sheepshank Dec 2011 #155

No you cant. The cost was too high. nt rhett o rick Dec 2011 #160

Sure. Had he done exactly that, people would be screaming about why he made a deal that EXCLUDED Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #188

It's the republicons moving the goal posts. rhett o rick Dec 2011 #251

hmm... chervilant Dec 2011 #180

And please explain to us polmaven Dec 2011 #191

That argument could be used to justify agreeing rhett o rick Dec 2011 #252

When the welfare polmaven Dec 2011 #268

The compromise was good for millions of unemployed granted, but the consequences probably will be rhett o rick Dec 2011 #272

Well, that is your opinion polmaven Dec 2011 #278

What are you willing to "compromise" for them this year? Don't even pretend the need is any less TheKentuckian Dec 2011 #304

You say that as if polmaven Dec 2011 #305

Actually, the Democrats DID have a stand alone unemployment extension bill. Indeed, they put at leas Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #195

If I remember correctly those votes occurred before the vote on extending the Bush rhett o rick Dec 2011 #249

Yes, but to believe that after letting the tax cuts expire, the Repukes were suddenly going to go Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #275

Yes I'm doing it on purpose - I said that in the first place ThomWV Dec 2011 #146

+1 just one of the many. ooglymoogly Dec 2011 #215

Republicans Only Respond to Pressure from People With Lots of Money AndyTiedye Dec 2011 #244

Actually, the problem wasn't a "weak-willed president." The problem was that there were Blue Dog Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #276

There is ALWAYS a fig leaf of political cover placed on acts like that. Marr Dec 2011 #270

The part where you leave out the context of the 2010 election results. The parts of the deal that emulatorloo Dec 2011 #131

Well said! One of the 99 Dec 2011 #137

Exactly. The behavior lends credence to the claim that liberals are elitists. Really, it makes us no Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #190

To tell you the truth One of the 99 Dec 2011 #208

+1 -- defendandprotect Dec 2011 #75

+1 nt ooglymoogly Dec 2011 #216

That is nonsense. If they all expired, a family of 4 making 20k/year would lose a 3k/year tax credit BzaDem Dec 2011 #108

+1 cutlassmama Dec 2011 #301

+100. robinlynne Dec 2011 #141

Extending the Bush tax cuts was only one of a multitude indepat Dec 2011 #228

"it (extending Bush tax cuts) would stop any chance of recovery the country stood" Martin Eden Dec 2011 #320

Thanks for the video on this. Hard to argue with that... KoKo Dec 2011 #3

Wow. earthside Dec 2011 #4

Pull the other leg, you weren't going to anyways, were you? Davis_X_Machina Dec 2011 #5

I have always voted Dem, but I can't see in good conscience how I can vote for Obama when he does spooked911 Dec 2011 #32

I'm voting for all the good things he HAS done. gateley Dec 2011 #105

It's funny that when it comes to Obama, it seems to be disappointment after disappointment, and Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #192

So..go ahead and get a republican in the White House. shraby Dec 2011 #6

one is already there. keep up. roguevalley Dec 2011 #56

Haha. Obama has just launched his "WAR ON RELIGION" and he murdered Santa so that gays can serve in emulatorloo Dec 2011 #61

Actually, I think Obama's presidency was the last straw which defendandprotect Dec 2011 #79

O, but chervilant Dec 2011 #182

Agreed Sherman A1 Dec 2011 #169

If we vote for candidates who trample on our core beliefs styersc Dec 2011 #57

Maybe we can get Obama to agree not to run. JDPriestly Dec 2011 #92

The truth is, it woud be hard to find an American politician in either party EFerrari Dec 2011 #7

+1000 sce56 Dec 2011 #9

Huh? nt 99th_Monkey Oct 2014 #323

+2000 GeorgeGist Oct 2014 #324

again i ask... Huh? 99th_Monkey Oct 2014 #325

Where is the post? mahina Oct 2014 #327

sad but true fishwax Dec 2011 #13

BOTH sides are for this Aerows Dec 2011 #16

+100 Xicano Dec 2011 #104

This. CrispyQ Dec 2011 #119

So the snark is to encourage people to vote for the greater of two evils? n/t Sheepshank Dec 2011 #164

+1 ooglymoogly Dec 2011 #212

They had better build a lot more prison then. I do think you are correct! btw. And can we please SammyWinstonJack Dec 2011 #152

I sadly agree, Aerows. dotymed Dec 2011 #204

+1 nt ooglymoogly Dec 2011 #218

100% correct malaise Dec 2011 #67

Entire national security state -- MIC -- has to be dismantled -- including the defendandprotect Dec 2011 #80

FDR did just that, but we liberals love and worship him! Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #198

what is going on here? Enrique Dec 2011 #8

If Obama vetoes it Aerows Dec 2011 #21

That clip ProSense Dec 2011 #10

poutrage party pooper bigtree Dec 2011 #11

I propose a new DU feature, an POUTRAGE-O-METER. Kahuna Dec 2011 #232

I was wondering where you were. Wait Wut Dec 2011 #14

The Constitution may be clear Aerows Dec 2011 #19

Wait, ProSense Dec 2011 #25

If it's BS spin Aerows Dec 2011 #39

I agree one shouldnt be able to "make up stuff", so show us where the administration says rhett o rick Dec 2011 #273

+1 however the constitution is clear and can be misconstrued only by a crooks and slick lawyers; ooglymoogly Dec 2011 #223

Great post! JoePhilly Dec 2011 #22

in that very long post, you don't explain why Levin said what he said Enrique Dec 2011 #35

Of ProSense Dec 2011 #46

Thanks for the post. It is clear that Obama wants the language strenghten to permit the indefinate rhett o rick Dec 2011 #148

Well, ProSense Dec 2011 #154

His threatened veto is because the bill limits his power to fight terrorism. Show me where it says rhett o rick Dec 2011 #162

It's also 'definite'. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #260

I agree that the President wants the language "fixed" rhett o rick Dec 2011 #259

Excellent post. emulatorloo Dec 2011 #48

ProSense. JDPriestly Dec 2011 #95

Why ProSense Dec 2011 #101

Because, your long defense of Obama is extremely unclear. JDPriestly Dec 2011 #106

Wait ProSense Dec 2011 #112

What I understood from the clip is that the Obama administration requested the language JDPriestly Dec 2011 #142

What ProSense Dec 2011 #150

It's clear that the administration only objects to this bill because they THINK it restricts spooked911 Dec 2011 #181

You know ProSense Dec 2011 #199

This entire administration is an exercise in the absurd. Fuddnik Dec 2011 #227

Hmmm? ProSense Dec 2011 #253

If this is not true, why not alert on it. Rex Dec 2011 #255

Prosense. Occulus Dec 2011 #242

That ProSense Dec 2011 #254

THANK YOU. nt woo me with science Dec 2011 #107

Still pushing that blatantly dishonest spin? Easy to do WHEN YOU SELECTIVELY BOLD... Zhade Dec 2011 #99

Ah ProSense Dec 2011 #102

Good to see you on this side! ellisonz Dec 2011 #109

Amazingly insightful response...as always! tallahasseedem Dec 2011 #116

Thanks ProSense! One of the 99 Dec 2011 #138

So glad you're here, Prosense Number23 Dec 2011 #139

Glad you're still around... redqueen Dec 2011 #291

"When the NDAA passes and is vetoed by President Obama..." Ignis Dec 2011 #316

All well and good, but Owlet Dec 2011 #12

I love that DURecs are completely transparent now...nt SidDithers Dec 2011 #15

yep. It'll be the same 20 haters every time. MjolnirTime Dec 2011 #18

This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Dec 2011 #26

"Obama cheerleader" was allowed to stand. LoZoccolo Dec 2011 #30

This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Dec 2011 #33

Ditto K&R unapatriciated Dec 2011 #170

Are you assuming people only "rec" topics they agree with? jtrockville Dec 2011 #65

"20 haters" of what? AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2011 #70

"20 haters" .... ???? hmmm.... defendandprotect Dec 2011 #83

looks like there is way more than 20 Skittles Dec 2011 #172

so there's one hundred. it's the same names again and again. MjolnirTime Dec 2011 #308

aw, poor baby Skittles Dec 2011 #310

seeing who recs is a good thing MjolnirTime Dec 2011 #312

Monday morning it is at 74 recs Bluenorthwest Dec 2011 #189

You got that right. It will soon become even more apparent who is working overtime Number23 Dec 2011 #269

Why would you be so interested in that? boston bean Dec 2011 #36

It really tells me who DUrecs threads like this... SidDithers Dec 2011 #37

And does that give you some sort of insight into individual posters? boston bean Dec 2011 #38

I don't have political enemies... SidDithers Dec 2011 #42

And will you use that information boston bean Dec 2011 #45

No I won't... SidDithers Dec 2011 #49

Well, you were quite off topic for the thread in your reply. boston bean Dec 2011 #52

"Off-Topic" is only germane to the Original Post of the thread, not posts within the thread...nt SidDithers Dec 2011 #54

Well, it made me wonder why you wrote what you wrote, that is all. boston bean Dec 2011 #55

Interesting discussion. nt Skip Intro Dec 2011 #122

Very Interesting Post indeed! mrdmk Dec 2011 #158

I agree with you Bluenorthwest Dec 2011 #193

I look at it differently. unapatriciated Dec 2011 #176

OMG!!! chervilant Dec 2011 #184

If you're keeping a list, add me to it. AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2011 #98

He can add me as well. unapatriciated Dec 2011 #173

I'm loving the new transparency. Grateful for Hope Dec 2011 #53

yup. lol dionysus Dec 2011 #64

lol LoZoccolo Dec 2011 #78

Why? The same mentality as those supporting this bill, eh? Send them to Gitmo, ask questions later.. sadge goddess Dec 2011 #115

that is disturbing and I could think of more. But the thought of President Gingrich would convince Douglas Carpenter Dec 2011 #17

The devil would probably be a better leader than Gingrich. Aerows Dec 2011 #23

Same here Doctor_J Dec 2011 #34

Stop and think where that has taken the party and the Congress defendandprotect Dec 2011 #87

but there is no choice - there is not going to be a true liberal as a viable candidate in 2012 Douglas Carpenter Dec 2011 #96

Then mission accomplished! OMG! sadge goddess Dec 2011 #117

if we are going to make Nazi comparisons - then those who didn't unite around the strongest candidat Douglas Carpenter Dec 2011 #118

I won't make that comparison but as for it defying reason, not so fast there... sadge goddess Dec 2011 #120

and the election of Newt Gingrich would be an enormous step in that direction Douglas Carpenter Dec 2011 #130

Hell to the no! I am OVER sadge goddess Dec 2011 #132

I felt that way in 1980 and voted for Barry Commoner of the Citizens Party rather than Jimmy Carter Douglas Carpenter Dec 2011 #134

I don't know what we are now allowed to say here so I am very wary of asking you more info sadge goddess Dec 2011 #136

Exactly! I made this mistake twice, voting for Nader in 1996 and 2000. It didn't matter that I live Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #201

Hold your nose. wtmusic Dec 2011 #20

I don't think the Constitution can be overridden by legislation. MH1 Dec 2011 #24

Good post, thank you emulatorloo Dec 2011 #60

some years ago living in Moab UT newspeak Dec 2011 #234

'if' ??? spanone Dec 2011 #27

I used to take your position up until about two days ago. Then, as it coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #28

Is it just me Aerows Dec 2011 #40

I echo what ProSense has said. boxman15 Dec 2011 #31

Maybe but it misses the offered point that the President like other before him may be TheKentuckian Dec 2011 #280

This message was self-deleted by its author maximusveritas Dec 2011 #41

so vote for newt-romney demtenjeep Dec 2011 #43

I look for Newt to pick Dan Burton B Calm Dec 2011 #47

Nation is crying out for a democratic liberal NOT a move to the RIGHT defendandprotect Dec 2011 #89

Sigh. New site. Same tired deflections. nt Union Scribe Dec 2011 #168

Why should U.S. citizens be exempt? Capitalocracy Dec 2011 #44

Good question. Kaleko Dec 2011 #110

The devil's advocate part was saying why should U.S. citizens be exempt Capitalocracy Dec 2011 #114

Just out of curiosity bondwooley Oct 2014 #322

So, after the inevitable "compromise" will the govenment have the power to indefinitely detain? Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #50

It's looking that way. Occulus Dec 2011 #51

The food fight about who to blame is not very critical TheKentuckian Dec 2011 #62

Well said. The real issue is whether our government can exert tyrannical power of it's people. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #63

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2011 #72

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2011 #77

I acknowledge your capitulation to my argument Anatos Dec 2011 #229

Life sucks, for sure. Anatos Dec 2011 #71

Are they "accountable" after the fact? Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #82

We are discussing Obama, not Bush. Anatos Dec 2011 #226

W are discussing accountability. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #236

Exactly Anatos Dec 2011 #266

That snark 'life sucks'? Bluenorthwest Dec 2011 #197

My response Anatos Dec 2011 #230

Bravo. nm rhett o rick Dec 2011 #144

This message was self-deleted by its author mvd Dec 2011 #58

This message was self-deleted by its author pa28 Oct 2014 #321

If you can't vote for Obama Anatos Dec 2011 #68

I can't vote for Obama in 2012. Occulus Dec 2011 #161

Thank you. unapatriciated Dec 2011 #177

In the past Anatos Dec 2011 #231

Well I'm not ready to turn my card in and will leave you with this link. unapatriciated Dec 2011 #240

I have no problem with the ACLU Anatos Dec 2011 #262

I've written my congressman... unapatriciated Dec 2011 #279

As well you should Anatos Dec 2011 #285

I don't think it is I who is doing the "sloppy thinking". unapatriciated Dec 2011 #289

Of course you don't Anatos Dec 2011 #298

again with the name calling. unapatriciated Dec 2011 #302

again with the weak response Anatos Dec 2011 #314

lol Love your new math. unapatriciated Dec 2011 #315

There was no math. D'oh! Anatos Dec 2011 #319

Oh my Anatos Dec 2011 #224

I suggest you read more. Occulus Dec 2011 #239

feel free Anatos Dec 2011 #263

Wow indepat Dec 2011 #235

I'm not sure Anatos Dec 2011 #287

It is not terrorism that is "cockamamie bullshit," it is the erosion of constitutional protections indepat Dec 2011 #290

I understand Anatos Dec 2011 #299

It is NOT good sense to not vote at all. That is a shocking thing to say. Demit Dec 2011 #214

Many true things are shocking Anatos Dec 2011 #288

It is *precisely* in the act of voting that I exercise my responsibility as a citizen, Demit Dec 2011 #300

In a purely imaginary way, perhaps Anatos Dec 2011 #313

who else are you going to vote for? Gingrich? Liberal_in_LA Dec 2011 #69

I think it's a pretty safe assumtion that no one is voting for Gingrich. Fearless Dec 2011 #73

Btw, THANK YOU ... didn't know about this -- sad -- !! defendandprotect Dec 2011 #76

"If this is true, won't support"->"bad judgment" gulliver Dec 2011 #81

Sorry, but Im pretty sure this has to do with NDAA 1031 not election suppression. n/t teddy51 Dec 2011 #84

It doesn't matter. Presidential elections are not decided by who votes for whom. Beam Me Up Dec 2011 #85

You.. sendero Dec 2011 #121

Way too much misinformation on this bill... bhikkhu Dec 2011 #86

Glenn Greenwald is a Constitutional Lawyer and he read it.... Said it was "more of the same" as KoKo Dec 2011 #125

Do you have something on this bill that proves that it isn't as bad as it appears? I would like to teddy51 Dec 2011 #88

Why not? They voted for war in Iraq - Patriot Act - Homeland Security! defendandprotect Dec 2011 #91

Thats true, but I sure hope they are smarter than voting on a bill with the ability teddy51 Dec 2011 #93

"teddy 51" most of them are KoKo Dec 2011 #128

so that's enough for you to prefer a Republican in the White House? hfojvt Dec 2011 #90

That's messed up! Odin2005 Dec 2011 #94

So, if the President vetos the legislation, he has your mzmolly Dec 2011 #97

If he doesn't, as promised, he won't have mine. joshcryer Dec 2011 #127

My question was if he does, mzmolly Dec 2011 #157

I've defended him pretty strongly, but this would be a very strong flip. joshcryer Dec 2011 #163

I ran into to the same wall in 2008 when he said he'd escalate the lost war in Afghanistan. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #111

The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises emulatorloo Dec 2011 #135

Are you for real? The president has kept a long list of promises. Your disdain for him will Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #202

I still think Obama ... GeorgeGist Dec 2011 #113

Sheesh....some of the replies seem like KoKo Dec 2011 #124

No, the President thinks he already has non-citizen detention ability. joshcryer Dec 2011 #126

Josh...the President should be in control of our Military. (Commander in Chief) KoKo Dec 2011 #129

Right, because any Republican has to be better than Obama. pnwmom Dec 2011 #133

Obviously you should vote for a Republican instead. n/t Lil Missy Dec 2011 #145

I still can. bonzotex Dec 2011 #147

Democratic President and a Democratically controlled Senate TheKentuckian Dec 2011 #281

What choice do I have? Texasgal Dec 2011 #149

Let us know when you find out that it IS true. CakeGrrl Dec 2011 #159

Overreaction. We don't need people out helping the Republicans. RBInMaine Dec 2011 #175

Why are you afraid to suport a fair trial using centuries old constitutional safeguards? scentopine Dec 2011 #196

Obama thinks he has this one in the bag, so he'll continue to pander to his republican base... scentopine Dec 2011 #194

Really? You've been able to see what's going on in his mind? That's mighty arrogant Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #203

I woke up late...is this another one of those "cut off your nose to spite your face" threads? Walk away Dec 2011 #200

Obama is scuttling constitutional safeguards that separate us from 3rd world despot oligarchy scentopine Dec 2011 #283

Indeed, if this is true and this becomes law ooglymoogly Dec 2011 #211

I really wish you would have given more information about this clip so that we could easily find Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #219

I don't know yet what is going on here. Vattel Dec 2011 #221

i'm mixed on this one, it has the potential to be abused. okieinpain Dec 2011 #225

Day One OVERPAID01 Dec 2011 #241

If a Rethug becomes our next president as a result of the left splitting its vote ... Martin Eden Dec 2011 #246

Perhaps Obama should seek the votes of the left instead of pandering to the "middle". Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #257

Still out of joint, I see. Martin Eden Dec 2011 #264

Really? My single vote will swing the election? Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #265

Sorry, I didn't realize you were the only one on the left ... Martin Eden Dec 2011 #267

What... you think seeing what almost happened in France, and what is happening in Canada redqueen Dec 2011 #292

Making good decisions comes from experience ... Martin Eden Dec 2011 #296

How would a republican president be worse? bowens43 Dec 2011 #306

You're kidding, right? Martin Eden Dec 2011 #317

Now can you see how you'd vote for him? ClassWarrior Dec 2011 #261

that's fucked up but i'll still vote for him because arely staircase Dec 2011 #271

I wish I could vote none of the above .... littlewolf Dec 2011 #277

So don't then. yellowcanine Dec 2011 #286

Well, ProSense Dec 2011 #293

OK, you convinced me. Old and In the Way Dec 2011 #294

I don't see how I could vote for him in November 2012 Jamastiene Oct 2014 #326