Englebert

I don't like the pettiness of Trump either, but I will take that over Hillary's outright lies and blatant corruptness any day. Trump deserves his high unfavorable rating, but Hillary's unfavorable rating should be off the charts. If you include the illegal and non-breathing voters, her unfavorable rating should be well over 100%.

Is the turnover rate for Koch any higher than other companies? And like Nash, I too would like to know what you consider as the Kock's "treating workers badly".

I have to say, the author of the article did more to justify a reason to vote for Trump based on the Supreme Court pick(s) than nullify it. You can replace Trump's name with Obama and have the same arguments. He then goes on to question Trump's temperament and says there is no evidence that Trump will actually nominate a true Conservative. While this is true, I'm pretty sure everyone is fairly certain that Hillary will nominate a ultra-Liberal judge. That is known. Point...Trump. It is also known that Hillary will try to appoint anti-gun judge(s). Trump is unknown, but none of the judges he listed are anti-second amendment. Point...Trump. And I think the author severely downplays the damage that an ultra-Liberal Supreme Court will do to this country. This country, under Hillary with the backing of the Supreme Court, will continue to be flooded with illegal immigrants...and that number will grow substantially, considering her borderless attitude. Our country cannot sustain the government handouts being given now. We are $20 trillion in debt and climbing. One equally great or possibly greater issue than illegal immigration in my opinion though is Hillary being afforded the ability to stack the court in favor of unconstitutional judges when evaluating the second amendment. I have zero doubt that Hillary will begin making unconstitutional executive orders banning certain guns, and this will be upheld by her stacked court. Assault weapons, although not defined, will be the first to go. (Which is ironic because hammers are the weapon of choice for more murders than "assault weapons".) Handguns will be the next target, as will gun manufacturers and ammunition manufacturers. She will enact orders in which you have to pay yearly fees to exercise your second amendment right (the only right that our forefathers found necessary to include the term "shall not be infringed".) But the biggest one will be mandatory background checks. The qualifications to own a gun will get tighter and tighter to the point that the Pope will not be able to pass a background check. These unlawful orders will be upheld by the stacked Supreme Court. There is no conspiracy theory here. The evidence for Hillary attempting all these things (and many more) are abundant. She will need a stacked court, and her being elected will almost guarantee it. Thus, I would vote, and highly encourage everyone to vote for Trump based on this one issue alone.

I would also like to see a third party on the debate stage. If there was ever a time for a third party to make a run, this would be it.

Never crossed my mind. If you would have called me ugly, stupid or some other name then... And the reasons I have previously stated that I would puke when voting for Trump is that I am convinced that he is not a Conservative. He feels that he, as an elected government official, can cure the ills of the American people...a big government guy. We definitely agree on that. I feel I have a choice between two Liberals, Trump is just the lesser of the two evils. Cruz and Rand Paul were my first and second choices.

I will disagree with the author's logic (or lack thereof) for voting third party. He delves into the theoretical of the long-term consequences without evaluating the immediate consequences. I find that very flawed logic. His long-term consequences are just based on the now, without factoring in the changes resulting from the current election winner. The actions of the winning party will consolidate the losing party voters.

I will vote for whoever hurts Hillary's chances more. I would vote for Koko The Gorilla over Hillary. I'm dead serious. While y'all are laughing, I will explain. Koko's only ability would be to basically keep the status quo. I feel Hillary will inflict (more) major damage to this country. Koko will not have the ability to nominate a Supreme Court nominee. Koko will not have the ability to enact more of the Global Warming Lie legislation. Koko will not try to limit/eliminate 2nd Amendment rights. Koko will not have the ability to raise taxes. Koko will not try to turn this country more socialist than it's become. Koko will not have the ability to do a lot of things Hillary wants to do. Although this country severely needs a new direction, Koko at least would not have the ability to inflict more damage. Now, since it's clear I don't want Hillary in office, I must choose the best strategy to prevent her from occupying the White House. Johnson (or any of the other third party choices) has zero chance of beating either candidate. Therefore, a vote for third party means one less vote in opposition to Hillary. (No flawed logic here.) If Johnson was a more viable candidate, I would love to vote for him. I strongly disagree with some of his policies, but I also align with many of them. Same with Trump. I don't align with any of Hillary's policies...none that I can think of. I would not be opposed to any non-Liberal, and I do mean any (including the clinically insane) gaining the White House over any Progressive Liberal. My choices will start with whoever is the most Capitalistic and working my way down to a slug before a Progressive Liberal. So to answer your question, I would consider a third party candidate. But that candidate would have to have a reasonable chance of preventing the Liberal from gaining the White House. My answer pertains to this election only. I would love for this country to move to three or even four major parties. I don't see it happening in the near future, but the upside would be terrific. The problem is that the choices are basically dichotic...big government versus small government control. Everything else takes a back seat. Any third party that emerges will pull their majority of voters from one side, thus allowing the other side to dominate. A fourth party could combat that, but then one side will conglomerate to emerge as a superparty again. The other side would then pool, thus going back to two major parties. The best option would be to have about twenty choices in every election, choices up and down the spectrum. But many parties/politicians will always convince voters that we need the "together we stand" strategy to prevent the other side from winning, which will always lead back to a two party system.

I have a feeling this idea was concocted at a meeting of the U.N. "big wigs", who each flew their private 747s thousands of miles to attend, all while sitting around a table feasting on filet mignon. And if the effects of greenhouse gasses are of such dire concern, I want to know when the U.N. will ban volcanoes. Maybe we should tax all countries that have a volcano erupt within their borders. And for a serious question, do countries have a contest to see who can send the biggest morons as their U.N. representatives?

I can't even imagine the media outrage this would have sparked had it been the Bush administration. Calls for impeachment would be the headlines on every outlet.

So Obama should resign immediately for not knowing the U.S. has only 50 states. Hillary should remove herself as candidate because as Head Of State she did not possess the skill set to identify classified material when presented. Who is pathetic? (That is obviously a rhetorical question.)

I'm not very adventurous when trying exotic or strange foods. I grew up with Cajun friends so I have eaten some things: Blackbird Squirrel Coon Nutria Gar Dog food (had to try it once) Had to swallow my pride a few times.

His strategy is "Apologize for being the United States and promise that we won't call them any 'hurtful' names."

I think that looks more like a smirk. The volcano is saying to global warming nutjobs, "What dumbarses. I spew more CO2 into the atmosphere than anything, but the President and his administration want to blame it on man."

And yet you have trouble articulating what that stupid stuff is. You just go straight to personal attacks.

And many whites used to support the KKK. As history has shown, after a while they will learn the fallacy of their ways.

When you have no argument, attack the messenger. The problem with you is that you're not even good at it. You can't even defend your personal attacks. If someone writes stupid crap on here, how about pointing out why it's stupid. Instead you want to talk about Trump's hair and mannerisms, or being fake Christians, or being racist. And everybody on here can see that. Well, almost everybody.

Yep, that's the narrative of the Liberal leadership. Your paraphrasing skills need a little work though.

Republicans don't want to help poor people is a good Liberal catch phrase. And negative stereotyping is almost exclusively the domain of Liberals. If you watched the DNC then this is painfully obvious.

Oops, wrong quote.

Republicans are racist is a good Liberal catch phrase. Republicans want dirty air and dirty water is a good Liberal catch phrase. Republicans hate gay people is a good Liberal catch phrase. We can go down this road all do long...well I can. And Congress has done too much already...to the tune of $20 trillion in debt. I wish we would pay them to stay home.

Spoken by the King of the Leash.

So are a bunch of other people. Too bad most identify as Liberal. And you will vote for an unconvicted felon as long as she promises free stuff. Now who is the embarrassment?

Such hateful remarks with no evidence. Sounds like you are guilty of the very thing you rail against. Pedophilia! Ring a bell?

Wow, way to keep up with the conversation. You are venturing into Big Girl territory. If you can't keep up or understand, maybe you shouldn't interject yourself into the conversation.

As I have asked numerous times, show me some proof of Trumps racists rants. Every time I have asked, no evidence has been shown. Why do I feel like no evidence will be shown again this time. Probably because you have been one of the targets of this request and you have yet to show any evidence. If you want to play this game, I can also. new tobie is a pedophile. Don't ask for evidence because I will just ignore you and move on to a different topic...but I will keep repeating the allegation until people start believing me. This is as easy as throwing out the race card. I think I will keep doing it.