Easy on the old site, new site searches are wonky and everything. Not to mention I’ve literally thrown that stuff in your face before with your old posts and you ignored it then and you would ignore it again.
Plus it is difficult to find your posts when you have to search Zeb, Zeb1, Mick, and the other accounts. It would take a special prosecutor to dig through all the accounts and posts of yours.
All part of the game though. Everyone creates usernames so they can agree with themselves!
As a fellow money maker I agree but the rebs have gone full retard… Seems like these days conservative takes a back seat to right wing none sense
The Dems have no direction and dont get people motivated about any issues except they hate Trump. They cant sell their ideas well. If they focused on universal health care and getting out of wars they would do better IMO Nobody like hearing higher taxs even broke turds think one day they will be rich
[quote=“H_factor, post:883, topic:226860, full:true”]
Easy on the old site, new site searches are wonky and everything. [/quote]
Well I will remind you that you mentioned searching my old posts and had plenty of nasty remarks about all of those posts that you allegedly read. You also made certain charges that you now cannot back up. Funny how that works. You have not changed much H.
But to be fair I agree with you. The new site is definitely harder to search than the old one.
What I find ironic is that apparently the only reason that you have returned is that you feel this is an opportune time to attack me as I have not read any other recent posts from you that are not about me (maybe I missed one but I doubt it). Now why would you do that? Simple, we have always been on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Somehow though you have squared that with your narrative that I am overly partisan. So, you have staunchly defended democrats you stop posting for a while and then you comeback and attack me for staunchly defending republicans. Oh the irony…
Seems the pot is calling the kettle black.
I agree with you. But, logically we both know that a democrat President will raise taxes. Hillary promised a 5% hike. And we also both know that she would appoint a left winger to the Supreme Court. That harms all sorts of conservative issues not the least of which is gun rights.
So…while we may both have our issues with the republican party (I stated mine above) is it not logical to continue to vote republican absolutely knowing that the democrats are going to do what we definitely don’t want done and the republicans at least might keep their word and appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court (as Trump did) and lower taxes as well, along with other positive things for the country?
Someone jump in here and correct me if there is a flaw in my argument.
Don’t get sucked in H factor!
It was more fun than your usual posts…
LOL…RUN H FACTOR!!
And don’t look back…
Are we not here to do political battle via a debate forum?
If you want all warm and fuzzy I can give you that …but sheesh.
I prefer to debate politely, reasonably, honestly, and civilly, although there are admittedly a few things that set me off and I will give as good as I get.
I would characterize “political battle” as the reason I never look at facebook. Anathema.
I agree and although we may disagree on various things if you were to take a fair look back over all of my posts I am usually not the first one to use ad hominem attacks. I may be harsh at times but you might tend to forget what was said to me first because you agree with my opponent to begin with. Anyway…as of late I won’t even speak to those who use ad hominem attacks. So…in that regard I am done with it and have been for a while.
Anyway when I say political battle I am talking about back and forth point for point.
Edit: A good example of that is your comment to H factor above. “Don’t get sucked in”.
He came back to T Nation to attack me. I am merely defending myself with a few facts that he conveniently left out. So where is the understanding for my position? And why isn’t it there? Because you are closer to H factors politics than you are mine.
That is what this forum is all about!
I know that you and I disagree here, but I still believe a third party is a viable option. Perhaps not now (or in the 2016 election), but in the future.
I agree with the concept but in practice I think it would be very difficult. Difficult not just finding the proper candidate, but funding the campaign as well. As you know Ross Perot a (cash) billionaire who just sold his company to GM and was flush with billions ran in 1992. And he only managed to get 19% of the vote. Some say he kept GHW Bush from gaining a second term, but we don’t really know.
Anyway…if it were the right candidate and he/she actually had a chance of winning I would consider voting third party.
But then if that person won they’d have to deal with not only one hostile party, but two. I can’t imagine ether the democrats or republicans playing ball with a third party President.
I think this is a good point, but not sure if you are referencing the parties or the people. I think the people would, but the parties would not. Similar, things like the debates are geared towards the two party system.
From what I’ve seen, most people will not go for third party not because of specific issues, but because they know the person can’t win and it truly is a binary choice. For a third party candidate to gain traction, that has to change… but I’m not sure how that could be done.
I believe in balanced budgets and rule of law (as in, no double standards), so I’m automatically disqualified from being a Republican.
Sure, but times are quite a bit different now. Now that Millennials are the largest voting block I think a third party has a greater shot. Unless, obviously, that generation changes to act more like previous generations as far as voting goes.
I donno, I actually think it would be the opposite. I think half of Washington’s problem is the bitter partisanship between Dems and Republicans. I’m not sure that hatred, for lack of a better term, would exist if an independent won. I think it could free up politicians to actually do what’s in their constituents best interest versus just towing the party line in opposition of the rival party.
Lol, I’m not sure I’d go that far, but I’d probably kill over if an honest to God fiscally responsible Republican candidate ran and had a shot at winning.
Ya, this hits the nail right on the head. Two of the absolute worst candidates ran in 2016 and Gary Johnson ended up with, what, like 3% of the popular vote. He wasn’t my first choice either, but I still think he would have been a much better choice than the other two.
I think technology will have to play a role in changing the two-party system. There’s no reason candidates can’t better utilize social media as a means to get their message out more so than even going door to door in states across the country.
Oh I think you have a pretty accurate term there and I agree with you.
OK back to square one
