Washington Post rules out endorsing 'threat to democracy' Donald Trump in brutal full-page editorial - Polidicks

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50759372]I've taken World History and U.S. Naval History at my university, I know a lot about our history. The Barbary Wars occured because the Barbary States were fucking up our trade in the Mediterranean, and our ships kept getting captured. The War of 1812 occured because Britain captured our sailors and made them part of the royal navy, restricted our trade in Europe (in particular France) because Britain was at war with France, and Britain armed and provided for Native Americans in the Northwest territories which hindered our country's expansion. The US was not a main part of the opium wars or the boxer rebellion. The Mexican American War started over a territory dispute between the US and Mexico. The Spanish American War started over the USS Maine, one of our armored cruisers, getting sunk in Havana Harbor. Everything else you mentioned happened after WWI which is when we got globally involved. All of those wars started because [B][I]the national security of our country was challenged.[/I][/B] We didn't have those wars because of alliances with other countries, we had those wars because people were directly threatening us.[/QUOTE] Yellow journalism started the Spanish American War. Our nation was not challenged by Mexico. It was a border scuffle that was leveraged by Polk to start a war to get more land because Mexico rejected a previous offer. Korea was because of containment of communism. Philippines was our desire to take it from Spain. All of these weren't because our national security was threatened. Try again.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50759384]It [B]is[/B] your issue. Your the country complaining about immigration, [B]even though net immigration is down in the last 3 years so the problem you're so concerned with is solving itself[/B]. If they refuse to pay for the wall, and it hurts them as much as I suspect, it'll blow back on to you. You have this strange idea your two peoples aren't connected. They are. What hurts one, will hurt the other. They will fucking riot over it, and you'll have to commit a military action, or back down? Trump will kill thousands over it is my guess.[/QUOTE] Can you provide a source for the decrease in immigration? I am concerned with [I]illegal[/I] immigration. I don't care if people migrate here, I want people to go through the system so that we know we aren't importing druglords and murderers without control. And you are correct on what will happen to Mexico, and that is taken into consideration when you actually have to make a decision. It is a point to consider, but you can't immediately dismiss it.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50759337][QUOTE]Trump’s self-portrayal as a Horatio Alger figure has buttressed his populist appeal in 2016. But his origins were hardly humble. Fred’s fortune, based on his ownership of middle-income properties, wasn’t glamorous, but it was sizable: in 2003, a few years after Fred died, Trump and his siblings reportedly sold some of their father’s real-estate holdings for half a billion dollars. In “The Art of the Deal,” Trump cites his father as “the most important influence on me,” but in his telling his father’s main legacy was teaching him the importance of “toughness.” Beyond that, Schwartz says, Trump “barely talked about his father—he didn’t want his success to be seen as having anything to do with him.” But when Barrett investigated he found that Trump’s father was instrumental in his son’s rise, financially and politically. In the book, Trump says that “my energy and my enthusiasm” explain how, as a twenty-nine-year-old with few accomplishments, he acquired the Grand Hyatt Hotel. Barrett reports, however, that Trump’s father had to co-sign the many contracts that the deal required. He also lent Trump seven and a half million dollars to get started as a casino owner in Atlantic City; at one point, when Trump couldn’t meet payments on other loans, his father tried to tide him over by sending a lawyer to buy some three million dollars’ worth of gambling chips. Barrett told me, “Donald did make some smart moves himself, particularly in assembling the site for the Trump Tower. That was a stroke of genius.” Nonetheless, he said, “The notion that he’s a self-made man is a joke. But I guess they couldn’t call the book ‘The Art of My Father’s Deals.’ ”[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]I'm sorry but so what if he was rich to start with? That's not much of a point, the point is he took X and made it [B]X[/B] which is obviously going to be more significant with a better starting position. Sure, it isn't the "well pick yerself up by yer bootstraps!" bullshit but if I had a million bucks when I started out I would be much, much better off now. When it comes to his business prowess I really don't ever see valid criticism, it's a bunch of empty points made by people who quite often don't understand how a business works. (I'm speaking in general, not directly at you) Sometimes people cite other people as an expert source for their opinion but their claim and the source often have different levels (or types) of criticism, it just makes me lose interest in whatever that person was saying. Right now the Trump "empire" spans across multiple industries in multiple countries and I think we can all agree the guy is rolling in money, if he wasn't good at what he did then I doubt this would be the case. Criticizing his policy or what he says is one thing, but saying "well he isn't very good at business, he had help to start!" is hollow bullshit.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50759372] All of those wars started because [B][I]the national security of our country was challenged.[/I][/B] [/QUOTE] Please explain how the barbary states in the Mediterranean in the late 1700s/early 1800s were a threat to national security. Explain why a border dispute with Mexico somehow threatens the entire nation? Even if we lost, it's not as if we would cease to be a country and all start speaking Spanish. And everyone today knows that the Spanish-American War was started purely to jump into the colonial imperialism game that all the European nations were doing. Not quite sure how sending a ship to a foreign dock and it sinking (which assumed was a mine, even then they did not have the ability to confirm it) somehow threaten the entire national security of the US. The only legitimate war you mentioned that our national security was under heavy threat was the War of 1812.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50759435]Can you provide a source for the decrease in immigration? I am concerned with [I]illegal[/I] immigration. I don't care if people migrate here, I want people to go through the system so that we know we aren't importing druglords and murderers without control. And you are correct on what will happen to Mexico, and that is taken into consideration when you actually have to make a decision. It is a point to consider, but you can't immediately dismiss it.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/14/martin-omalley/martin-omalley-net-migration-mexico-was-0-2014/[/url] I don't understand how you write off the lives of human beings like that. They're not from your country, so they're not worth caring about? I don't get it dude. Yeah, they shouldn't come in illegally, but your right wing refuses to change immigration laws to make it easier/reasonable to immigrate legally so they're going to, now you're going to put up a border wall that doesn't stop the criminals, just the coyotes/people smugglers. You're going to raise the price of cocaine in NYC, which to criminal drug lords sounds like the best idea ever, so you're not really harming the people you wanted to harm, just mexican citizens.

[QUOTE=joshuadim;50759408]Yellow journalism started the Spanish American War. Our nation was not challenged by Mexico. It was a border scuffle that was leveraged by Polk to start a war to get more land because Mexico rejected a previous offer. Korea was because of containment of communism. Philippines was our desire to take it from Spain. All of these weren't because our national security was threatened. Try again.[/QUOTE] There are multiple causes for war. Our national interest was involved in each, if I can rephrase myself. The US did go to war because we wanted more land in Mexican territory, that's correct. But we did it out of our own interest, not because of an alliance or to defend another country. We ended up winning that war and getting more land. It wasn't a just cause to start a war but we became better out of it so go us. I said [B]until WWI[/B], I'm not arguing about the Korean war. With the Philippines, its the same argument with Mexico. We won and our country got better. I'm not advocating a new wave of imperialism and conquest, the time for that has long past. I am saying that our own national interest should be put before those of other countries.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50759372]I've taken World History and U.S. Naval History at my university, I know a lot about our history.[/QUOTE] amazing, you're a credit to the US educational system [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50759372][B]The Barbary Wars [/B]occured because the Barbary States were fucking up our trade in the Mediterranean, and our ships kept getting captured.[/QUOTE] so we were participating in Europe [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50759372][B]The War of 1812[/B] occurred because Britain captured our sailors and made them part of the royal navy, restricted our trade in Europe (in particular France) because Britain was at war with France, and Britain armed and provided for Native Americans in the Northwest territories which hindered our country's expansion. [/QUOTE] which is why we invaded canada and attempted to conquer it right, because of our peaceful trading [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50759372]The US was not a main part of the opium wars or the boxer rebellion. [/QUOTE] kek what the fuck, we desperately tried to push into the opium wars and the marines slaughtered a shit ton of chinese in the boxer rebellion. [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50759372][B]The Mexican American War[/B] started over a territory dispute between the US and Mexico.[/QUOTE] it was us imperialising the fuck out of mexico over dubious claims and disputes after we intentionally baited them. i mean we were peacefully trading! woops! fucking mexicans! [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50759372][B]The Spanish American War[/B] started over the USS Maine, one of our armored cruisers, getting sunk in Havana Harbor.[/QUOTE] it started because we desperately wanted to steal land from spain, were looking for any excuse to do it, and then when a badly designed ship exploded due to its bad design, we immediately used it as an excuse to kill spain. [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50759372]Everything else you mentioned happened [B]after WWI[/B] which is when we got globally involved.[/QUOTE] til that japan, korea, the phillipines and america had no interaction before wwi. amazing. [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50759372]All of those wars started because [B][I]the national security of our country was challenged.[/I][/B] We didn't have those wars because of alliances with other countries, we had those wars because people were directly threatening us.[/QUOTE] i didnt know the spanish were going to invade florida, or that those pesky chinafolk were about to overwhelm california. lets not forget about the foul blight that was 19th century japan and korea, bravely stopped by us interve- i mean peaceful trading in the region.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50759459]Please explain how the barbary states in the Mediterranean in the late 1700s/early 1800s were a threat to national security. Explain why a border dispute with Mexico somehow threatens the entire nation? Even if we lost, it's not as if we would cease to be a country and all start speaking Spanish. And everyone today knows that the Spanish-American War was started purely to jump into the colonial imperialism game that all the European nations were doing. Not quite sure how sending a ship to a foreign dock and it sinking (which assumed was a mine, even then they did not have the ability to confirm it) somehow threaten the entire national security of the US. The only legitimate war you mentioned that our national security was under heavy threat was the War of 1812.[/QUOTE] See my above post. [B]I was wrong in saying it was national security, rather each of the wars occurred out of national self-interest, so forgive me for not being clear.[/B] I'm trying to argue that we shouldn't get involved in affairs that don't pose any benefit to us or jeopardize our security.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50758855]If you really want to make a change in the political system then rather than merely voting, go be a part of the political system yourself. I've considered it after my graduation because I'm sick of having to dumb down science for lawyers and politicians and would much rather have a Congressman have a [b][I]technical, scientific background[/I][/b] than attorney experience. [/QUOTE] That's a tad ironic to state, isn't it? I mean, shit, dude - you're willing to go out and vote for the loon that genuinely and wholly believes that vaccines cause autism, and advocates for kids being given... less, as if that would halt the supposed autism-giving prowess of the shots? That, and his assertions that the process of climate change was a fucking Chinese hoax, or that it straight-up didn't matter, generally gives off the impression that Trump is not the most mindful of technical and scientific matters.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50759493] I'm not advocating a new wave of imperialism and conquest, the time for that has long past. I am saying that our own national interest should be put before those of other countries.[/QUOTE] "I'm not advocating for wars of conquest, [I]but[/I] let me list all these wars of conquest as to why working for our national interest and no other is a positive thing"

[QUOTE=N.A.N.B;50759519]That's a tad ironic to state, isn't it? I mean, shit, dude - you're willing to go out and vote for the loon that genuinely and wholly believes that vaccines cause autism, and advocates for kids being given... less, as if that would halt the supposed autism-giving prowess of the shots? That, and his assertions that the process of climate change was a fucking Chinese hoax, or that it straight-up didn't matter, generally gives off the impression that Trump is not the most mindful of technical and scientific matters.[/QUOTE] To add onto it: also believes that women should be [URL="http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/03/donald_trump_abortion_stance_women_should_be_punis.html"]punished for abortion[/URL] (which since then has conviniently backpedaled on), taxes should go back to pre WW2 levels (which will not fund anything we currently spend on), and wants to "strongly consider" [URL="http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/01/would_trump_seek_to_have_gay_marriage_overturned.html"]overturning the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage[/URL]

[QUOTE=N.A.N.B;50759519]That's a tad ironic to state, isn't it? I mean, shit, dude - you're willing to go out and vote for the loon that genuinely and wholly believes that vaccines cause autism, and advocates for kids being given... less, as if that would halt the supposed autism-giving prowess of the shots? That, and his assertions that the process of climate change was a fucking Chinese hoax, or that it straight-up didn't matter, generally gives off the impression that Trump is not the most mindful of technical and scientific matters.[/QUOTE] He is wrong on a lot of scientific matters but I look at the bigger picture. The only solution I see to climate change is nuclear energy which is in the Republican energy plan. I don't care what they do with coal because it can be changed in the next administration(s). As far as I know Trump hasn't formed a bill calling for a national ban on vaccines so I don't see how his opinion matters. And honestly very few people in our government have a technical background. Almost every government leader in China does. Anything the democrats spew out about clean energy was given to them in a 30 minute power point from a solar or wind company. Its a problem for both sides. [editline]22nd July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50759536]"I'm not advocating for wars of conquest, [I]but[/I] let me list all these wars of conquest as to why working for our national interest and no other is a positive thing"[/QUOTE] Come on, you can't argue that winning those wars didn't end up benefiting us. Your Gary Johnson governed a previously Mexican territory. Good things happen when we act in our own interest.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50759575] I don't care what they do with coal because it can be changed in the next administration(s) [/QUOTE] I'm going to take a guess that you frequent casinos a lot. Because you sure as hell like to gamble high.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50759575]He is wrong on a lot of scientific matters but I look at the bigger picture. The only solution I see to climate change is nuclear energy which is in the Republican energy plan. I don't care what they do with coal because it can be changed in the next administration(s). As far as I know Trump hasn't formed a bill calling for a national ban on vaccines so I don't see how his opinion matters. [/QUOTE] The only bigger picture here is a billionaire businessman who believes climate change is a hoax doesn't give a shit where our environment is going as long as he can make a pretty buck from its destruction. And just because he hasn't said anything about vaccines in his campaign doesn't make that opinion any less relevant. He might try to introduce it in the general election campaign or, god forbid, in office, which hopefully never happens.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50759324]Yeah I saw that part of this "scathing editorial" but the Washington Post cited the Washington Post seemingly taking Trump's response out of context. Way to open up on that point, Washington Post! By the way, was it clear that the Washington Post wanted you to read the Washington Post? Yes, I too enjoy citing my own opinions as fact and then having other people parrot my words as pure truth. Beyond that I'm not sure what ignorance Trump has displayed, and really, [I]I don't care[/I] because our government is chock full of people who don't know what the constitution says. Trump is not going to be any different than all those other people, so using any supposed ignorance on his part as some extraordinary reason why he's [I]just terrible[/I] is quite honestly absolutely fucking stupid.[/QUOTE] If you don't like the Washington Post, how about a few other sources? [quote]In attempting to demonstrate his reverence for the U.S. Constitution, Mr. Trump said that he supported not just Article I, but an Article XII as well. That caused some brows to furrow, because the U.S. Constitution has only seven articles. “It wasn’t a surprise to anybody that he might get a little bit ahead of himself regarding to the number of articles that exist in the Constitution,” said Rep. Mark Sanford (R., S.C.), who wasn’t impressed with Mr. Trump in his visit. “There were a number of folks that looked at each other funny when he said ‘I’m for Article I, I’m for Article II, I’m for Article XII.”[/quote] [url]http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/07/07/donald-trumps-pledge-to-defend-article-xii-of-constitution-raises-eyebrows/[/url] [quote]“At one point, somebody asked about Article I powers: What will you do to protect them? I think his response was, ‘I want to protect Article I, Article II, Article XII,’ going down the list. There is no Article XII,” Sanford said.[/quote] [url]http://www.mediaite.com/print/donald-trump-promises-to-defend-articles-of-constitution-that-dont-actually-exist/[/url] [quote]"I wasn't particularly impressed," Sanford told reporters after Thursday's meeting at an event. "I think it was the normal stream of consciousness that's long on hyperbole and short on facts. At one point there was mentioned -- somebody asked about, you know, Article I powers and what would you do to protect them and you know, I think his response was 'I want to protect Article I, Article II, Article XII -- go down the list.' As we both know there is no Article XII." Trump's answer came in response to a question from a House Republican about whether Trump as president would defend the prerogatives of Congress that are laid out in Article I of the Constitution. The issue is highly important to lawmakers who are frustrated by the powers of the presidency, which are defined in Article II of the Constitution but that have expanded in recent years by the increased use of executive authority.[/quote] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/08/politics/sanford-questions-trump-constitution-gaffe/[/url] So how was it out of context?

[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;50759516] so we were participating in Europe [/QUOTE] The War with the Barbary States was for ourselves, not because France or Britain forced us to go fight them as a trade condition.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50759575] Come on, you can't argue that winning those wars didn't end up benefiting us. Your Gary Johnson governed a previously Mexican territory. Good things happen when we act in our own interest.[/QUOTE] Rich people in Washington and New York benefited from it while the poor died in the trenches. Let's take a look at the Spanish-American War, then to see its benefits. Out of it we gained: Cuba - 50 years of no diplomatic relations, high tensions and a step above being a banana republic Puerto Rico - So far in debt that it will be economically depressed for decades to come Philippines - Another poor nation, has its own insurgencies (and cost more American lives after the war fighting off insurgencies) Guam - I honestly don't know much about this place, but I've not heard of it somehow benefiting the nation as a whole for owning it. When "our national interest" involves bloodshed, it's not in anyone's interest.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50759605]I'm going to take a guess that you frequent casinos a lot. Because you sure as hell like to gamble high.[/QUOTE] wow epic zinger I don't agree with Coal. I don't even see it being competitive in a free market because of natural gas. Renewables can't compete in a free market right now which is why they are subsidized. More importantly, renewables aren't able to provide constant base load electricity in high volume at present. You can argue that in the future that won't be the case, but honestly reviving nuclear energy is going to be the only way to fight climate change. Once you get a plant built you can't shut it down as easily as you can with coal plants because they're major investments.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50759575]He is wrong on a lot of scientific matters but I look at the bigger picture. The only solution I see to climate change is nuclear energy which is in the Republican energy plan. I don't care what they do with coal because it can be changed in the next administration(s). As far as I know Trump hasn't formed a bill calling for a national ban on vaccines so I don't see how his opinion matters. And honestly very few people in our government have a technical background. Almost every government leader in China does. Anything the democrats spew out about clean energy was given to them in a 30 minute power point from a solar or wind company. Its a problem for both sides. [/QUOTE] There is so much wrong with this statement and I only have 1% battery left. Hopefully I can address this comprehensively later, but as of right now all I can tell you RIPBILLYMAYS is that you don't understand the implications of these beliefs, the makeup of congress, or the makup of xinping's happy harem at all.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50757779]Read the original article. Check the sources. Check the facts. If you still support Donald after that, you're just doing so to watch the world burn. Donald Trump wants to destabalize the country in an effort and bid to use his wealth, and the wealth of his backers to reshape the "democracy" in america. If you don't think that's the case, or you think i'm a fucking lunatic for thinking he's playing the long game here, too bad, just start thinking about who's behind him, why, and what kind of person he honestly is. He doesn't want to help any of you. He doesn't even care about you in the slightest. This is about him, him, him.[/QUOTE] Hearsay, irrelevant. Maybe you could make the case if it were Hillary Clinton, where evidence of her corruption is pretty much plastered over most of the internet for everyone to see. I'd most likely vote for the Green Party's candidate if they had a chance of winning, but Donald Trump is really the lesser of two evils for once. The Democratic and Republican parties are starting to do full 180s on their principles, and I'm kind of shocked at how quickly that has happened.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50759627]The War with the Barbary States was for ourselves, not because France or Britain forced us to go fight them as a trade condition.[/QUOTE] man youre right its such a shame we were strong armed into ww1, ww2 and literally every war after that! we need to go back to our totally peaceful isolationism that involved only occasionally (as in several a decade) invading foreign nations for personal greed!

[QUOTE=space1;50759680]Hearsay, irrelevant. Maybe you could make the case if it were Hillary Clinton, where evidence of her corruption is pretty much plastered over most of the internet for everyone to see.[/QUOTE] Have you ever looked into any of that? Not all of it is as credible as you think. Trumps corruption, and incompetence as a potential world leader is being documented constantly. He's far worse.

So vote for someone who's fucking insane, or vote for a criminal. Y'know this is the first year i'd be able to vote, but i think i'll pass.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50759668]wow epic zinger I don't agree with Coal. I don't even see it being competitive in a free market because of natural gas. Renewables can't compete in a free market right now which is why they are subsidized. More importantly, renewables aren't able to provide constant base load electricity in high volume at present. You can argue that in the future that won't be the case, but honestly reviving nuclear energy is going to be the only way to fight climate change. Once you get a plant built you can't shut it down as easily as you can with coal plants because they're major investments.[/QUOTE] I agree that going nuclear is a good plan but to say "I don't care what they do with coal though" is just contradicting why you would want to go nuclear in the first place. "I want to have clean energy but I could care less if they continue using dirty energy" [editline]23rd July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=AaronM202;50759725]So vote for someone who's fucking insane, or vote for a criminal. Y'know this is the first year i'd be able to vote, but i think i'll pass.[/QUOTE] And this is why Trump will unfortunately win.

[QUOTE=Aircraft;50759676]There is so much wrong with this statement and I only have 1% battery left. Hopefully I can address this comprehensively later, but as of right now all I can tell you RIPBILLYMAYS is that you don't understand the implications of these beliefs, the makeup of congress, or the makup of xinping's happy harem at all.[/QUOTE] I don't like how China is run like a machine, and their system of government has no place in the US. I don't want the human rights issues China has. I don't want a child policy (which has worked) to limit our population growth. But you have conservatives thinking climate change is a hoax, democrats thinking nuclear waste is a bigger issue than carbon emissions and air pollution, stem cell research funding getting cancelled because God disapproves of it, ect. We need more technical people in Washington.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50759734] And this is why Trump will unfortunately win.[/QUOTE] Honestly, i get the feeling either option would end horribly, which is why im sitting this one out.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;50759760]Honestly, i get the feeling either option would end horribly, which is why im sitting this one out.[/QUOTE] Think of it this way, Trump has zero government experience + just about everything listed in the OP's article. Where as Clinton was negligent in the use of emails. While that is bad, does it really compare at all to any of the issues of Trump becoming president? I'm not saying Clinton is the best candidate ever to run for president. By far she's not, but to think she's somehow worse in an overall comparison to Trump taking in all the factors is insane in itself.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;50759760]Honestly, i get the feeling either option would end horribly, which is why im sitting this one out.[/QUOTE] Even if you sit out, someone will still get elected and it will still end horribly. At least have a voice in it before it goes to shit.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50759734]I agree that going nuclear is a good plan but to say "I don't care what they do with coal though" is just contradicting why you would want to go nuclear in the first place. "I want to have clean energy but I could care less if they continue using dirty energy" [editline]23rd July 2016[/editline] And this is why Trump will unfortunately win.[/QUOTE] Nuclear is going fucking [B]NOWHERE[/B] right now, and almost all of our plants are going to go offline by 2050. Unless investors want to take the risk of constructing submerged or floating nuclear power plants, its going to take 10 years to get a traditional nuclear power plant online. Before you can even start construction you need to make nuclear energy competitive with other sources so people will invest in it, and right now nuclear is competing with subsidized renewable and cheap natural gas. The Democrats have solar and wind stuck so far up their assess they don't see that having an enormous renewable infrastructure entails having natural gas or coal to provide base load power and peak power when the sun doesn't shine. Coal is the [B]least[/B] concerning thing right now because it won't be able to compete with natural gas. Even if it can, the most important thing right now is that [B]WE GET NUCLEAR ONLINE, AND RIGHT NOW ONLY THE REPUBLICANS ARE EVEN LOOKING IN NUCLEAR'S DIRECTION[/B]

[QUOTE=joshuadim;50759776]Even if you sit out, someone will still get elected and it will still end horribly. At least have a voice in it before it goes to shit.[/QUOTE] But why. Both choices are fucking terrible.