[WideRight05]

What you posted is unintelligible, it's that simple.

But no, I don't need any help in understanding what I wrote. Neither do I need any help in understanding the changes in our country, or the ideological insanities that drive those responsible for having made those changes. Especially during the past 8 years. What I said was that past your intent to insult me, I no more get the point of your post than I do the deal with pictures of corn dogs. But as you know, I always appreciate the opportunity to express my opinions. And in this case as they may contrast to the times, Romney and McCain and especially Ryan, were doing a much better job of disguising their true agendas back then. Taking that into consideration, and though I don't know what you were trying to say, (that might make two of us) I can post the following.

I changed my mind about the motives of McCain, Romney and Ryan, because they have since proven themselves to support certain social justice policies of the left. And BTW, I make no apology for having the smarts to see what lies before us. Unlike Libertarians and their ilk, I see no middle ground from which one can lay back and take pot shots at the political system, thusly claiming to be too good to participate because in the minds of such, they are above the system. Recognizing the intentions of those who intend to flush their vote by voting for someone who has no chance of winning, say Daffy Duck for example, Democrats think they can therefore level the playing field by parlaying the afore mentioned percentage with their own decaying base in saying that both candidates have soaring negatives. Ironically there is precedent to the madness because Reid used the technique when he blamed Republicans for the Congressional gridlock he over which he presided. And why would they say such a thing about their own candidate? Just ask yourself which one of the candidates is being investigated by the US Congress and the FBI? And we can only guess what the CIA is doing. Thus the Dems were put in a position that they had to bring down whomever the Republicans would have nominated, because there is just no way to bring Hillary's reputation up. Even during the Dems own convention we saw the birth of yet another email scandal. One last point about emails, if Hillary's 33,000 deleted emails were just about yoga classes, (like Bill and Loretta's clandestine tarmac rendezvous was about golf), why did Leon Panetta insist that had Russia hacked them, it would pose significant threat to our national security?

But back to the real problem, and the inescapable prerequisite assumption as to the identity of the occupant of the Oval Office on January 20, 2017. It will be, no matter how efficient the third railers get at burying their heads in the sand, or how rapier their meaningless asides wax, Hillary or Trump. No other candidate has a ghost of a chance. I mean, I've heard people sit in sports bars and criticize both teams while making snide but faux intellectual remarks as they order another beer. It just sounds so cool. But the outcome of this Presidential election is a situation which is a bit more intense. In 1984 Ronald Reagan asked the people of the US to "Stay the course." During his speech before the DNC Obama declared to all, "Let's keep it going!" If Hillary is elected she will keep the Obama era going. Taxes will go out of sight, so will the staggeringly unacceptable abortions total and the associated tax dollar funding, the electrical grid will continue to erode, ObamaCare will get a big reprieve and you will pay for it, fossil fuels will disappear, along with skyrocketing natural gas prices due to the coming ban on fracking, some form of gun control, the effectiveness of cops and the military will continue slide, and on and on. I saw it all go down the last time they were in the White House.

There will be no safe haven from which one can sit back and feel superior or enlightened. The affect of lawlessness and open borders will wash away all remaining vestiges of normalcy, and you will pay for it all, because you have a job. To get more of your money all Hill has to do is write another reg, or get Congress to pass another tax. And since it is the President who decides who fills the agencies that govern such matters, if it is Hillary who winds up sitting the captain's chair, the status quo is assured.

I understand what you're talking about there, but that's not what I was hitting at. There's no possible way you missed what I placed in my prior post, so you're dismissing it as a vague insult so you don't have to defend yourself. The point of which I made, is to point out your contradiction in you saying that if you could have magically taken out Barack Obama and replaced him with Mitt Romney, you would have. Then you go on to bash Romney for "openly trying to usurp the will of the people" and that you get off the bandwagon of anybody who tries to put their own interests ahead of the country.

You first talk about how you would usurp the will of the people and put Mitt Romney in Barack Obama's place as President. Then you go on a rant against Romney because he tried to usurp the will of the people with Donald Trump.


[Image: https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/61909135.jpg]