User Profile: lanimilbus


Member Since: March 14, 2012


  • [2] May 21, 2016 at 4:59pm

    Scott Brown: b/c conservatives weren’t already skeptical of the formerly pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-Hillary, still pro-eminent domain and anti-flat tax Trump, why not another moderate from Mass?

  • [1] May 21, 2016 at 4:54pm

    And yet you continue to read and post on the site, driving up web traffic, which drives up advertising rates, which gives profits to Beck.

  • [3] May 20, 2016 at 4:33pm

    Instant runoff expects a lot of political literacy on behalf of the voter.

  • May 20, 2016 at 4:17pm

    But what happens in a 60/40 Republican district where 4 conservatives split the vote evenly against 2 liberals splitting their vote? You get a general election with 2 liberals in a red district.

    Responses (3) +
  • [21] May 20, 2016 at 4:15pm

    And yet most of his hotels are “gun free zones”. There’s also that annoying thing called his record: “I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun,”

    Responses (3) +
  • [-1] May 18, 2016 at 3:48pm

    Prediction: not only will Gary Johnson qualify for the debates, he’ll qualify the Libertarian Party for presidential matching funds in 2020; the key is to avoid another 2000 redux of the Reform Party split.

  • [10] May 18, 2016 at 3:21pm

    Any answer to the reasonable issues I raised? Did he not call himself pro-choice? Did he not say that he supported gun control? Did he not contribute money to liberal Democrats as recently as 2008? Did he not praise Obama’s performance during his first 100 days? Did he not defend eminent domain for private development during the debates? Did he not defend the pap smears and mammograms performed by Planned Parenthood while ignoring the genocide?

  • [9] May 18, 2016 at 3:16pm

    “He’s getting old, so he wants his Social Security and Medicare preserved in case he needs them.” And the award for most idiotic logic – in case the billionaire needs his Social Security check. His royalties from his Home Alone 2 cameo are worth more than his Social Security – royalties that wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for Ronald Reagan.

  • [8] May 18, 2016 at 3:13pm

    Nor did I deny that reality. In fact, I explicitly said “assuming Trump loses no matter what”. The question is, if you assume she wins regardless, is there value in keeping her under 50%?

  • [29] May 18, 2016 at 2:35pm

    Either he’s playing the Republican Party and conservatives for fools or he’s done a complete 180 political evolution in the last decade: (1) supported John Kerry in 2004; (2) supported Eliot Spitzer in 2006; (3) supported Hillary Clinton in 2008; (4) considered himself strongly pro-choice, including late-term abortions; (5) supported gun control measures, including “assault weapons” ban; (6) said the economy does much better under Democrats than Republicans; (7) still strongly supports eminent domain for private development; (8) said Obama was doing a good job with the stimulus; (9) hired undocumented workers for his own projects. If you accept the reality that Trump’s nomination means Hillary wins, if keeping Hillary under 50% and robbing her of any public mandate for her 100 days, then a 3rd party might be the best option – a conservative third party candidate would likely draw from Trump/Clinton at about 70/30, undoubtedly making some red states competitive and solidifying swing states for Clinton; but more importantly – again, assuming Trump loses no matter what – it would keep Hillary under 50% and significantly weaken her going into her 100 days.

    Responses (6) +
  • [3] May 11, 2016 at 11:24am

    Or, instead of blindly attacking anything that is mildly critical of your candidate, you could read the poll and research its criteria and sample. But that would deny you the ability to rant aimlessly while only confirming Trump-supporter stereotypes as the new Know-Nothing Party.

  • May 7, 2016 at 9:13pm

    Securing the border being an absolute necessity to any immigration reform package, instead of a politically toxic wall, a high-speed rail line from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean would be the better political sell. True high-speed rail (Accela at 90mph is NOT high-speed) requires significant safety measures in terms of fence heights (a penny tossed at a Japanese bullet train can kill someone). This would provide jobs in construction, create new economic opportunity – in the form of infrastructure – at border crossings, earn the support of Democratic members in border states, and create a template for high-speed rail in the US; additional freight lines can run parallel, creating real trade opportunities at both ends of the line; individual states can invest in regional passenger rail, using the border line as a hub to build off of. And everything would have the same effect on illegal immigration as a border wall. What does a border wall do besides keep people out? How shortsighted do we have to be?

    Responses (2) +
  • [3] March 28, 2016 at 1:31pm

    Do you support Cruz b/c he’s a fellow Hoser? Are you his secret gay Canadian love, his Calgary Flame?

  • March 25, 2016 at 2:14pm

    jr, then how do we go about electing judges? appointments are even more corrupt than elections.

  • [2] March 24, 2016 at 9:08pm

    Expensive to buy, not make in China.

  • [2] March 24, 2016 at 9:07pm

    Unless he’s secretly collecting petition right now, he’s not going 3rd party. Ballot access laws and deadlines are specifically why Bloomberg had to announce this month.

  • [6] March 24, 2016 at 3:59pm

    It was a Texas judge that bought into that nonsense. I thought the Lone Star State had better sense.

    Responses (3) +
  • March 15, 2016 at 9:08pm

    If Kasich hadn’t been in the race, Trump would’ve won OH and the election would be over. If you support Cruz, then OH for Kasich is a victory. Never understood the Cruz strategy of trying to take out Rubio in FL. Cruz was never going to win FL, but Trump winning only gives him momentum moving forward. If the strategy is ‘prevent Trump from reaching the magic number’ and trying to outmaneuver him in Cleveland, the best chance for stopping Trump was Rubio winning FL.

    Responses (5) +
  • [4] March 15, 2016 at 3:51pm

    He praises the mammograms and pap smears by Planned Parenthood while ignoring genocide – how is that not condoning violence?

  • March 15, 2016 at 3:47pm

    You do realize that the companies that process the drug tests are also the ones making campaign contributions? Testing every public employee would be worth millions of dollars, with little to no public benefit. History shows that drug testing of welfare recipients doesn’t save enough in benefits than the cost of the test’s administration. Cost versus benefit doesn’t add up.

Restoring Love