User Profile: toadicusrex


Member Since: February 01, 2011


  • [2] August 19, 2016 at 10:42pm

    Alright, venrooy. If you carefully re-read my post, you’ll find that I address this. But to reiterate, the only reason that a third party system isn’t viable is because the masses believe it is so; so rather than vote by principle and conscience they (we) frequently choose “the lesser of two evils”. As a result, we always get evil.

    I’m sorry, but I can’t in good conscience just go along with that; it has never worked and as you astutely pointed out, we do need to study history.
    My purpose for my vote is to support the person I believe is the best for the job; there is no other purpose. I don’t care what you read into it. That is why we vote.

    You are playing the political game that Falcon4 mentioned being played by career politicians if you are doing anything else. What do republicans in congress try to do? Compromise their values just enough to get their bills passed. And what are you doing? Compromising your values just enough to get “your guy” elected. But we’re angry at them; but we ought to look more in the mirror.

    I’m sorry – I won’t play the political game with you. I will vote my conscience, let the cards fall where they may.

  • [1] August 19, 2016 at 9:48am

    Subject-pronoun agreement here…. I’m really not sure what you’re saying. Are you saying that Glenn Beck is saying nothing new here? Let me rephrase -

    Every single thing that Glenn has complained about Trump is exactly what Beck has already done or said or complained about?

    Well, that doesn’t make sense… why would that matter if Beck had said it before? Ok, another go:

    Every single thing that Glenn has complained about Trump is exactly what Trump has already done or said or complained about.

    So you’re trying to say Trump and Glenn basically agree on everything? Then why are we discussing the opposite? Are you saying you can’t understand why Glenn doesn’t support Trump?

    Sorry, I’m really trying to process what you’re saying but it’s too vague for me.

  • [8] August 19, 2016 at 9:41am

    Wow, guys. So…. I mention that I agree with Glenn Beck in the first paragraph of my reply to Monk. I then lay out the case against Mr. Trump and the false choice fallacy of the two-parties-only argument. So you bring up comments Glenn Beck said about Romney or Trump winning? Or that Beck wants Hillary to win (that one takes that cake… that’s ridiculous in the extreme… but it’s based on the two-parties-only argument which, by the way, I refuted in my reply….). Fact is that I didn’t say anything about Beck’s prognostication. They’re my feelings on the subject. Good heavens, you must think I’m just in lock-step with Beck.

    I don’t know if that’s a hard concept, but it doesn’t seem so to me. I don’t care what Beck said while extrapolating out evidences that to him pointed to one thing or the other. I also don’t care about what Beck said in support of the two-parties-only argument. That is my own dilemma at the moment, and I resent the insinuation that, again, I am merely Beck’s mindless follower.

    And Wigone… with all due respect, even putting “FACTS” in all uppercase doesn’t make that particular hypothesis a “fact”. Read what you wrote. Unless it’s already happened, it’s a hypothesis. And I reject the premise that electing Trump is “slowing the decay”. We don’t know that. As I pointed out in my comment, we have no idea what Trump will do because he’s either a crazy or he’s just getting the attention he wants – without meaning what he says.

  • [43] August 19, 2016 at 5:16am

    I hope that you’re right, monk. But I am on Glenn’s side here. I think Trump is extremely dangerous, perhaps as dangerous as Hillary. He is not a constitutionalist by any stretch of the imagination.

    I am left in a quandary. I think it’s a false choice to say that I have to either vote for Trump or Hillary; proclaiming that false choice creates the scenario in which it becomes true when voters are scared off of voting for principle simply because they’ve been told that a vote for a third party is a vote for Hillary. It isn’t true, and I’d rather be on the losing side than allow a man like that to re-shape the political powers-that-be to where he is considered “conservative”. Liberals already can’t understand conservatives; with Trump they won’t be able to really see a real difference.

    Trump’s stated policies are erratic; they are intended (I believe) to be attention-grabbing. Whether or not he intends to do what he says is completely unclear – if we were to take him at face value it would be morally repulsive if he did many of the things he has said during the campaign (threatening US companies with tariffs, increasing the minimum wage, banning gun ownership from a “new” secret list, imprisoning people that don’t inform on neighbors, etc). So if I were to vote for him, I’m essentially voting for those things. If he doesn’t mean it, he’s just an attention whore – and we don’t have any idea what he will actually do, or what he really believes.

    Responses (7) +
  • May 10, 2016 at 1:15pm

    No but:

    1. The lie that Cruz had extramarital affairs with… what was it, four women?
    2. The lie that Cruz’s dad met with Lee Harvey Oswald?
    3. The lie that votes didn’t take place in Colorado?
    4. The lie that Vicente Fox saying Mexico wasn’t going to pay for the wall influenced policy decisions to raise up the wall 10 feet higher?

    Come on, dude. You have to see SOMETHING. Good luck, TedsBrother. Honestly, good luck. You bought what he sold without checking the sticker. It’s a painful lesson that America has had to learn time and time again – and you didn’t see it at the time, you didn’t open your eyes. The campaign was built on what you wanted to hear. He immediately changed some of his policies after Cruz pulled out of the race.

    I’ll say it again, in simpler terms; you do not know the man. You voted in a wildcard in some dream that the wildcard would match your dream. You have every indication from his own history that he does not, but the dream was enticing, and you wanted to believe. But it is just a dream, with all the potential of turning into a nightmare.

    So again, good luck. Honestly. To us all.

  • [1] May 7, 2016 at 12:07am

    That was a YUGE comment! No, just kidding. Stupid parrots.

  • [5] May 7, 2016 at 12:06am

    We’ll see who’s a liar when all is said and done.

  • [3] May 7, 2016 at 12:05am

    Do you know why the Electoral college is in place, watash? I’m going to guess the answer “no”. Term limits are good. And the “ONE” who offers to help us take control isn’t offering that at all; he’s offering for HIM to take control. We still have no idea what he really believes or values. He lied through his teeth during the primary. What’s mind-boggling to me is that people actually believed it.

  • [6] May 7, 2016 at 12:02am

    Trumpeters have already done enough to help Hillary. Not much we can do will change that. They nominated a progressive in conservative clothing. Maybe they should have done some homework and stopped cheering for a bully.

  • [4] May 6, 2016 at 4:46pm

    lolz I think it’s spelled Yuge. And like most other Trump-isms, I don’t believe it has a shred of credibility.

  • [1] May 6, 2016 at 2:30pm

    Good luck with that. There will come a point when you realize that all of the lies you sucked in actually were only just lies.

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] May 6, 2016 at 2:29pm

    MY head for one is pulled out. I saw Mr. Trump for what he was.

    Perhaps you might consider that you were the one with your head stuck?

  • [1] May 6, 2016 at 2:27pm

    So you bought Trump’s lies? Like his dad was with Lee Harvey Oswald? Or didn’t you hear that Trump himself said in an interview AFTER Cruz got out of the race that he never believed it, it just had to be said?

    I just think you Trumpeters are in denial. You nominated a liar – all the while parrotting “Lyin’ Ted” behind the head liar himself. You still have some nerve coming on and continuing the BS Trump spewed.

  • May 6, 2016 at 2:25pm

    Reality hasn’t sunk in yet?

  • [3] May 6, 2016 at 2:24pm

    Your ilk created the disaster; you voted in a guy without discernible principles.

    So deal with it. I, for one, am pissed at you folks, dispatch. You voted someone in based exclusively on soundbites and tough talk, without any substance. It sucks, but with Hillary or Trump we stand zero chance of a good president in the white house; more likely it will just be an extremely dangerous time.

    And it isn’t that “our guy” lost. We lost because we lost the vote for a principled nominee. There is no other way to put it. Trump doesn’t represent me, he represents you.

    My high school’s vote for studentbody president was about the same; the guy who gets on stage and makes people laugh wins! Hooray! Except this time the stakes were a lot higher.

    You guys caused the problem. Don’t you dare claim that we can’t be angry that our country votes in progressives and more progressives. You sided with them. So live with it.

  • [2] May 6, 2016 at 2:18pm

    Rugermanic9, not all states have the same electoral college vote count. It is based on population. Therefore, even small state may count as more. The ones Hillary will likely win are heavily populated, therefore her 18 weigh more heavily than the 20 for Trump.

    And that doesn’t count in the fact that some of the most conservative states might not go for Trump – it’s hard to vote for a progressive in conservative’s clothing.

  • [-1] May 4, 2016 at 3:38pm

    I’ll agree that it wasn’t a very smart decision. However, it wasn’t much of an alignment, and it didn’t last more than a few hours. I doubt it was ever a real “alignment”. Nevertheless I believe it hurt Cruz. I don’t think Fiorina’s addition to the ticket was very good either.

  • [1] May 4, 2016 at 3:32pm

    No proof, just conjecture on the timing.

    But a Trumpeter asking for proof? What happened? That’s a chord change, there. You had no proof of anything Trump said he was going to do, and history said it was the opposite. You believed it anyway. So much for your need for proof.

  • [1] May 4, 2016 at 3:31pm

    Not much of an alliance. I think more was made of it than it really was.

    And just because it didn’t get reported doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. I’m inclined to believe that Trump and Kasich had a deal too.

  • [2] May 4, 2016 at 3:28pm

    Riiight. You bought that one. I’ll believe it when I see the wall being built.

    Trump said anything to get your vote. Chance of wall? Very unlikely.

    Responses (1) +