https://amp.ibtimes.co.uk/clinton-us-should-use-military-response-fight-cyberattacks-russia-china-1579187

Nothing that Obama isn't already doing, it's something that shouldn't be done for sure, but don't exaggerate what isn't there.

This isn't a source for planning to invade Russia, this isn't even a source to plan to attack it, just have "military response".

Ugh, Juq your ignorance on American history shines through once again.

Sorry, but I'm actually one of the most cultured people on Warlight. not to say that you don't actually say what I'm wrong about.

The original Republican Party was the most radical extremist hard left majority to ever sweep the north up until the New Deal ( I consider myself a Progressive Republican/Leftest Libertarian/Centrist Democrat )

irrelevant. the "original" liberal democrats were liberal and democratic, now what?

I mean at least with Obama you knew he had a plan to break every single US amendment of the United States constitution and then set up his own private propaganda ministry.

tshhh Obama was not the first, this has been happening maybe from the 1930s, Roosevelt (may ALLAAH burn him in Hell) for sure.

Donald is disgusting.

Don't lie!

Edited 10/9/2016 16:06:33

What a waste, do something useful, Murica!!!

My defintion of useful and an Anprim's definition of useful is likely to be a very different thing.

No offense honestly, but johnson pretty much smokes way too much weed to be any kind of effective president...

So have two presidents who will make government bigger or another who will limit it and be too high to do much else? *cough* my dude the third sounds like the best.

^ would rather have somebody in office who doesn't do anything than Trump or Hilary.

I meant the after effects. Nixon won a historic second term victory only to be bested by Reagan in 84. Hoover tried the same thing and won the entire south in 1928 but he eventually realized that it had way too much baggage to cultivate properly at the time. If Hoover had kept up his southern strategy, he might have won against FDR. Nixons reelection plan was pretty genius, and it didn't hurt that he was running against the liberal version Goldwater. But after Watergate and the party almost fell apart, the southern republicans basically filled in the gap. Ford, to his credit, tried to stop it but after he lossed reelection....that kinda screwed the Republican party over. When Reagan was crowned, that was the end of moderate power in RNC leadership.

Also Ox, when I said that it was a reference to Johnsons.........nvm

Edited 10/9/2016 18:59:22

So have two presidents who will make government bigger or another who will limit it and be too high to do much else? *cough* my dude the third sounds like the best.

I get it, but I mean the guy is literally so high that in a 24 hour period he can't name a single foreign leader.

I meant the after effects

Sure, I just took issue with the whole "sweeping the entire south" part. Nixon didn't even really come close.

Edited 10/9/2016 21:30:15

I get it, but I mean the guy is literally so high that in a 24 hour period he can't name a single foreign leader.

He was probably having at the tip of my tongue moment, he did say Vicente Fox's full name after Weld said Fox.

I get it, but I mean the guy is literally so high that in a 24 hour period he can't name a single foreign leader.

haha source? How would he get in such a setting?

haha source? How would he get in such a setting?

It was in an msnbc interview:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/28/gary-johnson-has-aleppo-moment-when-asked-to-name-favorite-foreign-leader/

Then he tweeted this:

https://twitter.com/govgaryjohnson/status/781559655839522817

I think that was to get cred with libertarians, it worked too, lots of libertarians liked it. Plus it was to backhand the media attacking him.

(The tweet)

Edited 10/10/2016 03:16:43

I think that was to get cred with libertarians, it worked too, lots of libertarians liked it.

"uh who's the chairman of foreignerstan? he's my favourite"

+100 libertarian upholding
-100 most others

I think that was to get cred with libertarians, it worked too, lots of libertarians liked it. Plus it was to backhand the media attacking him.

(The tweet)

Sure if you're a partisan hack it won't change your perception of him, but for most people it just looks like the guy is stoned out of his mind...

Sure if you're a partisan hack it won't change your perception of him, but for most people it just looks like the guy is stoned out of his mind...

You don't even pay mind to the fact that he actually answered the question after having a small back and forth with Weld, do you? Of course not, Johnson's just a stoner guys!

no need to be antagonist

"What is Aleppo?"

-Johnson/Weld 2016.

That said, I'd still take a peaceful stoner over a violent sober.