Don't blame me, I voted for the other guy. (Politics General)

@TheMagpulPone  
Yeah, that one, the one Trump said he’d donate a million dollars to charity if she did, but he lied about.
 
Don’t confuse me pointing out faults with Trump with defending Warren for taking advantage of some affirmative action rule when 30-40 years ago, she’s not my first choice in candidates.

@Ereiam  

 
And then Bolsonaro decides to just decline it. Don’t you ever just think about how a RPG has an effective range of four-hundred meters?
 
In light of Notre Dame donors not paying out their promised money though I’d hazard had it gone through the luxury company probably would not have followed through.

@The Smiling Pony  
He didn’t say he’d donate a million dollars if she took the test, he said he’d donate a million dollars if she took the test and it showed she was indeed, Indian. And 1/1024th doesn’t cut it at all. Not even the actual Native American Indians think so.

@TheMagpulPone
 
Upon the sum total of Trump’s various lies, not least of which are documented in a list longer than his policy achievements, something so simple is almost quaint by comparison.
 
Unlike some people, I judge a politician on their policies. She can claim to be part Martian for all I care, so long as I believe she’d do a good job.
 
Warren is a wrecking ball that even your own side admitted sounds like “Trump at his best”. Her populist, pro worker message is one of the best things I’ve heard in years.
 
Unlike your boo, who just wants to hand out tax breaks to the wealthy, who instead of making more jobs just bought back millions in stock.
 
But please, do focus entirely on a single flaw in her character. If you want to trade flaws as rhetoric here, you will lose. For every one glaring flaw in a candidate, Trump carries ten.
 
So focus on policy if you’re going to step up, or the truth shall bury you.

@Zincy  
Exactly what they said in 2016. We still won. Most of what I look for are stances on economy, infrastructure, gun laws, freedom of speech, and military/defense.

@TheMagpulPone
 
This isn’t 2016, tread carefully lest you make the same mistake you’re accusing them of.
 
Every year is different, and nothing is certain.
 
It’s one thing to claim to be the disruptive outsider who will bring positive change when you’re a fresh face. Quite another with 4 years under your belt.

@TheMagpulPone  
No, not 1/1024th, she’s between 1/64th and 1/1024th. Not surprising conservative media, and Trump, would use the worst outcome possible.
 
Also his reaction to being told the result and asked about the donation was to move the goalposts

How exactly he intends to personally test her racial purity genetic ancestry will forever be a mystery for the ages.

@TheMagpulPone  
The dems have already learned from 2016. They won’t make the same mistake this time.

@The Smiling Pony  
Yet she seems to be admitting to her own guilt and dishonesty every time (which is many) she apologizes for ever claiming to be part Native American. You can’t blame the right when she herself is admitting over and over again that she was wrong. And again, real Native Americans have 0 respect for her 1/64th to 1/1024th Indian heritage.

@MethidMan  
They won’t? Because politicly, the narrative still feels eerily similar to 3 years ago.

@TheMagpulPone  
You know you’re kind of a hypocrite. You talked about how having guns is necessary to fight against the government should the need arise…yet your actively shooting yourself in the foot by supporting Republicans who want more war and more defense spending, which increases the size of the military and makes them more overpowered

@neutralgrey  
Eh, no. I’ve stated that the original purpose of the 2nd amendment was to prevent the rise of a tyrannical government, and that in a hypothetical event such as that, I’d rather die fighting with a rifle than getting run over by a hummer while throwing rocks. Of course I want a massive military, most patriotic Americans pride themselves on having the most powerful and advanced military force in human history.

The military doesn’t need any more fucking money

Death to vet worship.

@TheMagpulPone
 
How about some of that massive budget go to pay for the care of our vets and the paychecks of our troops?
 
As opposed to the pittance they currently receive, and the fact that they make up one of the largest homeless and impoverished demographics?
 
Oh, and maybe we can stop fucking over people from American Samoa. Despite the fact that their territory makes up the largest per capita population of active and reserve military, they’re still not automatically US citizens and receive reduced benefits.

@Prowl  
I’m hoping they get another boost in 2020.

@Zincy  
I would support way more care for our vets, yes.

If the Second Ammendment exists to defend us from tyranny, then I propose an open season against the fascist groups arising now in the US. AntiFa is the only liberating force today. Death to shitty middle class boat dealers.

@TheMagpulPone  
>prevent the rise of a tyrannical government
 
>Of course I want a massive military
 
PICK ONE you can’t have both. Giving the military too much power increases the chance of tyrannical Government.

@neutralgrey  
You can actually have both. Increasing the size of the military doesn’t increase the chance of a tyrannical government. Tyrannical governments have had massive military forces and tiny ones.

@neutralgrey  

 
This is actually one of the fundamental and core reasons for why the Second Ammendment is the way it is. During the convention the would-be Federalists of the likes of Hamilton and George Washington favored the idea of a large standing army like those found in Europe. Hamilton for reasons of personal ambitions and Washington because he had god-awful experiences he felt with the militias during the war itself. Where as the Jeffersonians on the other side, favoring decentralized government advocated for a pure militia system since a strong army was viewed as tyranny, or would lead to tyranny; a historical case that all of them being Romeaboos knew from the history of the Roman Republic, that their strong standing army lead directly to the fall of the Republic through the command of Ceasar, and most of them fashioning themselves as old Roman Senators thought was absolutely terrifying.
 
The notions was particularly enforced later on when Napoleon usurped the National Convention of Revolutionary France and crowned himself Emperor on the back of his own standing army, and thus conquered Europe. The anti-army language persisted for a while, I happened to come across the rhetoric once when reading a 19th century biography of Peter the Great when the author went on a tangent to rant about standing armies being a force of tyranny.
 
The compromise reached was of course the line, “A well regulated militia”. Volunteer state-based forces would still be levied but entirely regulated to meet national standards in service capabilities so they can act as an army, and not a motley bunch of farmers. This structure remained more-or-less in tact until maybe the 20th century and certainly by WW2 where the US Standing Army has never been demobilized, we are in the midst of the longest single mobilization of US armed forces in the entire history of the US.
 
And the well regulated militia qualifier: dead since Reagan. Reagan judges legally struck the well regulated part from the constitution.

@TheMagpulPone  
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I’m not saying that it’ll happen soon, but it does increase the chance of it happening. That’s not an opinion, it’s a fact. A strong army means the dictator has a strong grip on his power. It’s not the one thing that’ll lead to a tyrannical Government, but it is something that’s needed for one. I wish to cut back on military spending and lower the size to prevent this as much as possible, I’m not saying we abolish our military I’m saying cut back a little. We don’t need to keep burning millions of dollars on it, money better spent helping this country

@neutralgrey  
One problem there. We, the United States, are a democracy, we don’t have a dictator in charge. And the military is mostly controlled by a largely civilian congress. The same can’t be said for lets say Russia or China, who would love nothing more than to defeat the US in global military power. This can’t be allowed to happen. And is why we spend what we do to ensure we are not only the most powerful, but also the most technologically advanced. And that takes money.