TxHoops

If you believe Trump would be for small government, you haven't studied the man much or examined what little he has proposed in terms of concrete plans. The type of policy you want to predominate an elected official's philosophy of government is simply not in his nature. However, ironically, you do succinctly state the foundation of the Libertarian party (as little governs at involvement as possible). As for the logic (or flawed logic) of a non-vote or a 3rd party vote being a vote for Hillary, the following article does a decent job of explaining fallacy of that thinking: [Hidden Content]

I know many of you would be holding your nose when voting for Trump. I know many Dems who feel the same about Hillary. I have also heard time and again that not voting or voting Libertarian is a vote for Hillary. This in my opinion is inherently flawed logic. It is also held, in my estimation, by many who still believe Ross Perot cost GHWB the election in '92, the actual polling data be darned. In fact, the reverse is just as likely to be true, Perot cost Clinton more votes. [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content] Of course, you may prefer Trump to the Johnson/Weld ticket, which makes it a non-issue. But if, like a huge block of voters, you think the two main parties offer horrible alternatives, would you consider voting for the 3rd party candidates?

Had this exact same discussion today. He either needs to develop thicker skin or reconsider his recent "job application." If he doesn't, he will ruin any chance he might have. Which is fortunate because no one needs to have that kind of power and responsibility when they have no control over their impulses. His candor is admirable at times, downright scary at others.

I assume this is the one? Either way, worth the read, especially for those that coach or work with young people: [Hidden Content]

It was a good article but I'm growing tired of your inarguable platitudes

^ FIFY

I believe you are correct. I couldn't remember the UGA one in 1980 but was reminded upon research

He decommitted within 24 hours of the first commitment. But he ended up deciding his first instinct was correct

My son told me Cowherd was ripping on aggy during his show today over this latest "misstep." Love that guy.

WB JV may be a heavy district favorite this year

I've already told you I'm not going to disagree with you on the state of Panther basketball ever again. You've been right and I've been wrong way too often! I meant he will be missed by the Panthers. And you're right about Dotson - going to be a special one for you guys.

I think they tried but Silsbee had a full schedule.

Congratulations!

And you guys get back on topic. So far, I have Nash and Rebgp attending the opening of Southside With You with me (Nash confirmed ITT and Rebgp - I am just counting him in and can always induce him to go by buying him a po boy or something). Who else is in?

Pretty interesting list. Nixon too low, Hays way too high (relative of mine but should be in bottom 5, 10 at leasr), a few other discrepancies IMO but overall one of the better ones of these Ive seen.

So +1 so far...

Let me know if any of you guys want to catch this one with me.

I guess Mack was too busy pouring over his UT feeds to see this gem. What a sh^t show aggy has going on with its coaches. They are running out of feet to choke on over there... [Hidden Content]

Wow! Just what the doctor ordered. That is a huge piece added for the Bulldogs. He has steadily improved and had gotten much stronger when I saw him last. Big get for Kelly and big loss for the Panthers IMO.

That number seems arbitrary to me

Bravo. Admitting is the first step...

Oh, I don't know. I can think of 15-20 million people this would apply to on the "right"...

I think I would need longer than 30!

I heard this statment on the radio this week (from a fairly liberal source - and when I say fairly liberal, you guys would call them lefty socialists): To qualify, I understood these to be based on percentages (pursuant to the relative make up or the populace) - while a black person is more likely to be stopped by police, a white person is more likely to be shot by the police. I didn't catch the source of study so I have no idea if it is true (although I am fairly certain this is based on some study. I would think tvc can verify or negate this statement though.