Is it time for us Dems to get behind Ron Paul?

[TNOE]

ASSUMING there will even be an election? I doubt we'd ever get the (R's) behind Dennis Kuchinich -


http://pcapostate.blogspot.com/2007/05/how-can-ron-paul-do-it.html

[TwilightGardener]

1. Are you nuts?

[TNOE]

7. Why?

What do you guys find wrong with him?

[TwilightGardener]

16. Everything besides being opposed to the war, that's what.

[tulsakatz]

24. for one thing...........

he thinks there are arguments for and against global warming!!

I agree that he has made some good comments in the past but just because I agree with him on one issue, doesn't necessarily mean I would vote for him.

I just don't think I could vote for someone who even thought there was a question regarding global warming.

[blondeatlast]

29. He contradicts himself quite often, from civil rights to stem-cell research. nt

[BlackVelvet04]

74. BUT.....

he was on Bill Maher last night and Bill likes him. ;-)

[Bucky]

43. That was my first reaction. But on closer reflection...

I insert the word "fucking" into the question.

[Richard Steele]

67. You said it!

...much more politely than I would have.

[MonkeyFunk]

2. Umm.... no.

[mmonk]

3. No, we have Dennis.

[Greeby]

4. When we have Kucinich and Gravel?

Hell no!

[jody]

13. Kucinich will not be elected because he wants to ban handguns. n/t

[Bucky]

44. Gravel won't get there because of his looney national sales tax plan

Also he speaks truthfully--something people really don't want in a candidate.

[FairTaxWarrior]

60. Define looney please

Hey Bucky,
Explain why you think a consumption tax is looney. I may have some problems with Mike Gravel but he's dead on with that one. Every politician in Washington for last 90 years has been laughing like crazy over our stupidity in letting the 16th amendment get past. You and I (assuming you aren't a crook) are paying an easy 30% more in Federal taxes than we should be because of this piece of stupidity called the Income Tax. All to subsidize tax lawyers, lobbyists, and drug dealers.
Can you in any way substantiate your claims of any kind of fairness at all about the Federal Income Tax?

FairTaxWarrior
www.FairTaxWarrior.com

[LeftishBrit]

61. Are you sure you've come to the right board???

[MrPrax]

48. I was going to say...

Why a Republican when Mike Gravel doesn't get much exposure here.

The War in Iraq
Immediate and orderly withdrawal of troops followed by aggressive diplomacy

Iran
Senator Gravel firmly opposes a military confrontation with Iran and advocates a diplomatic solution to the current situation.

National Initiative for Democracy
Empower Americans by giving us the mechanism––The National Ballot Initiative––to vote directly on issues which affect our daily lives. This power is similar to the initiatives used by citizens in 24 states and over 200 communities.

A Fair Tax
Eliminate the income tax and replace it with a progressive national sales tax - Fair Tax.

Global Warming/Climate Change
We must reduce America's carbon footprint in the world by passing legislation that caps emissions and improve energy efficiency while generating energy from low-carbon sources.
Universal Healthcare Vouchers

A National Health Care Voucher plan will provide health care for all Americans.

etc etc

:shrug:

Sounds like a good start for me...

[nini]

Have you looked at his stand on all the other issues?

No thanks

[blondeatlast]

17. Thank you. On many issues, he's almost a knuckle-dragger, especially concerning women.

The very thought is laughable.

[unlawflcombatnt]

54. Yes

1. Trade: Paul has voted against 100% of all Free Trade Agreements, including Fast-Track, WTO entry, and PNTR with China. He's also sponsored legislation for U.S. withdrawal from the WTO.

2. Illegal Immigration: Paul has voted against all bills providing amnesty for illegal immigrants and their employers.

3. Civil Liberties: Paul has voted against every infringement of civil liberties, including the Patriot Act and illegal wiretapping.

4. Medicare Prescription Drug Act: Paul has voted to remove the ban on government negotiation of prescription drug prices.

5. Iraq: Paul has consistently voted against the Iraq War, both the initial authorization and the most recent funding bill (He was 1 of 2 Republicans voting against it.)

I don't agree with Paul on everything, including taxes and abortion. But I agree with him on more issues than I do with most Democrats. And Paul puts his "vote" where his mouth is. He doesn't support the Iraq War and he makes no excuses for voting against it. And though his stated reasons for voting against unrestricted free trade are somewhat unclear, he's nonetheless voted NO on every single free trade agreement.

Currently, he's the most pro-worker, pro-middle class candidate running.

unlawflcombatnt

Economic Populist Forum

[BeHereNow]

59. THANK YOU FOR THAT! Agree 100%

Paul is more of a Libertarian than anything, and
I must say, I am leaning that way myself.
If anyone will restore a Constitutional United States of America,
it is Ron Paul.
He's already got my vote.
BHN

[blondeatlast]

73. 0% rating from NARAL; the link is below. Maybe you like that.

I don't, not one tiny bit. Also opposed to federally funded ste, cell research.

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

[blondeatlast]

76. See post #47. nt

[EFerrari]

5. No but I'm sure his campaign would like that. n/t

[quinnox]

6. Paul makes a lot of sense

I wouldn't mind if he was president, but he has no realistic chance.

[TwilightGardener]

11. Hmmm, I like our safety-net institutions and protections, and I also

would like us to have a more diplomatic, cooperative foreign policy--so yes, I WOULD mind if he was Prez. Thank God he has no chance.

[me b zola]

23. I'm assuming that you don't have a uterus

Mine is no longer functinal but I still fight for the right to health care for my grand-daughters.

Look, I love what Paul had to say about foreign policy, but his views on domestic policy are down right scary.

[quinnox]

27. you are correct

[Javaman]

39. Read this than think if you wouldn't mind having him as your pres...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3275486

[nam78_two]

58. huh?

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm



No thanks. Just because someone doesn't fall in lock-step behind the BFEE and doesn't like the war because of their isolationist philosophy doesn't make them ok on the whole.

[tularetom]

8. He's pretty much of a troglodyte

on everything BUT the war in Iraq. Not my idea of an ideal presidential candidate although he has more of a spine than most of the Dems.

[Catherine Vincent]

9. No! n/t

[Justyce]

10. No way. Just because

we might agree with him on *ONE* issue doesn't mean we should get behind him. Republican economics are bad for the middle class & poor -- period.

[marmar]

12. Opposing the war, like Chuck Hagel, doesn't make one any less of a conservative....

or a Libertarian, which I think is the case w/Paul. They might be with us on the war and even abuses of presidential powers, but take a comprehensive look: There are plenty of issues that they're absolutely abhorrent on, and those issues are just as important.

[TwilightGardener]

15. Exactly. Hagel is mainstream and would be less draconian than Paul, but would still

appoint SCOTUS judges we DON'T want, and would end federal minimum wage. Everyone needs to keep that in mind.

[unpossibles]

14. he's hit or miss seems to me

He has a few allied issues, but also has a few things I don't stand behind. I will say I like him better than Romney, McCain, Gingrich, or Guilliani, but... that doesn't say much.

http://www.issues2000.org/Ron_Paul.htm

that site is a great resource, btw

[w4rma]

18. No. (nt)

[Connie_Corleone]

19. Ron Paul is extreme right on other issues. Hell no.

It would be nice if people would actually look at this guy's stance on other issues besides the war.

He is not a liberal.

[blondeatlast]

20. The very idea is laughable. From "On the Issues":

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)

Plenty more where that came from, and another thing--he seems to wet his finger and raises it to the air on most issues. I want some conviction in my candidates, even if I disagree with them.

[TNOE]

28. Gotcha.

Thanks for the link.

[hfojvt]

38. this is more of a deal-breaker for me

"Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement:

As adopted by the General Membership of the Republican Liberty Caucus at its Biannual Meeting held December 8, 2000.
WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility;
WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;
WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and
WHEREAS we believe in upholding the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following principles:
The tax system of the United States should be overhauled.
There should be a national debate discussing various alternative means of taxation including but not limited to a single flat income tax, repealing the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax, and reducing spending to the point where the income tax can be repealed without the need to replace it with a national sales tax or any other form of taxation.
The capital gains tax should be *eliminated*.
The inheritance tax should be *eliminated*.
The new tax system should be implemented *promptly*."

But it seemed to me that "on the issues" leans right on economic issues.

[bowens43]

21. No. What a silly question.

[TNOE]

22. Admittedly, I don't know that much about him, nor

have I studied him on the issues - Bill Maher calls him his new American Hero - The View has pumped him up - and he actually "did" win the republican debate - and the media is obviously trying to marginalize him - so things that made me want to go "hmmmmmm" - maybe there is something there.

[blondeatlast]

25. See post 20. nt

[blondeatlast]

26. Letting the media lead our way is what got us where we are. Check things out for yourself.

Even his own website indicates that HE doesn't know where he stands often.

[TNOE]

31. Yes, I know

but the fact that they are completely shunning him & trying to make him "irrelevant" is what intrigued me. Just like they do Dennis.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

30. Paul is a Libertarian and although I agree with him about the War, socially

I can never support him.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

32. As Far As I Know, This Is Still Democratic Fuckin Underground. Till That Changes, Fuck NO.

[BlooInBloo]

50. I didn't realize that advocating for republicans was even consistent with the rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

51. It Isn't. And Frankly, I'm Amazed This Piece Of Garbage Thread Is Still Open...

[BlooInBloo]

53. Possibly a let-the-masses- mourn-the-bad-bill rule-bending decision.

[KingFlorez]

33. His record is horrible

Being anti-war doesn't mean he's a good candidate, he's right-wing on everything else.

[VP505]

34. Sorry, as long

as Mr Paul has an "R" behind his name and continues to support the rest of their agenda I wont vote for him!

[LeftishBrit]

35. Ron Paul? For Dems?

From what I know about him - and I did look him up in a number of places after reading so much about him here, he is EXTREMELY economically right-wing (more so than most Republicans); xenophobic (both in his attitude to immigrants and his attitudes to organizations like the UN and ICC); and anti-choice for women.

I have been strongly against the war from day one, and consider it an extremely important issue - that's why I joined this board; but I wouldn't support someone JUST because of their stance on the war. The British National Party is against the war. So is LePen. I'm not saying Paul is as right-wing as that; but it shows that people can be against the war, and still be dangerously right-wing on all other matters.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

36. No.

[Horse with no Name]

37. No.

He isn't progressive anywhere except the war. Why would we do that?

[DemDem07]

40. NO

NEVER

[Individualist]

41. Kucinich will get my vote

[Bridget Burke]

42. Ron Paul's a Libertarian posing as a Republican.

I will give him props for messing with Republicans heads.

But I'll continue to vote for Democrats.

[Solly Mack]

45. I'm gonna hafta pass

[Ganja Ninja]

46. No way Jose. n/t

[Lone_Star_Dem]

47. Ron Paul's voting record - a FYI - Yes, he's against the war, and much more...

This may come as a surprise to some that think since he's against the war he must be a great politician.

Read his record from Project Vote Smart

http://vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296


And here's where he stands on the issues:

Abortion

* Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
* Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
* Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
* Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
* Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
* Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
* Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
* No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
* Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

Economy

* Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)
* Supports Balanced Budget Amendment & on-budget accounting. (Dec 2000)

Crime

* Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
* Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
* Rated 60% by CURE, indicating mixed votes on rehabilitation. (Dec 2000)

Education

* Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
* Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
* Voted NO on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
* Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
* Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)
* Rated 67% by the NEA, indicating a mixed record on public education. (Dec 2003)
* Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)

Energy and Oil

* Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries (sic). (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
* Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
* Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
* Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
* Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
* Repeal the gas tax. (May 2001)

The Environment

* Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
* Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)
* Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)
* Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)

Families and Children

* Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
* Voted YES on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years. (Mar 2001)
* Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)


Free Trade

* Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
* Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)
* Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)
* Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)
* Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
* Voted NO on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998)
* No restrictions on import/export; but maintain sovereignty . (Dec 2000)
* End economic protectionism: let dairy compacts expire . (Aug 2001)
* Rated 76% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)

Government Reform

* Voted NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006)
* Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers. (Oct 2005)
* Voted YES on limiting attorney's fees in class action lawsuits. (Feb 2005)
* Voted YES on restricting frivolous lawsuits. (Sep 2004)
* Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
* Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
* Limit federal power, per the 10th Amendment. (Dec 2000)
* Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000)

Gun Control

* Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
* Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
* Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
* Support the Second Amendment . (Dec 2000)
* Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)

Health Care

* Voted NO on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006)
* Voted NO on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. (May 2004)
* Voted NO on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
* Voted YES on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs. (Jul 2003)
* Voted YES on small business associations for buying health insurance. (Jun 2003)
* Voted NO on capping damages & setting time limits in medical lawsuits. (Mar 2003)
* Voted NO on subsidize privat insurance for Medicare Rx drug coverage. (Jun 2000)
* Voted NO on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)
* Voted YES on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts. (Oct 1999)
* Abolish federal Medicare entitlement; leave it to states. (Dec 2000)
* Rated 56% by APHA, indicating a mixed record on public health issues. (Dec 2003)


Homeland Security

* Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
* Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
* Voted YES on continuing military recruitment on college campuses. (Feb 2005)
* Voted NO on supporting new position of Director of National Intelligence. (Dec 2004)
* Voted NO on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
* Voted YES on permitting commercial airline pilots to carry guns. (Jul 2002)
* Voted NO on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill. (Jul 1999)
* Voted YES on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)
* End draft registration; all-volunteer forces . (Dec 2000)
* Federal duty to provide missile defense . (Dec 2000)
* Rated 67% by SANE, indicating a mixed record on military issues. (Dec 2003)

Immigration

* Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)
* Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
* Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
* Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
* Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)

Jobs

* Voted NO on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports. (Oct 2001)
* Voted YES on zero-funding OSHA's Ergonomics Rules instead of $4.5B. (Mar 2001)
* Member of the Congressional Rural Caucus. (Jan 2001)
* Rated 47% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a mixed record on union issues. (Dec 2003)

Social Security

* Voted YES on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable. (May 2001)
* Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000)
* Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)
* Rated 30% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)

Tax Reform

* Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005)
* Voted YES on providing tax relief and simplification. (Sep 2004)
* Voted YES on making permanent an increase in the child tax credit. (May 2004)
* Voted YES on permanently eliminating the marriage penalty. (Apr 2004)
* Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)
* Voted YES on $99 B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001)
* Voted YES on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years. (May 2001)
* Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)
* Voted YES on eliminating the "marriage penalty". (Jul 2000)
* Voted YES on $46 billion in tax cuts for small business. (Mar 2000)
* Overhaul income tax; end capital gains & inheritance tax. (Dec 2000)
* Phaseout the death tax. (Mar 2001)
* Rated 89% by NTU, indicating a "Taxpayer's Friend" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

Technology

* Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting. (Feb 2005)
* Voted YES on promoting commercial human space flight industry. (Nov 2004)
* Voted NO on banning Internet gambling by credit card. (Jun 2003)
* Voted NO on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access. (Feb 2002)

War and Peace

* Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)
* Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
* Voted YES on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999)

Welfare and Poverty

* Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients. (Feb 2003)
* Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks. (Jul 2001)
* Voted NO on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations. (Nov 1999)
* Abolish federal welfare; leave it all to states. (Dec 2000)

More...
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

[BlooInBloo]

49. Sheesh. Melodramatic jackasses.

[HardRocker05]

52. it is indeed time for people who care about america to consider voting 3rd party; for too long

voters on the left and right have bought in to the fallacy that it is always better to vote for the major party that is closest to their political positions, ignoring the fact the both parties are taking america in unstoppable downward spiral toward being an orwellian banana republic. the fact is that if the major parties can always count on their constituents to vote for them, no matter what they do, then there is no accountability to the party's own constituents. why should dems do what we (their base) want them to do, when they know that we will vote for them no matter what they do once elected? for most of us, voting repuke is not an option, so there must be a third party option, or there is literally no accountability for dems, and we have seen all too well what the result of that is.

[NoPasaran]

55. It'll be a cold day in Hell

Before I support that fucking scumbag.
:puke:
:puke:
:puke:
:puke:
:puke:
:puke:

[dysfunctional press]

56. why wouldn't there be an election...???

but, no- a BIG NO, to ron paul

[nam78_two]

57. Uh No thank you very much

The guy is a cazy far right libertarian freak.

[Rosemary2205]

62. PUT DOWN THE BONG. nt

[snowbear]

63. I agree. Put down the bong and slowly step away from the computer.

And no one gets hurt.

I agree with Rosemary and others here.

Hey. If you'd like to join his campaign and become a ReTHUG, no one's going to twist your arm trying to stop you.

Enjoy your new lif ----- and any new Forums that you replace with this one.

See you.

(p.s. Don't call us -- we'll call you)

[salin]

64. No

his economic policies would further impoverish much of america.

[onenote]

65. I'll spell it out for you. N.O.

[in_cog_ni_to]

66. As mad as I am at the Dems...Ron Paul would never get my support. n/t

[KharmaTrain]

68. Nah...I'd Rather Have Tancredo

Ya wanna vote for Ron Paul. It's real simple...register as a Repugnican, assume the position and pull for your new flavor of the moment. He's the latest "McCain"...a Repugnican that doesn't sound batshit crazy...or so you think, until you've already been had.

There's plenty of others above who've chimed in on Mr. Paul's "libertarian" or should we say ultra-conservative views on many, many issues...I saw this nearly 20 years ago when I interviewed him on his '88 Presidential run.

Now if you want to have some fun on primary day...presuming either your prefered Democratic candidate is no longer on your ballot, the nomination is wrapped up and the vote means nothing...or you just feel like being an asshat, why not jump the fence and help our Repugnican bretheren find the most "electable" candidate. You know they surely would return the favor if the shoe were on the other foot. :sarcasm:

[etherealtruth]

69. NO n/t

[WinkyDink]

70. You are in the wrong Party, if you're serious.

[Matsubara]

71. No, I despise right-wing libertarians.

Anti-Iraq war or not, I would never vote for someone with a sworn agenda to impoverish MORE working people.

[proud2BlibKansan]

72. Absolutely not

He might bring our troops home but then we would have 4 years of hell.

[Oilwellian]

75. A key thing to remember when choosing the next president

He will more than likely replace 2 SCOTUS members. That will be key as to the direction this country will take in the next few decades.