I've been told by many normally politically engaged people that they don't plan on voting this election. In most elections I believe the majority of people who don't vote do so out of apathy, but I imagine this year we're going to see a record number of people, like you, who will abstain out of contempt for the choices.

Assuming a Hillary win I'm really curious to see what a post-Trump GOP looks like. Will the Ryan/Rubio/McConnell crowd go back to business as usual with their previous political agendas or will more republican leaders start embracing Trump's uneducated, white, good ol' boy base.

Oh yeah, and Rubio dropped out before Kasich. You didn't consider him?

zimmy, what makes you think MikeT23 is still alive? You know he'd keep posting in these forums despite being dead. Nothing stops Mike from posting here!

Posted by bad_luck on 8/4/2016 4:39:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, that's the explanation I said we could use for the purpose of this discussion.

Are all lives being treated equally or is there a problem with a specific group inside that "all?"

Why would that be relevant?

Do you think that "All Lives Matter" is mutually exclusive with "Black Lives Matter"? In other words, if you believe in one does that mean you are (or should be) opposed to the other?

Posted by bad_luck on 8/4/2016 7:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/4/2016 6:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/4/2016 4:39:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, that's the explanation I said we could use for the purpose of this discussion.

Are all lives being treated equally or is there a problem with a specific group inside that "all?"

Why would that be relevant?

Do you think that "All Lives Matter" is mutually exclusive with "Black Lives Matter"? In other words, if you believe in one does that mean you are (or should be) opposed to the other?

It's relevant because if there is a problem with one group, it makes sense to address the problems faced by that specific group.

Sure.

What does that have to do with "All Lives Matter"?

Posted by bad_luck on 8/4/2016 7:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/4/2016 6:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/4/2016 4:39:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, that's the explanation I said we could use for the purpose of this discussion.

Are all lives being treated equally or is there a problem with a specific group inside that "all?"

Why would that be relevant?

Do you think that "All Lives Matter" is mutually exclusive with "Black Lives Matter"? In other words, if you believe in one does that mean you are (or should be) opposed to the other?

It's relevant because if there is a problem with one group, it makes sense to address the problems faced by that specific group.

And, no surprise here, you didn't respond to the rest of the post.

Do you think that "All Lives Matter" is mutually exclusive with "Black Lives Matter"? In other words, if you believe in one does that mean you are (or should be) opposed to the other?

Posted by zimbabweguy on 8/4/2016 5:26:00 PM (view original):
Oh yeah, and Rubio dropped out before Kasich. You didn't consider him?

Kasich made Ben Carson look dynamic.

If you really dislike a candidate, you have to back someone who is not only closely aligned, or even somewhat aligned, with what you believe but they also have to be able to beat the candidate you dislike. Kasich hung around like a piece of poop to a dog's butt. Totally useless, probably smelly but you can still see it.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/4/2016 7:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/4/2016 7:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/4/2016 7:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/4/2016 6:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/4/2016 4:39:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, that's the explanation I said we could use for the purpose of this discussion.

Are all lives being treated equally or is there a problem with a specific group inside that "all?"

Why would that be relevant?

Do you think that "All Lives Matter" is mutually exclusive with "Black Lives Matter"? In other words, if you believe in one does that mean you are (or should be) opposed to the other?

It's relevant because if there is a problem with one group, it makes sense to address the problems faced by that specific group.

And, no surprise here, you didn't respond to the rest of the post.

Do you think that "All Lives Matter" is mutually exclusive with "Black Lives Matter"? In other words, if you believe in one does that mean you are (or should be) opposed to the other?

Not mutually exclusive. Dismissive.

Obviously all lives matter. Everyone already agrees on that. But there's a problem with how blacks are treated. There isn't a problem with how everyone is treated.

True. Blacks are treated like **** by other blacks. 2400+ people shot this year in Chicago alone. Almost exclusively black on black violence. That's like one person getting shot every 2 hours in Chicago. BLM doesn't care about that.... But **** it, Laquan McDonald gets shot by a white cop and now they care.


Compare to Police-involved shootings in Chicago this year.... 14.

I hate to even vaguely agree with BL but we do hold Charlie Cop to a higher standard that D'Quan Drugdealer. And we absolutely should. But, that said, if Black Lives Matter, concern yourself with all of them not just the one Robbie the Racist Cop shot.