Now Montana Knows Why Early Voting Is Bad

a reply to: xuenchen

Man, I can almost guarantee that whenever and wherever they can the Leftists will try to limit if not abolish early voting.

Weird thing though is that they claim when the Republicans push for that its voter intimidation.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: DBCowboy

That's a good term right there.

Russian Reps.

Russiacans.

Seems appropriate with this current bunch on the alt-right.

But I worked with the GOP last pres. campaign and they cringe at Trumps arrogant antics just like normal people.

Gianforte in no stretch of the imagination representing most Republicans. I can't believe I'm defending the RNC....

Good point. I know a lot of educated reps who voted for Trump purely as a vote for their party and conservative principles. Many even acknowledged that they didn't necessarily care for him as a person. I can respect that.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Shhhhhh. there's no such thing as voter fraud, remember? There's no behind the scenes manipulation. Of course no one is allowed to actually SEE the counting of the votes........its against the law on the basis of privacy laws.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: The GUT

That's a good possibility. The Dems were desperate. I would not put it past them to set this up. How do we know that it was not the reporter who pulled the guy down on top of him?

That's the argument you want to go with? And you think Dems are grasping at straws?

How do we know you're not the anti-christ?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: xuenchen

Unfortunately I think there are a lot of republican voters that think assaulting people you don't like is a moral/righteous good thing.

Like in Berkeley?

And who exactly from antifa ran for office that you can gauge their level of support of from the left?

a reply to: xuenchen

I will especially vote for ANYONE who body slams a journalist. Via write-in if need be!

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: xuenchen

Unfortunately I think there are a lot of republican voters that think assaulting people you don't like is a moral/righteous good thing.

Just republican voters? I don't think the riots on college campuses have been carried out by republican voters.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Yeah, you are completely right. Politicians should have no right to expect journalists to have to respect personal space at all or to back off when asked to and then told to back off.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: The GUT

That's a good possibility. The Dems were desperate. I would not put it past them to set this up. How do we know that it was not the reporter who pulled the guy down on top of him?

That's the argument you want to go with? And you think Dems are grasping at straws?

How do we know you're not the anti-christ?

We never really know, do we?

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: xuenchen

Unfortunately I think there are a lot of republican voters that think assaulting people you don't like is a moral/righteous good thing.

Like in Berkeley?

And who exactly from antifa ran for office that you can gauge their level of support of from the left?

Maybe it was Antifa Girl, The Moldy Locks Candidate !!



Or was it she ran "away" from office?

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Painterz

So if you went to a gas station or the grocery store or something, and while minding your own business someone comes up and starts getting in your face with his phone and just generally being a dick. You ask him to stop a few times but he pressed on and follows you...Would you not at the very least want to punch said guy in the face...I know I would. May not be right but it is human to react that way.

The problem with that analogy is that 'you' in this scenario have put yourself in a position for people to 'get in your face' on a regular basis. Ambush journalism is a thing. Should the reporter have backed off, yeah. Should Gianforte called in guards/security, also yeah.

I´ve just been through the Guardian article on this incident and I´m already sick of their tactics. When they talk about the sheriff, the first thing they do is tie in a could-be conspiracy mentioning he gave 250$ to Gianforte. This seems to have happened in their headquarters and that reporter was told upfront before, that Gianforte won´t have time.

It was wrong if he assaulted the reporter but he asked for it by dashing in that newsroom where another crew was setting up their stuff for an interview. The reaction from Jacobs was cold-calculated. I´m saying he hoped for this to happen.

Just look at the guardian article, they do their best to bring up dirt against anyone involved with Gianforte. I don´t know the guy or what he´s done in his political career but it´s clear as day the guardian is out to get him. Then the picture of his allegedly broken glass, in the emergency vehicle. Pathetic.

a reply to: Wayfarer

If I didn't pick up on your take, I'm sorry. However, since that lady reporter pushed a black metal object up to Trump's back, and Corey L. grabbed her arm, I think we all can say that there are bubbles around our political candidates. Approach from the front, keep a respectful distance, and obey any demand to back off. There have been too many knife attacks by Jihadiis, in the last year, to let things go on as they were. Heck the Taliban took over Afghanistan by assassinating the friendly Northern Areas Warlord, with a gun hidden in a "reporter's" camera.
Maybe the best policy will be to think that every political subject has two or three Secret Service agents surrounding them. Or as the NRA says; "an armed society, is a polite society". This could work wonders with the Paparazzi, down in Hollywood. So maybe Pres. Trump can elucidate some of these new rules, to protect interviewees.

a reply to: xuenchen

Gianforte's agenda is probably to bring more industrialization to Montana. On the surface, that sounds good. In the process, people may lose a lot of rights in this state. All I can say is that the People of Montana have access to all of the waterways for fishing and other recreational activities. He has fought a Montana man in the past trying to deny fishing rights on his property (like he owned the damned river!). This had better not carry over to his Congressional administration of the state, or I fear that people will call for a "special election" or something like that to replace him. Stay awake People of Montana. Don't let the FAKE MONTANAN from New Jersey destroy what you have!

a reply to: InFriNiTee

Alas; that horse is long out of the barn. Farmers and ranchers run Montana. The stream beds are out of play as you cannot illegally cross someone's deeded lands to get to them. " A River Runs through it" is long gone. Ted Turner's spread is so big, that myriads of homeboy's fishing holes became unobtanium, overnight, after "The Mouth of the South" invaded them.