In any case, I would probably try to play my cards close to my chest until they actually take office. 

This is a fair point.  We shouldn't be quick to assume a pick will be the end all be all, but we also shouldn't be too quick to assume a pick will turn out disastrous.

Sit down already!

You would have gladly seen hαɾɾιs elected if you had your way…

Having been repeatedly informed that I opposed both Trump and hαɾɾιs, your claim is an outright lie.… yet another effeminate hysterical straw man, another evil product of your "Jєωιѕн understanding."

Your propensity to lie (straw men are a species of lie) is consistent with your affinity for the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan and "Jєωιѕн understanding."


six types of lies encouraged by the "Torah": https://archive.is/in8Ij

• 1)scholarship (including Torah scholarship),
• 2)sɛҳuąƖity, and
• 3)hospitality
  The тαℓмυd: The Steinsaltz Edition, Vol II, p.49
• 4)lying to gentiles (Baba Kamma 113a)
• 5)lying to keep out of trouble (for “peace”) (Yebamoth 65b)
• 6)when everyone should know you are lying, guzmah (Hullin 90b)

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Connelly-DeceitII.html

Sit down already!

You would have gladly seen hαɾɾιs elected if you had your way... then you have the gall to lecture us about the 'hard way'? LOL! You can slander Trump all you want, hey you may even get some legitimate criticism in some areas, as even a broken clock is right twice a day (vast majority has been a total joke though)... nevertheless, I see some very significant wins and I'm very glad for that and will pray for them... and no matter what you can come up with, it's still miles better than your utmost stupidity in seeing hαɾɾιs elected and some nonsense of moving backwards to move forwards with dates ranging from 1980, 1973, 1965 etc (lol what a total joke)... furthermore... in the Nuclear age you should know that with Chernobyl, the town of Pripyat is still a ghost town and they didn't rebuild anything...

So for someone who would have gladly seen a hαɾɾιs elected and all that would have entailed... you are in no position to lecture anyone. France is your example... a hαɾɾιs election with all that would have entailed is your example... own that and it's consequences before you criticise others who are trying, take the log out of your own eye first.

Actually a stopped clock is right twice a day; a broken clock, not necessarily so.… so, you even got that wrong.

You would have gladly seen hαɾɾιs elected if you had your way... then you have the gall to lecture us about the 'hard way'? LOL!
...,
So for someone who would have gladly seen a hαɾɾιs elected and all that would have entailed... you are in no position to lecture anyone.

Malicious slander.  You owe him a public apology, and also an apology to those others of us who have been exposing Trump, since you undoubtedly meant this comment to apply to all of us.

I'm going to start writing up and compiling lists of logical fallacies, and as I pointed out to Trump shill Cera the other day, this one here is the one that's effectively just straight-out lying and slander.

Strawman by False Dichotomy (False Dilemma)

So, this is the favorite tactic of the controllers who employ the Hegelian dialectic and is one of the logical fallacies that's closest to just directly lying and slandering your opponent with a position they do not hold.

So, for your diseased and intellectually dishonest mind, if one objects to Trump, that means that they "would have gladly seen hαɾɾιs elected".  At one point Cera slandered me by asserting that hαɾɾιs was "your candidate".  So you employ the false dichotomy between being for Trump and being for hαɾɾιs, when in point of fact you could be against BOTH of them.

This argument is stupid and transparently false.

It's like saying that "If the water is not boiling, then it must be frozen."

This is used all the time by the controllers and is the chief mechanism to advance the Hegelian dialectic.

"If you're against the Jєωιѕн genocide in Gaza, that means you favor terrorism." [Trump]
"If you're protesting against the Jєωιѕн genocide in Gaza, you're a 'Pro Hamas' protestor." [Jews et al]
"If you're against companies abusing employees by not paying them living wages when they could afford to do so, you're a Communist." [neo-cons]
"If you're against Trump, then you're a Leftist." [neo-cons]
"If you're against Trump, hαɾɾιs is your candidate." [Cera]
"If you're against Trump, you would have happily seen hαɾɾιs elected." [josh]

Myriad examples can be produced.

So by using the False Dichotomy or False Dilemma fallacy, you're smearing your opponent with a position they do not hold so that you can then use it as a point of attack (the Strawman fallacy).

He initially picked Mike Flynn last time around. He lasted for 22 days. Some time later the neo-con John Bolton was his replacement.

The FBI played General Flynn and the Trump presidency because they were naive the first time around.