New Poll Puts Gary Johnson in First Place Among Active Duty Military and Veterans

But accurate online polling is tough, and accurate polling of the military is even tougher.


Maybe kinda polling well?
Paul Hennessy/Polaris/Newscom

According to a new online poll conducted by a number of veterans advocacy groups and military-related websites, Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson is the most popular presidential candidate among active military members and veterans, with about 53 percent support, far ahead of the 20 percent each garnered by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

But the poll — sponsored by Military OneClick, Got Your 6, We Are The Mighty, and Doctrine Man — is hardly foolproof. The 1,399 respondents who self-identified as active military, veterans, or military family members were not verified in any way. Also, because this latest military poll is an "opt-in" poll, its results can be skewed depending on how and where the poll was promoted, among many other variables.

According to a representative with Got Your 6, the poll was conducted using SurveyMonkey, which imposes a limit of 1 vote per device and IP address. So, technically a person could vote repeatedly by clearing their cache or using multiple devices, but any attempts at poll-stuffing wouldn't be as simple as merely voting over and over again.

Angie Drake, a volunteer with Doctrine Man, told Reason that "active duty military are not allowed to publicly support candidates or political parties" and requiring a valid email address or other identifying information would have "compromised participation" in the polling and put participants at risk.

Online polling, as opposed to other randomized methods of polling, also presents challenges. The Washington Post recently explained its use of SurveyMonkey in taking a national poll of American voter attitudes:

While standard Washington Post surveys draw random samples of cellular and landline users to ensure every voter has a chance of being selected, the probability of any given voter being invited to a SurveyMonkey is unknown, and those who do not use the platform do not have a chance of being selected. A margin of sampling error is not calculated for SurveyMonkey results, since this is a statistical property only applicable to randomly sampled surveys.

During the run-up to last week's "Commander in Chief Forum" broadcast by NBC and hosted by Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), a previous Doctrine Man poll — which showed Johnson leading among active military — was frequently cited by his supporters to advocate for his inclusion in the forum alongside Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Responding to complaints over Johnson's exclusion on Twitter, IAVA CEO Paul Rieckhoff cited a Military Times poll putting Johnson in third place among military, implying he believed this Military Times poll to be more accurate.

But a new poll currently being conducted by Miliary Times and Syracuse University suffers from the some compromises as the Military OneClick (et al) poll. Though the poll is intended to be limited to active military, veterans, and their families, no verification or valid email address is required. I took the poll myself (as the family member of an active military serviceperson) and found that I could immediately take the poll again afterward. No change of device, IP address, or even browser was required.

So is Gary Johnson really winning the vote of active military members? Hard to say, though it wouldn't be shocking if he were. In 2012, libertarian hero Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) dominated the GOP presidential field when it came to racking up donations from active military.

But because even the margin of error in an opt-in online poll can't be determined, and because of the limits on political speech imposed on active military, all of these polls claiming to be a definitive view into the political preferences of the military rank-and-file should be taken with a grain of salt.

NEXT: Gary Johnson Gets Snoped, Obama to Veto 9/11 Bill, Clinton to Release More Medical Records: A.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Are we even still counting military votes? They always come in so late and, really, what do those people know?

    1. What difference, at this point, does it make?

      1. Ron Paul used to win the online polls too, so maybe this will help Gary's appeal with libertarians.

        1. I was making fun of Hillary.

    2. Count it or not, I are one. Put me down for GJ.
      Not gonna let perfect be the enemy of good enough two complete morons who would be even worse.

    3. CNN doesn't count millennials in their polls it seems. Turner released how they ran the labor day poll and they decided that almost a third of voters don't count. funny since that is where he is getting a lot of his support. What I want to know is why Reason and others aren't pointing that little fact out since it is public knowledge. Just look at page 32 and you will find out for yourselves.

      1. MAybe it's not a grand conspiracy by Reason Magazine to keep Johnson down. Maybe they didn't notice.

        And maybe an email to Emily Ekins where you make your case that there is polling skulduggery would prompt the article you are hoping to see.

  2. Further evidence that nominating Johnson was smart, smart, smart.

    We'll come out the other side of this cycle with the perception that we're a legitimate choice for reasonable people like never before.

    Imagine the alternative!

    The only thing that might have gone over worse than the Republicans nominating the only person who couldn't beat Hillary would have been the Libertarians nominating someone even crazier than Trump.

    1. I agree with this sentiment. The reachable goal this cycle is to get matching funding by garnering more than five percent of the vote. Looks like about 10 million dollars would then be distributed next cycle:

    2. Trump is going to beat Illary by the way, unless the democrats do the smart move of making a call to the bullpen.

      1. The Libertarians nominating McAfee might have helped Trump tremendously.

        It'd be a lot easier for Trump to pass himself off as reasonable if he had someone as crazy as McAfee for contrast.

        1. Kenny, the Libertarian Party is irrelevant to the election's outcome. I doubt Trump or his strategists spend a passing moment on the question of how we make Trump look more serious than the LP candidate.

          1. If you noticed, sweetie, I wasn't talking about the election outcome in terms of votes.

            I was talking about the outcome in terms of how libertarians are perceived by the general public.

            A huge chunk of the general population out there still thinks we're either militia movement cranks or something else equally unacceptable.

            The Libertarians nominating Johnson and Weld, this cycle, helped buck that perception. Johnson wasn't about to win the White House. Selling libertarianism as something that's part of a nutritious breakfast for families like yours, that was the best we could reasonably hope for--and Team Johnson hit that ball out of the park.

            Listening to McAfee for more than five minutes makes soccer moms want to repeal the Second Amendment.

            1. I was talking about the outcome in terms of how libertarians are perceived by the general public.

              No you weren't. You were talking about the impact the LP's nominating process would have had on Trump's campaign.

              As to your new argument, that Gary Johnson being the candidate makes Liberarians look more reasonable and less scary than they would appear had they nominated McAffee or Petersen, that's pretty much incontrovertible.

              And, though Gary Johnson is not a libertarian, his campaign or election would certainly move things in a libertarian direction - something I've heard refered to as "Fabian Libertarianism".

              Of course, I don't think it's going to go anywhere. So far, I'm standing by my prediction that in a few years' time, the Libertarian Party will be out of people's minds, much like the Reform Party is today despite having actually altered the outcome of the 1992 election.

              1. much like the Reform Party is today despite having actually altered the outcome of the 1992 election.

                But, it was the Reform party run in 1992 that led to Newt Gingrich developing the Contract with America, as I note below. The GOP shifted to co-opt Perot voters. It might actually be a good thing to see the Republicans shift to a more libertarian position to co-opt Johnson voters.

                1. That the Reform Party had their fiscal conservatism adopted by the GOP to the extent it was, that was a huge accomplishment.

                  If support for fiscal conservatism petered out in the GOP, it was probably because it petered out as an important issue for swing voters.

                  Libertarianism isn't about using the party politics to impose our solutions on an unwilling populace anyway.

                  And, regardless, the support for fiscal conservatism shows the importance of public perceptions. If support for ObamaCare implodes, ObamaCare will eventually go with it. The reason we hate those kinds of programs is because we fear that once people become dependent on the program, public support for unplugging it will dwindle, right?

                  Ultimately, the polices are the cart, and public opinion is the horse. If public opinion isn't willing to drag your policies around anymore, then you're focused too much on policy and too little on public opinion.

                  1. Incidentally, this is why spreading the libertarians gospel by way of Reason and our own word of mouth is so much more important over the long run than short term election results.

                    Over the course of the last eight years, Obama went from campaigning on the slogan of "Marriage is between a man and a woman" to where he is now. First public perception changes and then comes the policy changes. No one's going to successfully implement an end to the drug war without public support for that either--no electing anti-drug war politicians won't make much difference if the people don't support ending the drug war. Once they do support ending it, the politicians we already have will start falling all over themselves trying to get rid of it.

                    People didn't change their minds because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the result of the American people changing their minds.

                    If Perot's reforms petered out, it was because they were unsuccessful in really changing people's minds. . . . but their politics were successful, they were about as successful as political change without a true change in public opinion can be.

                    1. Incidentally, this is why spreading the libertarians gospel by way of Reason and our own word of mouth is so much more important over the long run than short term election results.

                      I completely agree.

                      I would also add that if one can come up with a liberalizing business idea (eg WordPress) or a liberalizing technological innovation (the automobile), go for it!

                      Freedom advances on the margins, and its greatest enemy is fear of privation. The more comfortable and happy people are, the less they are willing to listen to politicians.

                2. and Clinton the 1st made an attempt at balancing the budget

                  1. "and Clinton the 1st made an attempt at balancing the budget"

                    Yes, Clinton was so insistent on a balanced budget that he shut down the government rather than give in to Newt Gingrich's spending!

                    Is that what I'm supposed to believe?

                    That's ridiculous. Whomever you're listening to, stop listening.

              2. "No you weren't. You were talking about the impact the LP's nominating process would have had on Trump's campaign."

                This is what I actually wrote.

                "We'll come out the other side of this cycle with the perception that we're a legitimate choice for reasonable people like never before."

                ---Ken Shultz

                "Kenny, the Libertarian Party is irrelevant to the election's outcome."

                The election outcome--for "the Libertarian Party"--that I was talking about was the perception of libertarianism in the general public.

                In fact, I've pretty much always argued, here, that the true legitimate purpose of the LP is to expose the general public to libertarian ideas at a time when they're thinking about politics. The LP will probably never win the Presidency, single member districts, blah, blah, blah, I've said it a million times.

                Meanwhile, yeah, it's true: if the LP had nominated someone perceived to be even crazier than Trump, it would have been easier for Trump to keep saying crazy shit--it would be like McAfee were setting the "unthinkable" bar in the Overton window.


                1. Except, of course, I was replying to this

                  The Libertarians nominating McAfee might have helped Trump tremendously.

                  It'd be a lot easier for Trump to pass himself off as reasonable if he had someone as crazy as McAfee for contrast.

            2. I think you're pretty much right here. I'll add something. I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to think that Johnson/Weld might cover the Clinton - Trump spread. And, honestly, even that is a game-changer. If you're a GOP leader with even the iota of a clue, at that point you have to see the handwriting on the wall. And that spells very good things for libertarians in the Republican party (Rand, I'm looking at you.).

              1. If you're a GOP leader with even the iota of a clue

                There's the rub. This is the party that nominated Trump.

                1. Point taken. But, Johnson covering the spread still looks like the best chance of liberty taking center stage within the GOP. Even the GOP can sometimes still learn. It was Perot's run against Bush that gave birth to the Contract with America.

                  1. The higher the LP vote count, the harder it will be for either major party to avoid asking themselves if alienating the LP voters cost more than bringing home the base.

                    At 1%, they can ignore us. At 10%, not so much so. And if the LP candidate actually wins a state ...

                    1. Except they aren't alienating LP voters.

                      Don't focus on the presidential election. Focus on the state elections. Focus on the congressional elections.

                      If 10% of the electorate were voting LP in those elections, you could argue that they are LP voters.

                      The LP base is so small as to be a rounding error. Until the downticket races are garnering more support, I doubt the solons of the major parties will be too concerned.

              2. +1

                I think that's why FDR adopted the platform of the American communist party, why Gingrich and the Republicans adopted fiscal conservatism in the wake of Perot, and why the Democrats enthusiastically embraced global warming in the wake of the Green Party covering the spread in the Gore/Bush election in 2000.

                Because of single member districts, the best we can reasonably hope for is to have the Democrats and Republicans steal our issues one at a time. We were for gay marriage when Obama was too embarrassed to say so in public. We're against the drug war, etc. They're taking our issues! But that's alright.

                I just wish free market capitalism weren't the very last issue on their shopping list.

                1. I just wish free market capitalism weren't the very last issue on their shopping list.

                  I remember (still) wishing that smaller government weren't the very last issue on the GOP's shopping list as well.

                  If Gary gets 5% of the vote, past performance is a pretty clear indication that the majority of that vote is due to the relatively terrible nature of the other teams' representatives. Otherwise, Gary is largely mirroring the same selling out the base and principle to go populist issue cherry-picking that keeps and has kept the other teams exactly where they are.

              3. but the press will write it off as a one-time aberration due to a 100-years election.
                It's not like Gary's positions are actually being covered by the media.
                Who will remember what they were next cycle if no one covers them this cycle?

      2. I hope so!

        I have an ice cream sundae riding on the outcome. That literally makes it the most important presidential election of my lifetime.

    3. The "crazy" guy is winning.

      1. If Trump wins, it'll be because he overcomes the perception among however many swing voters that he's "crazy".

        I wasn't giving Trump a clinical diagnosis (although Narcissistic Personality Disorder seems a likely candidate).

        1. According to FiveThirtyEight, Trump is at 30% chance of winning, based on a polling spread about equal to the Brexit spread.

          Basically, it's down to turnout, with both sides wildly unenthusiastic about the R and D candidates.

          1. Absolute numbers are hard to grok, but just going by momentum in swing states, the worm seems to be turning for Trump.

            He's gaining in both Ohio and Florida. He's neck and neck in North Carolina.

            And I suspect there's still an "October surprise" coming for Hillary. Once we find out if it's herpes that makes her faint, the hackers may drop some juicy bombs on her candidacy by way of her missing emails come October.

            If Trump can just keep his mouth shut long enough, . . .

            I hope he wins. I won't vote for him, but when abuse of office is the issue, it's the only issue that matters. If Trump were a communist or a fascist or an active member of the KKK, I might have reservations. He's none of those things, but Hillary took money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of States.

            That's a disqualification.

            1. Gotta wait for the next two weeks of polls to see how much the face plant hurt Hillary. I'm guessing she's gonna lose about 5 points. Thinking the same as tarran, though. It won't matter too much in the big picture.

              1. I see three good reasons to vote for Trump:

                1) After ObamaCare ultimately implodes, you want Trump there to sign whatever replaces it.

                If Trump signs something imperfect, that's one thing. Hillary might not settle for anything less than single payer--and you're not going to override her veto.

                2) The Second Amendment means whatever he next appointment to the Supreme Court says it means.

                Trump may not make an appointment based solely on a nominee's affection for the Second Amendment, but Hillary will make an appointment based primarily on a nominee's hostility to the Second Amendment. Doing so is what progressives mean when they talk about "progress".

                3) You live in a deep blue state like California, and voting for Johnson doesn't really get your middle finger high enough in the air to where the politicians in Sacramento can see it.

            2. Trump has put Arizona and Texas into play, which takes some doing.

              He'd have to run almost all the swing states to have a chance at it, which means he's gonna have to outperform the polls. If the polls are accurate, he's toast. But I'm starting to think that the polls just ain't capturing this weird election where both major sides are having a hell of a time stomaching the vomitable results their primary voters threw up.

              1. He really hasn't put Texas in play, that meme is based on a single outlier. Arizona is another matter, but Bill Clinton was the exception in Arizona's otherwise long Republican streak so it's not surprising that a Clinton is outperforming the usual Democrat performance in the state. Clinton is definitely in a stronger position, currently positioned to win slightly less decisively than Obama in 2012, but given this crazy election and the fact that a mere 2 point swing would upend things I don't think there's a safe bet here.

    4. Further evidence that nominating Johnson was smart, smart, smart.

      We'll come out the other side of this cycle with the perception that we're a legitimate choice for reasonable people like never before.

      We do believe in a health/safety net, for example ... we're for supporting social security, but that [earlier referenced misconception is part of] the baggage the Libertarian Party carries. And you know what? In theory, a lot of that at some [prior] point might actually [have 'flown'.] But in my lifetime, I don't think so. We'd like to actually like to hold off [on major fiscal cuts] and push the country in a direction of fiscal solvency ... [it's] where you've got to start.

      Making it simpler and more efficient to enter the United States legally will provide greater security than a wall by allowing law enforcement to focus on those who threaten our country, not those who want to be a part of it.


      So, more free shit just more reasonably distributed and don't be as mean about allowing people in to get on the dole. You've gotta be more accommodating in order to get the donors, right?

      Great party you've got there, sure would be a shame if Hillary couldn't win with it.

      1. I don't necessarily agree with that stuff myself; I'm certainly not a fan of basic incomes, and I don't care what Milton Friedman and the Cato Institute say.

        . . . but if Johnson and Weld were President, I don't think we'd see "more free stuff".

        I think there'd be less.

        And, anyway, suggesting to the general public that you can vote libertarian and not necessarily expect the libertarian candidate to take your social security and medicare benefits away is neither a bad strategy for public outreach nor factually incorrect.

  3. What do these military peaceniks know? Hell, with their obsessive desire to "see the whole person," they would fail to eliminate the threat of some lousy fuck trying to commit suicide by cop.

    Not one of them would last a week on the force.

    1. * slow clap *

  4. If those military types knew what was good for them, they'd obviously support Hillary. Because she's a woman, and as feminists have explained, "If women ruled the world there would never be any war."

    (Also, "Doctrine Man" sounds like a religious superhero.)

    1. The idea that women leaders are less likely to go to war is a real thing in anthropology, too.

      It's like the theory that democracies are less likely to go to war with each other.

      1. It's a real thing. But, where is the empirical data to back it up? Thatcher, Ghandi, Meir all seem examples that fly in the face of that theory.

        1. If women ran things there wouldn't be any wars. Just a major international crisis every 28 days.

          1. If women ran things there wouldn't be any wars. Just a major international crisis every 28 days.

            No wars. Just assassinations. Lots and lots of assassinations.

        2. Hell, Hillary herself is one of the biggest hawks in Washington. Name one military intervention in the past 25 years she didn't actively cheerlead for.

          1. Exactly. I keep hearing this theory. But, the thing is, I never see much in the way of actual evidence offered up in support of the claim. And to buy into it, you have to believe that the issue of war and peace is primarily driven by the idiosyncrasies of political leaders, rather than the calculus of national self-interest. It's a version of the Top Men (or in this case, Top Women) theory.

        3. There aren't a lot of matriarchal societies to study over the course of 6,000 years of recorded history. I think much of that analysis rides on the differences between people who are exposed to testosterone and people who are exposed to estrogen, mothers being more reluctant to sacrifice their children, etc.

          Women aren't just penisless men with larger breasts. They seem to think differently, see the world differently, etc. And it might not be unreasonable to suggest that if key decisions were made by women rather than men, that they might make different decisions. Who would deny that our politics have changed since women were given the vote?

          I think they argue that Thatcher, Gandhi, and Meir may have acted more like men because they were still leading patriarchal societies. If Thatcher were leading a Parliament full of women rather than men, maybe her brand of politics wouldn't have predominated.

          That's the way their argument sort of goes. I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm just saying that's sort of the way the argument goes.

          I'm just sayin'.

          1. The issue I take is that it's dead simple, even in male-dominated societies, to see situations where non-violence and/or lack of wars produces far less-than-desirable social/moral outcomes and the "women leaders = no wars" notion distinctly/deliberately fails to address that.

            Aside from all the people dying of starvation, the Holodomor was pretty peaceful.

            1. I agree that peace isn't always the most preferable option.

              I'm glad we fought the American Revolution.

              I wish we'd found a peaceful way to get rid of slavery, but if there was no other way, then I'm glad we fought the Civil War.

              If women would have shied away from fighting those wars, I'm not convinced the outcomes would have been better just because the outcomes avoided more violence.

              However, I'm a man. Does that influence my personal preferences?

              I would assume so.

              The point feminists are making, though, is that if both sides to these conflicts were represented by matriarchal societies, then these issues would have been resolved in a different way--without war.

              But I think it's wrong to assume they would have been resolved in a different way and had the same outcome.

              I'm imagining a kinder, gentler, slave-owning society, and I think I prefer war.

          2. I do understand. I just think it's a bogus theory. It almost instantly collapses into near-non-falsifiability. As soon as you cite counter-examples, it goes from women to the patriarchy. As soon as you address those, it goes to all societies have to be matriarchies.

            The truth is while yeah women aren't just penisless men with larger breasts, those differences don't include mind-reading and imperviousness to incentives. Unless you can somehow get around these things, the same calculus that drives men to war drives women to war.

  5. OT: I work with this dude:

    I'm pretty sure that he just became a libertarian.

    1. Let's see, PhD Los Alamos scientist with tech on one side, unionized TSA morons on the other. My money's on the TSA.

    2. The criminal complaint alleges Danielson went to the airport "with the intent of any other person thinking it was a real explosive device."

      According to the complaint, Danielson told authorities that he had planned to explain that the device was not an explosive.

      "Mr. Danielson admitted ? on three separate occasions that he purposely brought the item through security knowing it would draw suspicion, possibly questioning by the TSA, and admitted he intended to demonstrate or show TSA that the item was inert and not an explosive device," an officer wrote in the complaint.


      1. Can you imagine what would have happened had the FAA not destroyed Flytenow?

        1. I hate to be a tough guy internet commentator but the only way I could have probably resisted some form of very loud and possible violent altercation if it had been me in that situation would have been if the criminal complainant had literally been a drooling retard, because at least than there would be some excuse for this level of stupidity.

          1. I think I would have had a hard time reining in the sarcasm: "Look, you're clearly not smart enough to understand what this device does. Get your superior over here so I can talk to someone with hopefully basic cognitive skills."

      2. i second the wow.

      3. So, say you have a pacemaker and some TSA dumbshit stops you and ruins your flight because he thinks you're Gary Sinise in Imposter. Does that mean that the next time you go through, since you know the TSA is moronic and you will need to explain you are not a replicant assassin, you are intentionally creating a bomb scare?

        I don't easily wish death on people, but the human gene pool could only be improved by culling the TSA.

    3. his lawyer

      "He never intended that anyone think it was a bomb," Cron said. "He was fully forthcoming at all times with everybody involved in the process. And I'm frankly surprised that he was charged

      The TSA =

      "Mr. Danielson admitted ? on three separate occasions that he purposely brought the item through security knowing it would draw suspicion, possibly questioning by the TSA, and admitted he intended to demonstrate or show TSA that the item was inert and not an explosive device," an officer wrote in the complaint.

      By admitting that he assumed that they were so stupid that he would need to explain "it is not a bomb" it to them, he has therefore committed a crime.

      (*instead of 'intending' to provoke a bomb-scare, they think merely demonstrating his awareness of the 'possibility' of a bomb scare is sufficient)

      Because assuming that's what they'd think meets the same criminal act as 'Clock Boy'.

      This is one of those Dunning?Kruger situations where a smart guy doesn't have a clue just how stupid other people are, and therefore behaves under the presumption that he will be able to "explain" things in the event there's a misunderstanding.

      The more complex question = does popularizing this story in the press after the fact *improve* his chances of getting this dismissed, or does it aggravate the TSA even more and make them double down?

      1. If Dr. al-Danielson didn't want to get stopped, maybe he should have shaved that unkempt bin Laden beard. I mean, come on!

        1. yeah he has "randomly selected" written all over him.

        2. Yeah he has "randomly selected" written all over him.

      2. I can't get over how stupid this situation is.

  6. If politicians gave a shit what soldiers wanted, they probably wouldn't send them off to die in some godforsaken desert for no reason.

    1. Hey! Money is a reason.

  7. *shrugs* Who knows for sure, but it wouldn't be all that surprising if the one candidate who doesn't want to send them off to die in some middle eastern clusterfuck of a country for no good reason does well with military members. Makes sense from a rational self interest point of view.

    1. Well, that, and the exposure to the clusterfuck of military socialism shouldn't exactly engender confidence in the federal government.

      Though, by that logic, anyone who works for the government ought to turn into a raging anarchist, as happened to me, and instead they usually double down on statism.

      1. Though, by that logic, anyone who works for the government ought to turn into a raging anarchist, as happened to me, and instead they usually double down on statism.

        Probably another case of rational self interest at work. Since statism is what's paying a lot of those government workers' salaries, it makes sense that a lot of them would double down. That and the fact that "in the private sector they expect results."

        1. I guess it is different if you perceive that the incompetence won't get you killed. In the military, not so much so.

          1. Right, to civil servants incompetence = job security. Not so much in the military.

            1. My, admittedly limited, experience with military leadership is one of a great deal of incompetence. It seems that Full Birds and above don't understand strategy...I am speaking outside the services. Once they leave with their 90k retirement and come work for a nimble high tech company the first thing they do is fuck it up while collecting a 150-200k salary. All the Lt and Sgts I work with inform me that this is common even in the service itself. So perhaps there is a certain rank above which incompetence is rewarded...maybe that rank where people are no longer shooting at you.

                1. Naturally.

  8. Hillary almost joined the USMC and dodged sniper fire, and Trump ran laps in the gym in high school and therefore claims to have more military experience than many people who actually enlisted.

    Now I'm going to microwave this stouffer's chipped beef and brag about my cooking skills.

  9. We got top grade medical marijuana and Oils for patients and smokers,For A decade Now, we been
    cultivating our medical marijuana respecting the highest traditional cultivating standards,
    using the finest ingredients expertly chosen by our master farmers, All over USA, Canada and
    Europe.Our Medical marijuana's unique crisp flavor is enjoyed and recognized as the perfect
    ingredient for health cure and smoking happy times shared with friends.INTERESTED BUYERS SHOULD
    We got All top grade of weed and we recommend these to our Clients
    We Also got Cannabis oils and concentrates.we do shipment in the whole of USA, Canada, Europe,
    Australia and North America,
    Contact via details below:
    Phone Number: (505)8593291
    skype: drjerry onlinepharmacy

  10. When will Reason talk about how CNN robbed Johnson in their latest polls? When will they talk about how CNN didn't allow the results for the 18 to 34 voters to be counted? Gary's main supporters were dismissed, almost 30 million voters, were considered N/A.

  11. Military speech isn't as limited as described. An active-duty or former military member cannot publicly campaign for a candidate while in uniform (how Kokesh got arrested and demoted), or put campaign signs on military property, including base housing. But you see the private vehicles of military members adorned with campaign bumper stickers on military bases all the time.

    Now then, there is a a small political risk for those seeking rank advancement, that a superior officer might find your bumper sticker aggravating (if he ever sees it) and that it might possibly color his opinion of you when you are trying to move up the ladder and need a favorable assessment -- but it is not illegal. And it is not illegal for military members to participate in polls or donate to political candidates.

    I had a Ron Paul bumper sticker on my car that I drove on the Naval bases in Washington State all the time. Perhaps my husband would have advised me otherwise had he not already made captain -- or if he were seeking to make Admiral. But he was totally cool with it.

    But he certainly could not politic at work or wear a uniform while promoting any candidate.

  12. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.


  13. So you spent the entire article invalidating the poll that the title indicates. Way to go James Comey.

  14. It creates a lot of problem and also annoy you when all the thing go damage at the same time. game hacker apk game killer apk I can realize how one do feel at such a moment..

  15. Black Magic Specialist Baba Solve All Problems Like Love Problem, Marriage Problems, Business Problems, Love Marriage Problem,Intercast Marriage Issue.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.