POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
So, they're just Turkish refugees? Right, right
So why the military presence at Greece border?
So why the antics with the CG?
Imagine weaponizing desperate and destitute people... Oh, hey, DNC!
So why the military presence at Greece border?
So why the antics with the CG?
Imagine weaponizing desperate and destitute people... Oh, hey, DNC!
I’ve seen so many leftists screeching sexism over this election, which is hilarious because these women won elections to get where they are, but I digress.
I find it funny no one cares to scream sexism over Tulsi Gabbard (who Democrats changed rules midgame like a kindergartener who is losing a made up game would) who is closer to sane than the rest. Oh and she’s hot... but that probably hurts her cause with most democrats too.
Nothing about being a Democrat and left wing socialist makes sense nor is it logical. You have to be a desperate sad sack of Schitt to vote for one.
If Tulsi remains a Democrat after this fiasco of a primary she needs to think again. The Democrats are an establishment party and if you have to Walk The Line to get the nomination. Tulsi is not walking the line so she will have to watch the debate on her TV.
The Dim establishment knows she will embarrass Sleepy Joe and they can't have that.
Given that it was Obama, I'm certain that "curtains" is code for male prostitutes
You can legislate and codify rules for ever single possible thing in history. It isn't supposed to be that way. In modern times, legislatures are trying to do that and it's a disaster. It isn't effective, there is tons of overlap, and way too voluminous.
Making lynching specifically a hate crime is a great example.
You don't have to like every outcome. It's meant for interpretation not activism. This would be that sort of interpretation
They're not Turkish refugees. They're Syrians in Turkey. Are Guatemalans on our border in Mexico Mexican refugees? Turks want the Syrians out of their country.
Turkey may think the Greeks are in their waters, but who knows.
I'll take a Congress vote over a novel SC interpretation any day. Nine people deciding for the whole country is a dictatorship imo.
They try to claim that AMERICA is responsible for 2 old white guys being their only choices left when AMERICA had nothing to say about it. ANTI-AMERICA are the ones responsible. Just like ANTI-AMERICA are the ones who are overtly racist, they are overtly sexist as well.
The DNC are the ones who changed the rules so Bloomberg could be in the debates. Now they've changed the rules again to say that Tulsi cannot participate. Look at those facts and then rationalize how they can make any statement regarding AMERICA.
We see you DNC. We know who you are.
A
anon_l8pbkn96tg3j6
Guest
Non zero chance Tulsi is a tranny and Kamala misgendered her which would make this all more hilarious.
Last edited by a moderator:
Persistence, heartbreak: The loss of viable female candidates in the 2020 race
I dare you to read this article and utter "bullshit" less than 5 times. I said it when I read the headline itself. NONE of the females running for President were viable in reality. Shirley Chisholm would have mopped the floor with any of them.
Warren told us that she would let a 9 year old TRANSGENDER select her Sec. of Ed. Wow! After that revelation she expects people to consider her a "viable" candidate? That is not leadership. That is pandering to the lowest common denominator, which is what every dem politician does because that's their base.
I dare you to read this article and utter "bullshit" less than 5 times. I said it when I read the headline itself. NONE of the females running for President were viable in reality. Shirley Chisholm would have mopped the floor with any of them.
Warren told us that she would let a 9 year old TRANSGENDER select her Sec. of Ed. Wow! After that revelation she expects people to consider her a "viable" candidate? That is not leadership. That is pandering to the lowest common denominator, which is what every dem politician does because that's their base.
Why not a third party. What law says you have to be a Democrat or Republican. What would it hurt if she were third party. She is never goiing to win a national election as a Democrat. She has been told in so many words she is not welcome as a Dim and she certainly is not a GOPer.
She is a person in a party that does not respect or want her. She maybe she doesn't have any place to go. Or maybe even better she can drop out of politics. Who would miss her?
After reading this I am convinced the first female president will be a Republican. The Republican party produces women who are balanced and run on their principles. Not on quotas or crying tears. Democrats cry about "unfair double standards women face." The majority of registered voters in America are women. The majority of citizens in America are women. So what double standard do they face?
True. That's the funny part, when we see a D deviate just a little from the lockstep lib-dum commandments, R's think there's a chance for conversion, lol.
Sure, Tulsi goes on Fox News and has Tucker blushing... but that's the last resort for those polling around 1%. She got away with it for a while, using Fox to report her poor treatment from the DNC, but after the 8th or 9th interview about that, she starts getting different questions. She avoids answering anything that really challenges the core of the Dem Party.
The dems ARE the double standard. They are fighting themselves.
The court and their existence is a check against the other two.
If you can't understand how it works, I can explain
Well, at the very least, this Prez run is/was her "introduction" to the nation, much like Buttiplug. Gotta get the name-recognition game in gear!
Meanwhile, she's in line for something else in the lib-dum circle. They'll bring her all the way in, if she plays ball... and she will. Senator? Governor? She can pad her qualifications for a 2024 run.
(The D's will need a looker, if the R's run Nikki Haley)
Not like there's another Lib 3rd party. Greens? Should Bloomberg & Warren find another party? They've been told Dims don't want them.
Suggesting a novel interpretation isn't a check. It's a government takeover by the SC. You've already explained how you think it works & you get a grade of F.
Well Bloomberg did and the GOP does not want him back or his money. . As far as Warren, she is important only in her own mind. Who takes her seriously?
I didn't explain how I think it works. I explained how it actually works. The fact you don't have the capacity to grasp it isn't my fault
Why is this not surprising:
"Democrats are about twice as likely as Republicans to say the coronavirus poses an imminent threat to the United States, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted this week....
Politics was not a factor in her view of the seriousness of the virus, Hogue said. Other Republican respondents interviewed echoed that sentiment."
Well-known Dims are way more emotions driven.
"About half of Democrats said they are washing their hands more often now because of the virus, compared to about four in 10 Republicans, according to the poll. About 8% of Democrats said they had changed their travel plans, compared to about 3% of Republicans.
More than half of Republicans, about 54%, said they had not altered their daily routines because of the virus, compared to about 40% of Democrats."
What this doesn't tell you, though they want you think it does, is that Pubs' behaviors may still be safer because they had safer behaviors to begin with. I mean, who are more likely to get HIV, Dims or Pubs?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-coronavirus-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN20T2O3
"Democrats are about twice as likely as Republicans to say the coronavirus poses an imminent threat to the United States, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted this week....
Politics was not a factor in her view of the seriousness of the virus, Hogue said. Other Republican respondents interviewed echoed that sentiment."
Well-known Dims are way more emotions driven.
"About half of Democrats said they are washing their hands more often now because of the virus, compared to about four in 10 Republicans, according to the poll. About 8% of Democrats said they had changed their travel plans, compared to about 3% of Republicans.
More than half of Republicans, about 54%, said they had not altered their daily routines because of the virus, compared to about 40% of Democrats."
What this doesn't tell you, though they want you think it does, is that Pubs' behaviors may still be safer because they had safer behaviors to begin with. I mean, who are more likely to get HIV, Dims or Pubs?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-coronavirus-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN20T2O3
Bloomberg was in the wrong party to begin with. Tulsi isn't regardless if they want her. Who takes Tulsi seriously?
After today's game I will never again say Keion Brooks looks like Michelle Obama...great game Keion, I'm sorry I use to say that.
Similar threads
