POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
You mocked the idea of term limits actually being set. You didn't mock the idea of Trump picking up votes by campaigning on that issue. That was the original premise.
Of course term limits wouldn't necessarily fix anything, it would only serve to speed up the process of a politician raping us if he knew he absolutely only had one term.
Latest reuters poll( ya knoe the one who yall libs cheered last week when it showed a 12 point lead, and also the one who doesnt count undecideds) had it within the margin of error if all 4 candidates are counted.
If thats a 4 touchdown lead, then hillary must be our last years football team at halftime.
If thats a 4 touchdown lead, then hillary must be our last years football team at halftime.
I don't know if many will agree, but I've always felt Supreme Court Justices should have term limits. I just never liked the idea of someone making terrible rulings on laws for 30+ years. Of course these days the left would use it to put any left winger on the court to take over for the few good ones left. So maybe it wouldn't be a good idea, especially if Hillary were elected. I know the left would abuse the shit out of it, like they do everything else.
Last edited:
"As long as politics is the shadow cast on society by big business, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance."
Come on dude, you know damn well I have no clue what your saying nor can I respond to that.
I think he's saying you can slow it down, but you can't stop it.
This is an important point alot of people miss. Head to head, Clinton's lead is bigger. Those are always the polls the MSM touts.
But....we all know it isnt just those 2 in the race. In polls with all candidates, her lead is much smaller. And those polls rarely get a headline from the MSM.
Yeah, I thought about Blah, Blah, Blah, for a response but then decided it was redundant.
Usually these little Facebook posts are total BS, but...I'm trying to figure out why this one isn't perfectly accurate.
The reporter that spoke out against Putin probably had some info he was going to leak as well. As did the guy that dropped a barbell on his throat three times.
1) There are few absolutes in life. Nope, the ones with the most money don't always win but they do win and a pretty impressive clip. Are you suggesting that it requires a 100% corollary in order to prove that money influences elections?
2) no question was asked...but did I suggest that elections were (are) the only conduit for bribery? No, but it is a conduit. And I would suggest that for a majority of the 535 legislators it is probably the main one. The population of ex-POTUS with a significant other who is also politically active is rather small. It is not unusual for ex-POTUS to setup foundations that attempt to address causes either domestically and/or internationally. Much of that has to do with the age at which they are elected and their health leaving office.
3) I agree with you that term limits should also be part of the equation but unless the limit is 1 then legislators would still have to grabble for money if they have to fund their own elections. Even at 1 that still requires fund raising on the front end to get elected if the candidate is responsible for those expenses.
4) First, newspapers don't exist solely for political purposes and most that do render endorsements also provide space for counter arguments. That said, if the price to pay for eliminating the soft money from campaigns was to eliminate newspaper/media endorsements, so be it.
Bonus) I'm not a book banner... but don't your boys on the right have a much more egregious record of this practice than those on the left. Neither side is without their inconsistencies but if we are counting attempts to ban books in the past...50 years or so...from where have most of those come? I'm sure you're referring to the political hit piece that was banned. No, I didn't agree with the decision.
Trump to make an appearance before a largely black audience in detroit over labor day weekend.
And I can guarantee protesters will make it in, like it or not. BLM for sure.
Ooooo this'll be interesting. Usually a high-ranking Dem goes there on LD weekend. With POTUS and Biden doing it in recent years, one would've thought Hillary would be the speaker this year. Not sure she does that if Trump is in town.
Are we going to ignore the attempts of the GOP to do the very same thing simply because they weren't successful?Usually these little Facebook posts are total BS, but...I'm trying to figure out why this one isn't perfectly accurate.
Where are WikiLeaks hacked GOP emails?
Whenever some 3rd party only attacks one side it makes me very suspicious of motive.
How do we know that the "whistleblower" wasn't murdered by Assange or one of his agents so they could try and pin it on HRC? I mean if we're throwing out conspiracies here I'm sure we can come up with a few more.
The same ones who bitched about him reaching out to them in front of whites only, probably.
Dont understand it.... the pastor of the church, a democrat is praising trump for at least trying to understand the issues in inner cities. Something he says, the last 2 republican candidates would not do. I can respect someone who listens but still chooses not to vote for him...But to complain either way is just ridiculous.
Really makes me admire the veterans of foreign wars...they sat and listened to hillary, even though im sure many of them wanted to snipe the B, didnt protest or make themselves look like clowns. But the next day when trump was in town you could hear their disdain for killary.
What difference does the motive make if it's true? Are you justifying bad behavior?
"Are we going to ignore"....The Republican attempts to waylay Trump were not premeditated months in advance by placing key operatives in positions of authority to systematically and strategically promote a single candidate. And, the subsequent attempts to attack Trump once he became a threat weren't successful because the majority of Republicans aren't blind F'in sheep.
"Where" "When" "How"---nice deflection. Why don't you just address Hillary and the Democratic Party's co-ordinated efforts to steal the election? Or is the old deflect, deceive or blame it on someone else strategy still in place?
So what difference does "liberal bias" make with the MSM as long as the reporting is true?
I know the answer but curious if you do?
Yep, everyone here just toeing the party line. Man, hopefully it doesn't come out that the republicans were trying to undermine Trump. That would be shocking and make everyone here look stupid since we have never criticized the R party.
Yep, we're all going to look stupid when we're defending the R party for trying to undermine Trump.
Yep, we're all going to look stupid when we're defending the R party for trying to undermine Trump.
Ones a f@@king crime and one isn't. Obviously, you don't understand the difference.
First, a "majority of Republicans" didn't vote for Trump. You can also bet your sweet bippie that had the GOP known that Trump would actually win the nomination that they most certainly would have done the same.
I think the DNC was stupid to do so because I don't think Sanders ever really had any chance to beat HRC. What they did actually helped Sanders and hurt their own candidate.
In the end we aren't voting for the people who run the DNC and RNC. We have to choose between Trump and HRC.
BTW...didn't you once comment about Trump being a NDC plant and serving coffee at HRC's inauguration? ...or something to that effect?
I'm not so sure that anything the DNC did rigging their own party's primary election was a crime. Unethical, yes. Crime?
It gets even better. Emerson's poll today has it tied in Ohio, Hillary +3 in Pennsylvania, and +5 Michigan. Considering that most undecided and independent voters usually swing towards the challenger, and considering that the polls generally assume a 2012 turnout in terms of demographics, it basically means that Ohio is leaning towards Trump, but is in play, that Michigan is the opposite, and that Pennsylvania is a dead toss up.
If this was a football game, she's up by a field goal, and it's halftime; and her team is noticeably showing some fatigue.
I didn't say the majority of Republicans voted for Trump, I just said the majority of Republicans aren't blind sheep. And, don't project what the Republicans would or would not have done--bottom line, they didn't systematically rig the election..otherwise Trump would not have been sitting where he is today.
I have never owned a bippie.
I agree, what the DNC did was stupid. But probably not illegal because if it was there would be lawsuits. Well---probably no lawsuits with this DOJ. We don't yet know if all the voting machines were actually legit or not--and doubt we'll ever know.
And, yes---I still don't care for Trump and have always wondered if he wasn't a plant. But at least I'm bluntly critical of the carnival barker who currently is the Republican's candidate. Unlike most Democrats who blindly follow the morally, ethically and criminallt corrupt Hillary Clinton and her ilk.
I have never owned a bippie.
I agree, what the DNC did was stupid. But probably not illegal because if it was there would be lawsuits. Well---probably no lawsuits with this DOJ. We don't yet know if all the voting machines were actually legit or not--and doubt we'll ever know.
And, yes---I still don't care for Trump and have always wondered if he wasn't a plant. But at least I'm bluntly critical of the carnival barker who currently is the Republican's candidate. Unlike most Democrats who blindly follow the morally, ethically and criminallt corrupt Hillary Clinton and her ilk.
Liberal bias normally exagerrates the news so much that it hardly resembles the truth. Moreover, it morphs into a lie. You can't spell liberal without lie.
Very few approved of the GOP attempt to submarine trump. It actually helped get him voted because voters rebelled. So I'm not sure the point you're trying to make.
The msm argument is ridiculous. Report the facts. All of them. Regardless of the party. And leave opinion out of it. Should be relatively simple. But rarely happens.
By the way, anytime your first line in defending hillary is "but Trump/republicans" - you've already lost. You should be able to defend your candidate without invoking the other. "They do it too!" Isn't a valid defense.
The msm argument is ridiculous. Report the facts. All of them. Regardless of the party. And leave opinion out of it. Should be relatively simple. But rarely happens.
By the way, anytime your first line in defending hillary is "but Trump/republicans" - you've already lost. You should be able to defend your candidate without invoking the other. "They do it too!" Isn't a valid defense.
No lover for HRC here...I just believe that Trump is every bit as morally, ethically and criminally corrupt as HRC and add emotionally unstable. Add that I don't really think that he wants the job else he wouldn't continue to forcibly cram his foot into his own mouth.
My hope is that WJC will have enough influence on HRC's decisions that it will for all practical purposes be a 3rd term for WJC.
Being bluntly critical while supporting is no different than being wildly supportive. End result is the same.
Just a sneak peek of what's headed your way: Pennsylvania is probably going into the Red column in this weeks USA Wide poll that will be released this week.
I'm pretty sure most on the GOP side would enjoy seeing them...that's the difference...if there's corruption their voters would like to know about and see it...not just ignore it. Dems just want the government doing their thinking for them, love career politicians, and accept the establishment. The GOP more than likely did the same thing to Ron Paul in 2012. The difference is, unlike Bernie, Paul didn't sell out to the establishment and endorse the party.
I've not seen anyone celebrating what the DNC did and would gather that most viewed it as wrong.
Ok, WikiLeaks...report all of your facts, not just those that serve a purpose. Especially when being orchestrated by someone who isn't even a US citizen. So you think it is ok for foreigners to try and influence US elections?
As I've said on here many times...you've not seen me telling anyone how great HRC is. I think we have two terrible choices. When 8 out of 10 posters on this board are all telling us how awful one candidate is, they need reminding that their candidate is far, far, far from perfect. So far from perfect that he is most likely to lose an election to someone that this time last year I thought was unelectable. I've not lost anything because I've got no bigger stake in the outcome than anyone else. Sadly we may all lose regardless of the outcome.
If the media actually did their jobs HRC would NOT be leading Trump at this point. As shitty of a campaign that Trump has won, he is still in striking distance which is remarkable alone.
I don't care where the info came from Fuzz, why is a foreign guy doing the work our journalists should be doing is the bigger question.
Hillary has been the 2016 nominee since she lost in 2008, and Wasserman was in charge of making sure of that, why do you think Hillary snatched her up as soon as she was canned? And the media never even questioned it.
There was more negative press about Melania Trumps speech than there was Hillary hiring the lady who was just fired from the DNC for ethics?
Bernie drops out, and immediately swaps back to independent, nary a peep. Could you imagine if Cruz had done that? NYC would've been a giant wet spot from the media.
Doesn't it worry you in the least that the media is in the bag for Hillary? She gave admission to people who donated to the Clinton Foundation. That isn't conspiracy, she refuses to release the full calendar because it would only re-enforce that. It's just mind boggling how good people can just overlook all the corrupt dealings she's had.
If the media actually did their job then neither one of these shit stains would be on the cusp of leading this country. How the eff did we go from George Washington to this?
