Quote: @KingBash said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ KingBash said:
@ savannahskol said:
@ KingBash said:
Let me explain this to you, how we all view this, through a rational lens.
lol
Mueller indicts LOTS AND LOTS of people connected to the Trump campaign/administration.
Trump installs a lackey as AG in Barr.
LOL. The only Barr you knew about was Anthony.
You made 0 posts re: William Barr whilst he was being nominated/confirmed by the US Senate.
(FTR, Mike Olson made 1 post re: the next AG)
But yeah, you're a sage. lmaoooooo
All of us call bullshit as we can see how this will play out.
NOT SURPRISINGLY, Barr gets the report and says there's not enough evidence of collusion but that TRUMP IS ALSO NOT EXONERATED (that part is lost a lot of the time on Fox News).
Fire down, Obi-Wan.
Thought I schooled you earlier on an "exoneration" by a prosecutor, but I guess you need to be schooled, yet again.
PROSECUTORS DO NOT EXONERATE. THEY INDICT... OR THEY DON'T.
And now, we find out that those close to Mueller are saying they're disappointed in how Barr has handled their two years of hard work.
LMAO. Because of your NYSlimes link earlier? The one that quoted NO ONE (source) by name?
THAT's the journalism that impresses you? And we're the rubes?
Wow... almost like I'd been saying ALL ALONG. GOD it feels so good to be so right all the time.
You've been "right" about 0.
EDIT: Now quick! Call it fake news! Or pivot to "but Obama/Hillary/the Democrats did X, Y, Z!" Go ahead.
Because I didn't post about his nomination on a message board to a bunch of red hats means I wasn't paying attention at all?
I'm right again just by default because your post was such a complete and utter waste of time. Be off with you, now, you silly tard.
EDIT: By the way, thanks for the Mark Levin clip that I won't click on. As if I'm gonna spend an hour+ and drink your Kool-Aid. You're the one that supports the con artist. I can't be bought that easily.
It must be nice living in a reality when you're the only one who's right all the time.
I'm almost trying to facetiously point out you guys' rationale is literally the exact same. Yeah, of course I actually believe I'm 100% right, but I have a feeling you do too.
There's no more common ground to find, I don't believe. I pretty much can't talk politics with my Trump friends anymore. They've just become a militant anti-fact bunch, and I know they view me as some faggy, Pinko-communist so why bother.
The heavy burden you must carry. I can't imagine the emotional and physical stress yet the satisfaction of knowing your opinion of "Trumpers" is the only one thats right. No common ground you say. Your gosh darn right!!! God Bless you. Thank you for showing me the light. If only the world were full of Kingbashes. Just think of the utopia we'd all have the pleasure to live in!!
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ medaille said:
For as long as I’ve been able to vote, every election
outside of Obama, has been a lesser of two evils type of election, where people
are voting not for a candidate but against the other candidate. As long as we’re inside that paradigm, we’re
guaranteed to be stuck with an unsatisfying political experience.
Clearly the issue is an issue of the primaries, not of the
final election. We’re not even getting
good candidates to vote on. Part of it
is that the media gets biased towards certain candidates and against other
candidates. You can see it clearly with
Biden. The videos are out there. He’s clearly creepy by anyone’s
standards. The mainstream media is
softening the blow. Other candidates
they sensationalize the smallest things and run with them. I think large bankroll’s dominate
elections. Whoever is better at
fundraising generally wins. I think we
need voter IDs. We need to eliminate the
ability for people to vote multiple times, or for dead people to vote, or
non-citizens. We need transparent audits
of our voting machines, so that we know that our vote counts.
I’m not sure what the right answer is. I like the idea of instant runoff voting. I think that is the most direct route for
solving the lesser of two evils paradigm.
I’m not well researched enough to know of it’s flaws.
I think that reducing federal government size would
help. Try to fulfill needs at the
smallest and most local level possible.
I also like the idea of changing how politics works, such
that instead of electing a politician that has a fixed term, at any time I
choose a person to represent me in voting, and if someone is sucking it up, I
can switch my politician.
I have a suggestion that would work wonders: make it a requirement for citizens to pass a basic civics test before they are allowed to vote in federal elections. Or make it a requirement that only those who pay an income tax can vote. But those things will NEVER pass, because it will limit who is eligible to vote. In my opinion: as long as anyone is able to vote- despite having no knowledge of how the world works- this is what we will get: elections that pit one "celebrity" vs. another (or, to put it another way, pure populism). REALLY PUMPF?????????????????????????
LOL, we've had poll taxes and literacy tests etc. These types of tactics are the reason we have a 15th amendment. Are you sure you should be voting? Maybe a civics course is in need?
Quote: @suncoastvike said:
@ KingBash said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ KingBash said:
@ savannahskol said:
@ KingBash said:
Let me explain this to you, how we all view this, through a rational lens.
lol
Mueller indicts LOTS AND LOTS of people connected to the Trump campaign/administration.
Trump installs a lackey as AG in Barr.
LOL. The only Barr you knew about was Anthony.
You made 0 posts re: William Barr whilst he was being nominated/confirmed by the US Senate.
(FTR, Mike Olson made 1 post re: the next AG)
But yeah, you're a sage. lmaoooooo
All of us call bullshit as we can see how this will play out.
NOT SURPRISINGLY, Barr gets the report and says there's not enough evidence of collusion but that TRUMP IS ALSO NOT EXONERATED (that part is lost a lot of the time on Fox News).
Fire down, Obi-Wan.
Thought I schooled you earlier on an "exoneration" by a prosecutor, but I guess you need to be schooled, yet again.
PROSECUTORS DO NOT EXONERATE. THEY INDICT... OR THEY DON'T.
And now, we find out that those close to Mueller are saying they're disappointed in how Barr has handled their two years of hard work.
LMAO. Because of your NYSlimes link earlier? The one that quoted NO ONE (source) by name?
THAT's the journalism that impresses you? And we're the rubes?
Wow... almost like I'd been saying ALL ALONG. GOD it feels so good to be so right all the time.
You've been "right" about 0.
EDIT: Now quick! Call it fake news! Or pivot to "but Obama/Hillary/the Democrats did X, Y, Z!" Go ahead.
Because I didn't post about his nomination on a message board to a bunch of red hats means I wasn't paying attention at all?
I'm right again just by default because your post was such a complete and utter waste of time. Be off with you, now, you silly tard.
EDIT: By the way, thanks for the Mark Levin clip that I won't click on. As if I'm gonna spend an hour+ and drink your Kool-Aid. You're the one that supports the con artist. I can't be bought that easily.
It must be nice living in a reality when you're the only one who's right all the time.
I'm almost trying to facetiously point out you guys' rationale is literally the exact same. Yeah, of course I actually believe I'm 100% right, but I have a feeling you do too.
There's no more common ground to find, I don't believe. I pretty much can't talk politics with my Trump friends anymore. They've just become a militant anti-fact bunch, and I know they view me as some faggy, Pinko-communist so why bother.
I think the word you're looking for is "snowflake". Just trying to help.
Oof... good one.
Quote: @greediron said:
@ KingBash said:
@ greediron said:
denial isn't just a river in Egypt. So a bunch of Dem's that pinned their hope on Mueller finding something, anything are disappointed and want to blame Barr.
But yes, you are correct. You and Maddow.
You're making my point. Mueller's team just said Barr is fucking the American people out of the truth essentially, and you're screaming "fake news" as usual.
Meanwhile, the orange retard is busy posting Tweets like these.
This is why we all look down on and dismiss people like you for supporting him.
and why you are considered a sage.
tired of the nonsense you post as facts. I am out.
Good. Stay quiet.
Pay attention, other Trumpers. Follow this guy's lead. Stay quiet, you're all just noise.
Quote: @AGRforever said:
@ pumpf said:
@ medaille said:
For as long as I’ve been able to vote, every election
outside of Obama, has been a lesser of two evils type of election, where people
are voting not for a candidate but against the other candidate. As long as we’re inside that paradigm, we’re
guaranteed to be stuck with an unsatisfying political experience.
Clearly the issue is an issue of the primaries, not of the
final election. We’re not even getting
good candidates to vote on. Part of it
is that the media gets biased towards certain candidates and against other
candidates. You can see it clearly with
Biden. The videos are out there. He’s clearly creepy by anyone’s
standards. The mainstream media is
softening the blow. Other candidates
they sensationalize the smallest things and run with them. I think large bankroll’s dominate
elections. Whoever is better at
fundraising generally wins. I think we
need voter IDs. We need to eliminate the
ability for people to vote multiple times, or for dead people to vote, or
non-citizens. We need transparent audits
of our voting machines, so that we know that our vote counts.
I’m not sure what the right answer is. I like the idea of instant runoff voting. I think that is the most direct route for
solving the lesser of two evils paradigm.
I’m not well researched enough to know of it’s flaws.
I think that reducing federal government size would
help. Try to fulfill needs at the
smallest and most local level possible.
I also like the idea of changing how politics works, such
that instead of electing a politician that has a fixed term, at any time I
choose a person to represent me in voting, and if someone is sucking it up, I
can switch my politician.
I have a suggestion that would work wonders: make it a requirement for citizens to pass a basic civics test before they are allowed to vote in federal elections. Or make it a requirement that only those who pay an income tax can vote. But those things will NEVER pass, because it will limit who is eligible to vote. In my opinion: as long as anyone is able to vote- despite having no knowledge of how the world works- this is what we will get: elections that pit one "celebrity" vs. another (or, to put it another way, pure populism). REALLY PUMPF?????????????????????????
LOL, we've had poll taxes and literacy tests etc. These types of tactics are the reason we have a 15th amendment. Are you sure you should be voting? Maybe a civics course is in need?
Yeah, I don't think we need to be limiting which Americans can vote anymore than we already are. Having an entity that says you can't vote because you disagreed with an answer we had on the test seems like a really bad idea that would be ripe for corruption.
Quote: @medaille said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ pumpf said:
I have a suggestion that would work wonders: make it a requirement for citizens to pass a basic civics test before they are allowed to vote in federal elections. Or make it a requirement that only those who pay an income tax can vote. But those things will NEVER pass, because it will limit who is eligible to vote. In my opinion: as long as anyone is able to vote- despite having no knowledge of how the world works- this is what we will get: elections that pit one "celebrity" vs. another (or, to put it another way, pure populism). REALLY PUMPF?????????????????????????
LOL, we've had poll taxes and literacy tests etc. These types of tactics are the reason we have a 15th amendment. Are you sure you should be voting? Maybe a civics course is in need?
Yeah, I don't think we need to be limiting which Americans can vote anymore than we already are. Having an entity that says you can't vote because you disagreed with an answer we had on the test seems like a really bad idea that would be ripe for corruption.
You guys might be right. But it sure does seem to me that the biggest problem in American politics... is not the rampant lies and corruption. It's a blind and ignorant populace that cares nothing for their neighbor- much less the republic, itself. I'm willing to concede that my solution may be the wrong one. But I'd love to hear someone offer something better.
Quote: @AGRforever said:
@ pumpf said:
@ medaille said:
For as long as I’ve been able to vote, every election
outside of Obama, has been a lesser of two evils type of election, where people
are voting not for a candidate but against the other candidate. As long as we’re inside that paradigm, we’re
guaranteed to be stuck with an unsatisfying political experience.
Clearly the issue is an issue of the primaries, not of the
final election. We’re not even getting
good candidates to vote on. Part of it
is that the media gets biased towards certain candidates and against other
candidates. You can see it clearly with
Biden. The videos are out there. He’s clearly creepy by anyone’s
standards. The mainstream media is
softening the blow. Other candidates
they sensationalize the smallest things and run with them. I think large bankroll’s dominate
elections. Whoever is better at
fundraising generally wins. I think we
need voter IDs. We need to eliminate the
ability for people to vote multiple times, or for dead people to vote, or
non-citizens. We need transparent audits
of our voting machines, so that we know that our vote counts.
I’m not sure what the right answer is. I like the idea of instant runoff voting. I think that is the most direct route for
solving the lesser of two evils paradigm.
I’m not well researched enough to know of it’s flaws.
I think that reducing federal government size would
help. Try to fulfill needs at the
smallest and most local level possible.
I also like the idea of changing how politics works, such
that instead of electing a politician that has a fixed term, at any time I
choose a person to represent me in voting, and if someone is sucking it up, I
can switch my politician.
I have a suggestion that would work wonders: make it a requirement for citizens to pass a basic civics test before they are allowed to vote in federal elections. Or make it a requirement that only those who pay an income tax can vote. But those things will NEVER pass, because it will limit who is eligible to vote. In my opinion: as long as anyone is able to vote- despite having no knowledge of how the world works- this is what we will get: elections that pit one "celebrity" vs. another (or, to put it another way, pure populism). REALLY PUMPF?????????????????????????
LOL, we've had poll taxes and literacy tests etc. These types of tactics are the reason we have a 15th amendment. Are you sure you should be voting? Maybe a civics course is in need?
Quote: @AGRforever said:
@ pumpf said:
@ medaille said:
For as long as I’ve been able to vote, every election
outside of Obama, has been a lesser of two evils type of election, where people
are voting not for a candidate but against the other candidate. As long as we’re inside that paradigm, we’re
guaranteed to be stuck with an unsatisfying political experience.
Clearly the issue is an issue of the primaries, not of the
final election. We’re not even getting
good candidates to vote on. Part of it
is that the media gets biased towards certain candidates and against other
candidates. You can see it clearly with
Biden. The videos are out there. He’s clearly creepy by anyone’s
standards. The mainstream media is
softening the blow. Other candidates
they sensationalize the smallest things and run with them. I think large bankroll’s dominate
elections. Whoever is better at
fundraising generally wins. I think we
need voter IDs. We need to eliminate the
ability for people to vote multiple times, or for dead people to vote, or
non-citizens. We need transparent audits
of our voting machines, so that we know that our vote counts.
I’m not sure what the right answer is. I like the idea of instant runoff voting. I think that is the most direct route for
solving the lesser of two evils paradigm.
I’m not well researched enough to know of it’s flaws.
I think that reducing federal government size would
help. Try to fulfill needs at the
smallest and most local level possible.
I also like the idea of changing how politics works, such
that instead of electing a politician that has a fixed term, at any time I
choose a person to represent me in voting, and if someone is sucking it up, I
can switch my politician.
I have a suggestion that would work wonders: make it a requirement for citizens to pass a basic civics test before they are allowed to vote in federal elections. Or make it a requirement that only those who pay an income tax can vote. But those things will NEVER pass, because it will limit who is eligible to vote. In my opinion: as long as anyone is able to vote- despite having no knowledge of how the world works- this is what we will get: elections that pit one "celebrity" vs. another (or, to put it another way, pure populism). REALLY PUMPF?????????????????????????
LOL, we've had poll taxes and literacy tests etc. These types of tactics are the reason we have a 15th amendment. Are you sure you should be voting? Maybe a civics course is in need?
Dangerously close to the must be property owners mentality of some of our founder's. I don't think we need to move backwards to progress.
Good ole days with simple poll questions. How many bubbles in a bar of soap. Simple enough right?
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ SFVikeFan said:
You had time to write all of that... but still haven't had the time to answer the one question I've been asking you all along. For a guy with all the answers, you sure seem selective in which ones you're willing to share. So, in case you've forgotten:
How can you believe that people with special needs are beautiful, wonderful gifts to humanity- worthy of dignity, life and respect- and, at that same time, support a woman's right to kill those people- based solely on a diagnosis that the person might have that condition- so that those beautiful, wonderful gifts to humanity... will never be born?
It's one thing to want to kill a child simply for the convenience of escaping a bad choice that you made... but if a woman wants a child- but then finds out that they have Down Syndrome- she is allowed (even encouraged) to kill that pre-born child: for that reason alone. Seems like that ought to be a problem for someone who "loves" people with Down Syndrome. How can you side with those who think that a person with Down Syndrome is not a person worth having around?
Let me ask you this: a woman who has sex but the condom broke, so she goes to Planned Parenthood the next morning to get the morning after pill / Plan B to prevent pregnancy.
Did she commit murder, yes or no?
Quote: @suncoastvike said:
Dangerously close to the must be property owners mentality of some of our founder's. I don't think we need to move backwards to progress.
Good ole days with simple poll questions. How many bubbles in a bar of soap. Simple enough right?
Agreed... but would that be so bad? (Or, at least some "restriction"?)
I'm fully prepared to recant... if someone can offer a better solution. Otherwise, if there's no better solution to our current situation... we're screwed anyway.
Quote: @SFVikeFan said:
@ pumpf said:
@ SFVikeFan said:
You had time to write all of that... but still haven't had the time to answer the one question I've been asking you all along. For a guy with all the answers, you sure seem selective in which ones you're willing to share. So, in case you've forgotten:
How can you believe that people with special needs are beautiful, wonderful gifts to humanity- worthy of dignity, life and respect- and, at that same time, support a woman's right to kill those people- based solely on a diagnosis that the person might have that condition- so that those beautiful, wonderful gifts to humanity... will never be born?
It's one thing to want to kill a child simply for the convenience of escaping a bad choice that you made... but if a woman wants a child- but then finds out that they have Down Syndrome- she is allowed (even encouraged) to kill that pre-born child: for that reason alone. Seems like that ought to be a problem for someone who "loves" people with Down Syndrome. How can you side with those who think that a person with Down Syndrome is not a person worth having around?
Let me ask you this: a woman who has sex but the condom broke, so she goes to Planned Parenthood the next morning to get the morning after pill / Plan B to prevent pregnancy.
Did she commit murder, yes or no?
I'll answer. If the pill does prevent the pregnancy, then: no. But- and this is the big problem with the morning after pill: it kills whatever it "touches". It doesn't differentiate between a fertilized egg and just the sperm floating around. So, because it is possible that a human being is being killed, I would be against using that method of preventing pregnancies. If there was a way to guarantee that conception hadn't taken place, I'd be fine with it.
|
