So look, we all know who's running, so let's over the primary nonsense.
Anyway, I'm not understanding why the GOP doesn't unite behind trump. That's what conservative voters asked for, so why are the going against the people's wishes?
I just don't understand that. All this nonsense about Mitt running and such. I understand trump says some mind boggling things, but if that's who the voters asked for, the GOP leaders need to get on board. It's not like trump was forced down the people's throats. Bush was, walker was.
If you guys really want to stop Clinton, your leaders have got to unite the party. There's just way too much conflict going on.
I understand that we all kinda agreesd that maybe this is a good thing, but talking mainly from s campaign strategy standpoint, they got to get it together.
Supporting someone just because they have a R or a D next to their name is one of the reasons this country is a mess.
It's supposed to be hard! If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great!
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
That's my point. After everything this guy has said, the RNC, the speaker, and the majority of other republican leaders in DC said they are supporting him.
So they might as well go all in.
Is this not what conservatives voters asked for?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I have probably received 35-40 poll calls this year alone. I have told each one that I don't answer polls.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Bro you haven't said a word about Gary Johnson. What do you think about him?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I like a lot of what Johnson has proposed ..... though he did propose a 43% cut in the federal budget at one point which would hurt a lot of people, and would stall the economy. We are at a point where, like if we were in a horrible skid, we need to steer into balancing things, because trying to do a 180 at this point would be disastrous.
It seems to me that Johnson had some positions that I did not agree with, (It seems to me that he wanted to legalize prostitution, IIRC) but I really haven't done a huge amount of research on him. At this point, my vote would be a protest, and a desire to try and get a 3rd party on equal footing in government funding, more than an expectation that he will win.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
That's where I'm at YTown. The only legitimate thing I have left is a protest vote. I can't in good faith promote either major party this time around. Neither are putting forth a candidate I can endorse in any possible way.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
I don't think I've ever seen the Star of David represented as a solid shape. I probably wouldn't look at the original tweet that Trump posted as having anything to do with religion. The Star of David would not normally be filled in; it would be more along the lines of this:
Pay no attention to the lying Liberal Left and their cries of Antisemitism.
As the Donald said today, "My daughter Ivanka is about to have a beautiful Jewish baby."
Once your understand the three principals of politics is it pretty easy.
Government is created to control people, business and provide a common defense. Those are the three principals.
If you believe that government should focus on the control (regulation) peoples actions, and not business, but should provide defense, then you are probably a republican.
If you believe that government is to support people and to regulate the actions of business, and do not think that common defense is a primary purpose, then you are probably a democrat.
If you believe that the government should not be involved with people business or defense (none of the above), you are a libertarian.
Pick any issue, it just depends on your view.
Immigration is a people/business issue. Taxation is a people/defense issue. Regulation depending on this issue is either a business issue, or a people issue.
To the issue at hand. Donald Trump will say anything at anytime to get the sale. Little matters after that. He is untrustworthy.
Hillary approaches every problem as a political opportunity, and because of that she is untrustworthy.
So the choice is between two that are untrustworthy. Donald is far worse though, he is transparent in want/desire to lie to get the deal.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!…. That did not age well.
Pay no attention to the lying Liberal Left and their cries of Antisemitism.
As the Donald said today, "My daughter Ivanka is about to have a beautiful Jewish baby."
I don't pay much attention to it anymore. Words like 'racist' and 'xenophobic' are thrown around so loosely that they are almost just like buzzwords now. It is sad, because I know there is real bigotry out there but when the same people throw those words around over and over again, it's like people can't even be mature and have an adult conversation. It gets hard to take them seriously, a la The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
Because we don't read. We don't think. We don't ask questions. We don't measure distinctions, and weigh our POV's on a scale. We don't exercise critical thinking.
...but we know every blessed thing that Kanye, Taylor and Justin are doing, 24/7- 'cause that's the important *stuff,* right?
I think that the vast majority of citizens are in line with Libertarian ideals. Most have never heard the party platform spelled out in 'Mission Statement' style. That means that the Libtrn party must continue to step up their ground game even more... and this is the right time in history to do so. Folks are fed up with the 'R/D coin toss,' and are ready for something else. I'd rather it be the Libertarian Party than whatever else may be lurking- waiting for its chance.
As presented, it really is the 'common sense' practical interpretation of American citizenship we have. Dudes need to get a better sales team and more charismatic, visionary faces. The country is primed for this to become a movement, but a 10% draw isn't gonna cut it. Two massive machines have to be either dismantled or out-maneuvered to make a dent at the voting booths.
I hope it happens. I've voted Libertarian before, but as a protest vote. I want to see enough from them to convince me to 'pull the lever' dating myself here) with conviction.
I think there are a lot of libertarians who think that they want to be libertarian until they understand what it really means and that scares them.
Being libertarian means accepting common sense protections of people/business activities and waiting until the fallout occurs to provide a governmental response. No thanks, I don't want to deal with stupidity before initiating a law to correct what could have been foreseen as a likely consequence.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!…. That did not age well.
No thanks, I don't want to deal with stupidity before initiating a law to correct what could have been foreseen as a likely consequence.
I understand your sentiment, Charger. I really do. However, that's not how the law works, as it has been constructed. And our current construct is the only way it has ever worked here.
Every law, every constitutional amendment, every criminal or civil statute that has ever been inked into law has always been enacted in response to something unforeseen by previous legal canon. It is, by its very nature- adaptive. I believe it to be the common-sense, prudent way to issue law for a society of 319M people. The Law grows as societal requirements change.
It's why the entire canon of American law could reside in the home libraries of 1780's lawyers, and why we need a database the size of the Smithsonian+ to handle Law now.
The Law grows as societal requirements change.
This approach affords the nation's citizens max freedoms- within a set of restraints that are established by due process. Because to enact pre-emptive laws upon the populace without just cause and careful consideration is the very definition of tyrrany.
"Fear of stupidity" in and of itself is not enough justification for allowing the decision-making class to impose their idea of 'America' upon Americans. It's antithetical to the precepts that compelled our Resistance Fighters to toss tons of tea into Boston Harbor in the first place.
Stupidity is one of the costs of doing business in a "free," pluralistic republic. It's not right, moral or legal to regulate all citizens as a hedge against the damage that the slowest of us might possibly do. It's why the pace of 'positive progress' has always been painfully slow in America for some.
It's also why the extreme voices of the far-right and far-left have always chanted the exact same mantra: "Government is taking away our freedoms!!!"
And... in the strictest sense of the phrase, they're absolutely correct.
It really is the government's responsibility to protect us from ourselves (...and the stupidest of us that can be imagined)... but with the smallest, most well-ordered footprint possible.
That means reactive, instead of proactive.
Always. Every time.
If we begin to default to a proactive stance, we risk a 'Minority Report' scenario in our own lifetimes.
...and Mankind's History has already recorded what happens when "Thought Police" get run of the place.
Nope. I'll take our current, messy setup over anything that might come if laws were imposed to 'eliminate stupid'... because 'stupid' is a subjective evaluation- and nobody has a lock on what's 'smart' or 'wise.'
Being surrounded by 'stupid' is the price that's paid by every American who's ever read a book. Eliminating 'stupid' through pre-emptive law is a fool's errand... and leads to the downfall of a (potentially) great society.
Being surrounded by 'stupid' is the price that's paid by every American who's ever read a book. Eliminating 'stupid' through pre-emptive law is a fool's errand... and leads to the downfall of a (potentially) great society.
I agree. Some think it is stupid to eat Bacon, do we want it to be illegal?
I agree, some people thinks it's stupid to have gay marriage legal.
Is it illegal? thankfully not.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Trump PR picked it up from a known white supremacist group. Look it up.
I don't know the origin and that it may very well be from something like that, but you have no idea where Trump PR got it from. I am pretty sure I had seen that image on Facebook before Trump tweeted it and I don't follow any political or advocacy groups whatsoever on Facebook. Maybe a friend posted it or it was a sponsored post (paid ad), not sure. In any case that is these things go on the internet-- memes get created in some community and they post them everywhere, the good ones go viral and get posted all over reddit, Facebook, etc. Both sides do it.
I think there are a lot of libertarians who think that they want to be libertarian until they understand what it really means and that scares them.
Being libertarian means accepting common sense protections of people/business activities and waiting until the fallout occurs to provide a governmental response. No thanks, I don't want to deal with stupidity before initiating a law to correct what could have been foreseen as a likely consequence.
I think a lot of it depends on the degree of protections you are talking about. I am a libertarian at heart but I agree that some common sense protections of people/business activities has to be in place (I think the current system is generally too restrictive in that sense) and sometimes my views on that clash with a strict libertarian viewpoint. Take hardcore drugs for example (meth, heroin, bath salts, etc)-- the strict libertarian view would be that people should be free to put into their body anything they want to and deal with the consequences accordingly. Well for certain drugs that are incredibly destructive and highly addictive after one usage, I think people and society are so much better as a whole for them to be outlawed.
That leads into a whole bunch of other problems (war on drugs) that I'd rather not get into as I'm trying to think more along philosophical lines. The idea behind this is that no rational person would ever choose to take certain drugs, it's always a negative outcome, and you're kind of protecting those with less impulse control from themselves. There's a certain cognitive dissonance there as my views on that particular topic clash with my general political beliefs.
DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON FALSE ACCUSATION FROM HILLARY CLINTON
These false attacks by Hillary Clinton trying to link the Star of David with a basic star, often used by sheriffs who deal with criminals and criminal behavior, (showing an inscription that says “Crooked Hillary is the most corrupt candidate ever”) with anti-Semitism is ridiculous. Clinton, through her surrogates, is just trying to divert attention from the dishonest behavior of herself and her husband. The real questions are, why was Bill Clinton meeting secretly with the US Attorney General on her case and where are the 33,000 missing emails and all of the other information missing from her case - Why are there so many lies?
Guys.,...this is literally one of the dumbest things we are debating about on here.
No matter who wins the argument over the tweet....we all lose, because we're arguing over a tweet and alleged Star of David. We already took a massive L on this board for entertaining this nonsense.
Can we get back to debating policy?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Here is the exact image on the white supremacist board on 4chan. This came out a FULL WEEK before Trump's PR team tweeted it out.
a FULL WEEK
Pictures/memes can go viral in far less time than a week. Like I said above, I had already seen this image on FACEBOOK where I do not search for or follow any account that has anything to do with politics, ideology, or anything like that. I do have Facebook friends who post all kinds of political nonsense (some Pro-Trump, some Pro-Hillary) and this image was one that was already there. I had no idea what the origins were other than somebody posted it on Facebook. Apparently Trump's social media director lifted it from Twitter, not Facebook. Who cares? The image he lifted may not even have had the watermark in the lower left corner.
It won't mean anything if she doesn't go to jail over it. M
If the FBI deems it's worthy enough to go to jail after the investigation, then that's where she needs to head.
If not, then I dunno how this effects her ability to run.
We got two presidential candidates involved in scandals.
Unless Gary Johnson gets a major push, then the American people will be choosing who's character and scams are more tolerable than the other.
And that's before we can even debate policy.
Freedom of choice is an illusion. Yet y'all think we are a free nation for whatever reason
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
But I still trust her with nuke codes a hell of a lot more than I do trump.
Truth.
Last edited by Swish; 07/05/1611:57 AM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Thankfully our nuclear launch system is still based off floppy disks, because I'm sure other countries would have the launch codes given her careless approaches with highly sensitive information.
We shouldn't be shocked, as nothing was going to come of this in terms of justice and punishment. Had there been an indictment and etc, a pardon would already have been generated. Modern day diplomacy at its finest... I guess.
So the Feds say there were no evidence that Clinton intention tried to violate the law.
Ok, fair enough.
But what does that even mean. Nobody intentionally tries to kill somebody drinking and driving, but they still get charged for it.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
The courts need to hurry up and either clear or charge trump with this fraud stuff.
He will most likely be cleared, so we can finally get to policy now, and who will be the VP for each candidate.
Trump, I swear to god, do not pick Palin if you want any hope of winning the election.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
The former FBI #2 guy is saying everything in the FBI announcement was as per protocol except for one little thing he noticed, it is very unusual for the FBI to say something like, "No reasonable Prosecutor would file criminal charges in this case." They would normally let the facts speak for themselves and others will decide whether or not to Prosecute.
Good Job Bill! Now we know what was up on the tarmac!
