Stop Hillary!
- Thread starter YouSeeEffer
- Start date
Ssssshhhhhh liberals aren't supposed to know this. Slave owners, KKK, baby killing all have roots in the Democratic party.
You would have been a Democrat back then.
How sad is it that the democrats only have one choice for their president yet preach on being pro choice.
I mean, I'm terrible at history and even I know that the parties were essentially flipped back when those decisions were being made. Then again this is probably a joke and my exhausted caffeine-starved brain is too tired to recognize it right now.
LOL. Parties were flipped. Are you implying that the modern day Repubs would now allow slavery and no longer allow all citizens to vote?
We already do by saying people need a photo ID to vote. We're putting them back in chains!!!
Literally not what I was saying but you can run with it if you want. I'm too tired to put up much of a fight today, lol.
I would argue, more objectively ...
The Clinton's are the ultimate example of a political pairing that cannot even understand the concept of "conflict-of-interest" and listening to their own party, including flat out ignoring agreements they've made with even the government. But in their defense ... the American voter doesn't seem to care.
Heck, as I even joked recently, given the security of Hillary's e-mail server, utterly forgoing best practices (everything from not using the RBL to using a self-signed cert), even if Congress doesn't have a copy of all e-mails ... at least the Chinese and Russians do.
The best explanation I've ever heard of the US media's "problem" was recently during the whole Stephanopoulos ordeal. The media has reach the point that they've been voting Democrats over 10-to-1 for so long, that for every 1 person that points out there could be a "conflict-of-interest," there are 10 people who say it's "no big deal" and the other person is wrong for pointing it out. Stephanopoulos not only refused to be forward with something, but couldn't not see how he undermined himself over and over when he purposely went after someone -- specifically playing the part as an alleged "objective journalist" -- who knew a lot more about him than he realized, and he couldn't backtrack far enough -- and still cannot, still refusing to disclose what other already know.
So while the debate over "corruption" will continue, anyone remotely objective can recognize that any time Democrats have a "conflict-of-interest," it's excused by the media, even if -- say -- the POTUS himself told her to disclose something. The Republicans cannot, and are immediately jumped on by all outlets, sans Fox News, for obvious reasons.
For me ... Juan Williams was pretty much the litmus test. You're talking about a left-leaning media personality who just wasn't far left enough for some, and guilt-by-association came into play. Because we've reached that point that no one wants to be objective, people don't want to recuse themselves who have conflicts-of-interest, even hide them, and we deserve the type of non-sense we get.
Because our leaders just reflect us, the ones who want to polarize everything, and listen to public opinion polls. No wonder our allies cannot trust us.
Ever show up to the polls second to vote? That happened to me in the early '00s.
I was detained and had to show a lot of ID because I was immediately accused of "voter fraud" because I showed up to vote second, after someone else voted as me.
Which is why ... even if you don't have Voter ID ... there will still be Voter ID in some form.
I would argue, more objectively ...
The Clinton's are the ultimate example of a political pairing that cannot even understand the concept of "conflict-of-interest" and listening to their own party, including flat out ignoring agreements they've made with even the government. But in their defense ... the American voter doesn't seem to care.
Heck, as I even joked recently, given the security of Hillary's e-mail server, utterly forgoing best practices (everything from not using the RBL to using a self-signed cert), even if Congress doesn't have a copy of all e-mails ... at least the Chinese and Russians do.
The best explanation I've ever heard of the US media's "problem" was recently during the whole Stephanopoulos ordeal. The media has reach the point that they've been voting Democrats over 10-to-1 for so long, that for every 1 person that points out there could be a "conflict-of-interest," there are 10 people who say it's "no big deal" and the other person is wrong for pointing it out. Stephanopoulos not only refused to be forward with something, but couldn't not see how he undermined himself over and over when he purposely went after someone -- specifically playing the part as an alleged "objective journalist" -- who knew a lot more about him than he realized, and he couldn't backtrack far enough -- and still cannot, still refusing to disclose what other already know.
So while the debate over "corruption" will continue, anyone remotely objective can recognize that any time Democrats have a "conflict-of-interest," it's excused by the media, even if -- say -- the POTUS himself told her to disclose something. The Republicans cannot, and are immediately jumped on by all outlets, sans Fox News, for obvious reasons.
For me ... Juan Williams was pretty much the litmus test. You're talking about a left-leaning media personality who just wasn't far left enough for some, and guilt-by-association came into play. Because we've reached that point that no one wants to be objective, people don't want to recuse themselves who have conflicts-of-interest, even hide them, and we deserve the type of non-sense we get.
Because our leaders just reflect us, the ones who want to polarize everything, and listen to public opinion polls. No wonder our allies cannot trust us.
TL;DR - Is this a real post or is this another one of your planned troll attempts?
In the time you took to type that, you could have read and comprehended my point (whether you agree or not).
I rarely troll, and admit shortly after I do when I do. I admittedly post a polarizing "I told you so" thread 1-2 times/year. Otherwise, I just type a lot. Ignore, skip, whatever you desire.
The biggest issue is it does not matter who runs for the democrats, they will still vote for their candidate. I voted for Bill Clinton in 1996 because I felt like he did a good job his first term and deserved a second term. I doubt you would ever find a democrat that could look at an election that way. You don't need to look any further than the 2012 election, there is no way Obama was a better candidate over Romney when you look at the issues surrounding the country.
I don't think you will see a republican president for a very long time simply due to the media and demographics of this country. I think you will see a republican win when the democrats turn too much to the socialist side of their party.
I don't think you will see a republican president for a very long time simply due to the media and demographics of this country. I think you will see a republican win when the democrats turn too much to the socialist side of their party.
Had Romney not told Hispanics to get out of the country and called half the country losers, he would have won. Yet after the election we heard it's not our message, we just need to do a better job of communicating it. Ok.
This, and they are going to do it again: go full right and try to come back to the center later
He was right about the 47% but shouldn't have said the Hispanic stuff. Jeb doesn't need to worry about that stuff though. He speaks Español and supports immigration reform.
There is no difference between Jeb and Hillary, either way this country loses.
Our fate has been sealed since the ramp-up in outsourcing, sending most of our industry overseas over the last 20 years. Oh sure, we had a great amount of faux wealth generated in the late '90s, as the increasing influx of investments, both from 401K and the Baby Boomers in their prime income earning years, which evaporated quickly by late 2000 as no one believed in the stock prices any more. And we even got another faux run with the housing boom that finally busted later that decade too.
About the only thing that has prevented our destruction by now is a lot of federal funding that hasn't died down. Although becoming the world's biggest energy producer again, and a decent size exporter too (lots of cheap coal that is still too expensive, and dirty, for us, but easier than exporting CNG), has helped ease some of it off (but still not most of it). The natural gas glut has even accounted for most of our 8% drop in CO2 output levels over the last half-decade, as a nice, added bonus.
But it's definitely coming at our current burn rate, not a matter of "if," but "when."
Last edited:
Here's an interesting take on the voter ID question. Here in Georgia, if you're brain dead, you can go to the Jimmy Carter Pres. Library and can see on one of it's walls the requirements his org. demands in order for a foreign election to be certified as above board- VOTER ID. Funny how those foreign dudes must require voter ID, but here in the US voter ID is intimidation. You don't know intimidation. Those African, S. American and other nations do real intimidation- assault rifles, gas filed tires, etc etc., and yet US minorities are afraid to show their ID? What do they do when they want to cash a check, go on a plane or the other hundred things an ID is needed for? They must wet their pants daily. So I agree with Jimmy Carter, Hillary needs to shut up and stop lying about voter ID laws.
Lol. Hillary is going to get destroyed. Every time she speaks she loses ground. She hasn't answered questions in like 6 months for a reason. She won't be able to do that once the primaries are over.
How about theft, pay for play, corruption, lies, obstruction of justice, dereliction of duties and so much more. None of it will matter because people like you don't care about the character of a person.
Show me those with any of the republican major contenders and stop generalizing.
Short version:
Anyone who votes for Hillary should know what to expect ("excuse"?). Ironically, she reminds most people of a similarly paranoid and protective Republican ... Nixon.
Added babble:
Given the clear number in the media that overwhelmingly votes Democrat, it all too often excused in, by and for the media, while they come down hard on any Republican any time they are a party to something that looks like a "conflict-of-interest." I'm not saying Republican are any better or worse, but that the media will excuse Democrats far more than Republicans, because of how they, themselves, vote, and overwhemingly. It tends to become self-fulfilling.
E.g., Stephanopoulos constantly having to backtrack over and over, because 9 out of 10 media personalities think (even if indirectly) he has the right to hide his "conflicts-of-interest," and not explain them (even after he's called out by 1 out of 10 Democrats).
And, again being neutral and objective, it's extremely difficult to find any politician with the overwhelming number of "conflicts-of-interests" that Hillary Clinton has not only refused to excuse herself from, but even her party has had to continually request she avoid, even as high as the POTUS. But alas and so far, the public opinion polls have shown little care for the fact that Hillary will seemingly serve her own interests, whether they are allegedly unethical (or worse), or at least against policy or other rules set by even her own party.
Last edited:
It does not matter, in the end a democrat will win and just like the guy in office now, they will think they are larger than the Presidency. Until this country takes a major step to socialism, political conservatives will not win national elections.
I have 3 issues with the current President.
3. Made the same mistake as Clinton, hired +10k new IRS agents which ended up going after small buinesses, who aren't lawyered up, for revenue, while big businesses have assets and money overseas, and are lawyered up domestically. Their practices were the same as in the '90s too, unethical. It's just coincidence that small business owners vote 77% Republican.
2. Established the precedent that the President is not bound by the 90 day limit on war without Congressional approval. Was also scared what a Romney administration might do with the "same powers" using drones that only the current administration had the "moral authority" to do. No need for Gitmo detainment, we just kill them, and their family sometimes.
1. Taps the news, unjustified. Despite the excuse that it was for national security, it was still done in 2009 before the alleged Fox News source leaking classified information. People forget this, the chills sent throughout those who protect the 1st Amendment. And we all thought the 2nd Amendment would be taken first. Who would have thought the ATF is baically at war with the administration at this point (considering them physics-ignorant idiots in the last bout -- e.g., a rifle cartridge out of a concealed carry pistol?).
We're already beyond that, but Republicans had their share of that pie.
Reagan: A lot of our current issues come from the Reagan social programs passed during the Democratic Congresses of his last 6 years. To support the military build-up, a lot of pork was sold, along with a lot of fiscal liabilities in the social services space.
W.: Despite popular rhetoric, it's the Republican Congress that's to blame here. Lots of the President's own party willing to take pork for their Constituents in return for support of the wars. The infrastructure and social programs enacted, especially new tax credits that are difficult to repeal, really added to the fiscal liablities in his first 6 years.
In the case of the latter, as the current President was able to side-step with Libya, he had no interest in having to give up pork to get Congressional approval or the war. He merely ignored the 90 day law, which means the President can now authorize an endless war without Congressional approval.
I'd say given the new 1st Amendment "issues" and the always building war-pork aspects to this point, we're already there. Dependent on the government, powerless to stop it, with too many people thinking the federal government -- the same entity that can declare war -- should save us all.
