CDZ False Premises in Debate Questions

[candycorn]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

Yeah, everyone know the climate is changing. Has since the last ice age, and before it.

No campaign has ever certified an election. There is no "independent" system, other than the one we have.

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.

He just doesn't denounce them when asked point blank to do so. And those organizations celebrate it the next day.

No, that's just flat out a lie.

Let us both read Trump's full statement after Charlottesville.

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Do you need help here? Or are you capable of reading and comprehending that on your own without political bias?

Let me repeat the statement he made, that completely destroys your lies about him not condemning white supremacists.

and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally

What part of that is "Not condemning white supremacists" in your world?

That's from 2017. Clearly documented everywhere.

Stop lying. Facts contradict your opinion.

Please read the title of the thread. He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

As I said....
Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

No, but do post facts.... facts like....

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

Since you've admitted that you did not watch -- I think YOU missed it.. As to Wallace's question about denouncing them -- he said "Sure" and then "Sure, I'd be willing to do that"...



Not required to GROVEL and go full "virtue signaling"... He's already done this on at least 4 other occasions..

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He didn't do it.
It isn't groveling to do the decent thing. He's just not used to doing the decent thing.

As I've said, he has already denounced them openly in the past. He doesn't need to continue to do anything to appease stupid people, that won't vote for him no matter what he does, and will constantly call everyone they don't like 'racist' regardless of truth.... you on here, being proof of my point.

And on Tuesday he didn't denounce them, he told them to "stand by".
Those are the facts and that is no in dispute. Except from Trump worshipers like yourself.

And as I said, he already denounced them in 2017. He doesn't need to do it again, because someone who wouldn't vote for him anyway, got their panties all bunched up over it.

Honestly, if he had repeated what he said before, would you be a Trump supporter right now? No. Of course not. So I don't care, you don't care, and he doesn't care.

So what you think doesn't matter to me, or him, and you can keep saying that over and over, and I'll keep replying over and over, for however long you wish to keep repeating something false.

As we saw on Tuesday, he was asked to denounce a hate group. And he chose not to.

It was the case on Tuesday, it is the case today and it will be the case next week....no matter how many times you deny it.

And as I said, he already denounced them in 2017. He doesn't need to do it again, because someone who wouldn't vote for him anyway, got their panties all bunched up over it.

Honestly, if he had repeated what he said before, would you be a Trump supporter right now? No. Of course not. So I don't care, you don't care, and he doesn't care.

So what you think doesn't matter to me, or him, and you can keep saying that over and over, and I'll keep replying over and over, for however long you wish to keep repeating something false.

Keep going as much as you like. I'll be happy to repeat the truth the next time I'm on.

On Tuesday he embraced hate groups. He didn't denounce them.

And as I said, he already denounced them in 2017. He doesn't need to do it again, because someone who wouldn't vote for him anyway, got their panties all bunched up over it.

Honestly, if he had repeated what he said before, would you be a Trump supporter right now? No. Of course not. So I don't care, you don't care, and he doesn't care.

So what you think doesn't matter to me, or him, and you can keep saying that over and over, and I'll keep replying over and over, for however long you wish to keep repeating something false.

Keep going as much as you like. I'll be happy to repeat the truth the next time I'm on.

For some reason, the blob decided to embrace hate groups while he was on the stage last Tuesday. When he was asked to denounce them...he didn't. Blob supporters crave violence...he proved it. And you're constantly proving it now. Thanks. Please continue.

 

[Andylusion]

I would love to see a third party to get a chance. Unfortunately, I think the Democrats and Republicans make it hard. In the last election 2016, I thought for sure a third party could get 5% and get federal funding. I think for sure they are Making it hard for them. Republicans and Democrats get almost $100 million dollars to run for office. Third parties get nothing.

Page doesn't exist

English news from the Voice of America. VOA news provides coverage from around the world and learning English lessons from VOA Special English.

www.voanews.com

If you really want a 3rd party, you'll have to completely change how voting is done. Instead of winner takes all, we would have to have a system of proportional voting, where you vote for the party.

Then if the 3rd party gets 25% of the vote, they would get 25% of the seats in congress, or something to that effect.

This is like what they do in the UK.

Here's my problem. I've watched UK elections for years and years now. I was watching the vote live, with the 2016 Brexit vote.

And after all these years, what I learned from the UK is.... 3rd parties will solve nothing. There is zero evidence that having a 3rd party, or 4th party, or 25th party, has any positive effects whatsoever.

I was listening to a commentator from the UK, talking about how 3rd parties only provide unbelievable grid lock, and high chances of corruption.

So here's how it works in the UK.... The big parties make huge promises to voters. Then the election comes around, and you end up with 40%/40% for the two major parties, and 20% for the 3rd party.

Then in order to form a government, one of the two parties will form a coalition with the third party.

Now that you have two parties, in coalition, both parties tell the voters "Sorry can't do all those things you voted us in here to do, because our Coalition partner isn't on board."

Or!.... the other thing that can happen, is that usually it's the larger party, will engage in borderline bribery, to give favors or special projects in the 3rd parties district, to get them to vote for the legislation the larger party wants.

Back room deals, and under the table hand shakes.

Either way, you end up with the exact same problems we have in our system with two parties. No matter how many times people say the grass is greener in with more parties, I simply haven't found any evidence they work better.

I'm not opposed to 3rd parties, but I just don't see the value. I just don't. No evidence that they will improve anything. Jesse Ventura ran as a 3rd party candidate, and won, and the result was he had no pull with either party. It was just even more grid lock, than when a Republican or Democrat was in office.

There is very little value nationally. If the argument is for down ballot races, then a third party can have some impact.

If the Green Party had a senatorial majority, they'd be doing exactly what Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell did/are doing. The problem is that we have a 230+ y/o business plan that isn't built for the politics we have today. The first thing that the party bosses do is look for a loophole and exploit it. Green, Red, Blue, Libertarian...it makes no difference.

And no, term limits are not the solution either. All Term limits do is change the actors but the script remains the same. Meanwhile the lack of experience in dealing with adversaries who know how to play the game hurts the nation.

I don't think the business plan that has worked extremely well for 230 years, is the problem.

In that case, the rest of the post is a moot point.

We literally have nothing written into the document that describes the Senate Majority Leader who essentially vetoes bills for the President. There is nothing in the document that prevents the Senate from just letting every justice on the supreme court die and never replacing them.

I know, I know, you'll say that it will never happen...right? Never is a long time and if Biden wins, can you picture any scenario where a GOP senate gives his nominees a hearing, much less approves any of them?

I can't.

Name for me one country on the face of this planet, where party bosses do not look for loopholes and exploit them?

There probably are none. Does that mean that we shouldn't try to close as many of those loopholes as possible?

Ironically, I somewhat agree with your conclusion. That even term limits won't clearly fix anything.

I wager the difference is, we disagree on the cause.

When one side is willing to label everyone who disagrees with them as racists, you can't have an honest debate.

When one side is willing to allow entire sections of the city to burn, and willfully chooses to not enforce the law, how can you have an honest debate?

When one side is openly and overtly corrupt, and the public doesn't care, what system in the world is going to fix that?

Yeah, none of that listed above "caused" the legislative chaos bloodhogs was talking about. But since you brought it up, Trump's overt corruption is something we all should care about.

Never is a long time and if Biden wins, can you picture any scenario where a GOP senate gives his nominees a hearing, much less approves any of them?

That depends. It's not like the GOP is going to make up completely fabricated charges, like I don't know... Kavanough, or Bork, or Thomas.

There is clearly a consistent track record of lying and fabricating charges to stop judges they don't like... when I don't see the GOP engaging in such activities.

Besides that, judges should be stripped of the power to change law anyway. Appointing judges shouldn't be any more controversial than hiring a security guard. Meaning as long as they have served time enforcing the law (very different from rewriting law), they should be confirmed.

Trump's overt corruption is something we all should care about.

Sure. Name one example of this 'overt corruption'. Is it anything like funneling campaign money through a front company, to AOC's boyfriend?

On February 20, GOP political consultant Luke Thompson unveiled screenshots of FEC records via his Medium page showing the congresswoman's campaign paid $6,191.32 to Brand New Congress LLC, a progressive PAC and consulting firm that hired Cortez's boyfriend, Riley Roberts, as a marketing consultant during the fall of 2017 not long after Cortez's campaign began.​

FEC complaint filed against Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez

The Coolidge Reagan Foundation filed an FEC complaint against Cortez's campaign team on Wednesday over funds her election team paid to a political group that employed her boyfriend

www.dailymail.co.uk

Brand New Congress PAC payments to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's boyfriend Riley Roberts scrutinized

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not immune to the taint of money in politics. During her long-shot run for Congress, a political action committee backing her campaign was putting cash in...

apnews.com

About as clear as it gets. Intentionally creating an LLC, and having a boyfriend hired as a 'marketing consultant' has has never worked as a consultant, or in marketing.

Nothing overtly corrupt about that. Nope. Not a thing.

Yeah, he just happened to hire 7 felons.
No corruption there.

Did they engage in criminal action in office? You know... like AOC funneling money through a front company, to her boyfriend who magically turned into a marketing consultant?

Are you saying that ex-convicts should be assumed to be engaging in crime after they are released from prison? If so, why do Democrats want to reduce the prison population when you assume they will engage in crime, before they do anything?

Was AOC convicted of anything? Nope
Were Trump's "best people" convicted? Yes.

Trump's campaign was a criminal enterprise by any measure.

I would love to see a third party to get a chance. Unfortunately, I think the Democrats and Republicans make it hard. In the last election 2016, I thought for sure a third party could get 5% and get federal funding. I think for sure they are Making it hard for them. Republicans and Democrats get almost $100 million dollars to run for office. Third parties get nothing.

Page doesn't exist

English news from the Voice of America. VOA news provides coverage from around the world and learning English lessons from VOA Special English.

www.voanews.com

If you really want a 3rd party, you'll have to completely change how voting is done. Instead of winner takes all, we would have to have a system of proportional voting, where you vote for the party.

Then if the 3rd party gets 25% of the vote, they would get 25% of the seats in congress, or something to that effect.

This is like what they do in the UK.

Here's my problem. I've watched UK elections for years and years now. I was watching the vote live, with the 2016 Brexit vote.

And after all these years, what I learned from the UK is.... 3rd parties will solve nothing. There is zero evidence that having a 3rd party, or 4th party, or 25th party, has any positive effects whatsoever.

I was listening to a commentator from the UK, talking about how 3rd parties only provide unbelievable grid lock, and high chances of corruption.

So here's how it works in the UK.... The big parties make huge promises to voters. Then the election comes around, and you end up with 40%/40% for the two major parties, and 20% for the 3rd party.

Then in order to form a government, one of the two parties will form a coalition with the third party.

Now that you have two parties, in coalition, both parties tell the voters "Sorry can't do all those things you voted us in here to do, because our Coalition partner isn't on board."

Or!.... the other thing that can happen, is that usually it's the larger party, will engage in borderline bribery, to give favors or special projects in the 3rd parties district, to get them to vote for the legislation the larger party wants.

Back room deals, and under the table hand shakes.

Either way, you end up with the exact same problems we have in our system with two parties. No matter how many times people say the grass is greener in with more parties, I simply haven't found any evidence they work better.

I'm not opposed to 3rd parties, but I just don't see the value. I just don't. No evidence that they will improve anything. Jesse Ventura ran as a 3rd party candidate, and won, and the result was he had no pull with either party. It was just even more grid lock, than when a Republican or Democrat was in office.

There is very little value nationally. If the argument is for down ballot races, then a third party can have some impact.

If the Green Party had a senatorial majority, they'd be doing exactly what Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell did/are doing. The problem is that we have a 230+ y/o business plan that isn't built for the politics we have today. The first thing that the party bosses do is look for a loophole and exploit it. Green, Red, Blue, Libertarian...it makes no difference.

And no, term limits are not the solution either. All Term limits do is change the actors but the script remains the same. Meanwhile the lack of experience in dealing with adversaries who know how to play the game hurts the nation.

I don't think the business plan that has worked extremely well for 230 years, is the problem.

In that case, the rest of the post is a moot point.

We literally have nothing written into the document that describes the Senate Majority Leader who essentially vetoes bills for the President. There is nothing in the document that prevents the Senate from just letting every justice on the supreme court die and never replacing them.

I know, I know, you'll say that it will never happen...right? Never is a long time and if Biden wins, can you picture any scenario where a GOP senate gives his nominees a hearing, much less approves any of them?

I can't.

Name for me one country on the face of this planet, where party bosses do not look for loopholes and exploit them?

There probably are none. Does that mean that we shouldn't try to close as many of those loopholes as possible?

Ironically, I somewhat agree with your conclusion. That even term limits won't clearly fix anything.

I wager the difference is, we disagree on the cause.

When one side is willing to label everyone who disagrees with them as racists, you can't have an honest debate.

When one side is willing to allow entire sections of the city to burn, and willfully chooses to not enforce the law, how can you have an honest debate?

When one side is openly and overtly corrupt, and the public doesn't care, what system in the world is going to fix that?

Yeah, none of that listed above "caused" the legislative chaos bloodhogs was talking about. But since you brought it up, Trump's overt corruption is something we all should care about.

Never is a long time and if Biden wins, can you picture any scenario where a GOP senate gives his nominees a hearing, much less approves any of them?

That depends. It's not like the GOP is going to make up completely fabricated charges, like I don't know... Kavanough, or Bork, or Thomas.

There is clearly a consistent track record of lying and fabricating charges to stop judges they don't like... when I don't see the GOP engaging in such activities.

Besides that, judges should be stripped of the power to change law anyway. Appointing judges shouldn't be any more controversial than hiring a security guard. Meaning as long as they have served time enforcing the law (very different from rewriting law), they should be confirmed.

Trump's overt corruption is something we all should care about.

Sure. Name one example of this 'overt corruption'. Is it anything like funneling campaign money through a front company, to AOC's boyfriend?

On February 20, GOP political consultant Luke Thompson unveiled screenshots of FEC records via his Medium page showing the congresswoman's campaign paid $6,191.32 to Brand New Congress LLC, a progressive PAC and consulting firm that hired Cortez's boyfriend, Riley Roberts, as a marketing consultant during the fall of 2017 not long after Cortez's campaign began.​

FEC complaint filed against Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez

The Coolidge Reagan Foundation filed an FEC complaint against Cortez's campaign team on Wednesday over funds her election team paid to a political group that employed her boyfriend

www.dailymail.co.uk

Brand New Congress PAC payments to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's boyfriend Riley Roberts scrutinized

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not immune to the taint of money in politics. During her long-shot run for Congress, a political action committee backing her campaign was putting cash in...

apnews.com

About as clear as it gets. Intentionally creating an LLC, and having a boyfriend hired as a 'marketing consultant' has has never worked as a consultant, or in marketing.

Nothing overtly corrupt about that. Nope. Not a thing.

Yeah, he just happened to hire 7 felons.
No corruption there.

Did they engage in criminal action in office? You know... like AOC funneling money through a front company, to her boyfriend who magically turned into a marketing consultant?

Are you saying that ex-convicts should be assumed to be engaging in crime after they are released from prison? If so, why do Democrats want to reduce the prison population when you assume they will engage in crime, before they do anything?

Was AOC convicted of anything? Nope
Were Trump's "best people" convicted? Yes.

Trump's campaign was a criminal enterprise by any measure.

That's because we're better than you. Just because it's Trump's guy, doesn't mean we won't convict him, because we're the good people.

You left-wingers are the evil people. They will defend evil, no matter how bad it is, provided it's their guy.

Al Gore made calls from his office, to shake down companies for donations. Completely illegal. Not even a debatable point. You can't use your Federal Office to shake down people for money. And it's not debatable that he did it. We had the audio tapes.

Did the left-wing care? Not at all.

Hillary Clinton, told the FBI that she....... after 20 years in the highest levels of government..... had no idea whatsoever, how to tell the difference between classified and unclassified information.

Either she was the absolute most ignorant and incompetent politicians in the last 100 years.... or more likely.... she was corrupt to her core.

Did the left-wing care? Not at all.

See that's the difference. The lack of convictions of clear blatantly corrupt left-wing politicians is not evidence that they are magically not evil and corrupt... it's evidence the people who support those politicians are just as evil and corrupt as the politicians themselves.

The reasons Republicans will convict those who engage in illegal activity, even if they are close to a Republicans President... is because we are just flat out better people. It's that simple. We're good people in this country. We're better than them.

 

[Andylusion]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

Yeah, everyone know the climate is changing. Has since the last ice age, and before it.

No campaign has ever certified an election. There is no "independent" system, other than the one we have.

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.

He just doesn't denounce them when asked point blank to do so. And those organizations celebrate it the next day.

No, that's just flat out a lie.

Let us both read Trump's full statement after Charlottesville.

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Do you need help here? Or are you capable of reading and comprehending that on your own without political bias?

Let me repeat the statement he made, that completely destroys your lies about him not condemning white supremacists.

and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally

What part of that is "Not condemning white supremacists" in your world?

That's from 2017. Clearly documented everywhere.

Stop lying. Facts contradict your opinion.

Please read the title of the thread. He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

As I said....
Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

No, but do post facts.... facts like....

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

Since you've admitted that you did not watch -- I think YOU missed it.. As to Wallace's question about denouncing them -- he said "Sure" and then "Sure, I'd be willing to do that"...



Not required to GROVEL and go full "virtue signaling"... He's already done this on at least 4 other occasions..

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He didn't do it.
It isn't groveling to do the decent thing. He's just not used to doing the decent thing.

As I've said, he has already denounced them openly in the past. He doesn't need to continue to do anything to appease stupid people, that won't vote for him no matter what he does, and will constantly call everyone they don't like 'racist' regardless of truth.... you on here, being proof of my point.

And on Tuesday he didn't denounce them, he told them to "stand by".
Those are the facts and that is no in dispute. Except from Trump worshipers like yourself.

And as I said, he already denounced them in 2017. He doesn't need to do it again, because someone who wouldn't vote for him anyway, got their panties all bunched up over it.

Honestly, if he had repeated what he said before, would you be a Trump supporter right now? No. Of course not. So I don't care, you don't care, and he doesn't care.

So what you think doesn't matter to me, or him, and you can keep saying that over and over, and I'll keep replying over and over, for however long you wish to keep repeating something false.

As we saw on Tuesday, he was asked to denounce a hate group. And he chose not to.

It was the case on Tuesday, it is the case today and it will be the case next week....no matter how many times you deny it.

And as I said, he already denounced them in 2017. He doesn't need to do it again, because someone who wouldn't vote for him anyway, got their panties all bunched up over it.

Honestly, if he had repeated what he said before, would you be a Trump supporter right now? No. Of course not. So I don't care, you don't care, and he doesn't care.

So what you think doesn't matter to me, or him, and you can keep saying that over and over, and I'll keep replying over and over, for however long you wish to keep repeating something false.

Keep going as much as you like. I'll be happy to repeat the truth the next time I'm on.

On Tuesday he embraced hate groups. He didn't denounce them.

And as I said, he already denounced them in 2017. He doesn't need to do it again, because someone who wouldn't vote for him anyway, got their panties all bunched up over it.

Honestly, if he had repeated what he said before, would you be a Trump supporter right now? No. Of course not. So I don't care, you don't care, and he doesn't care.

So what you think doesn't matter to me, or him, and you can keep saying that over and over, and I'll keep replying over and over, for however long you wish to keep repeating something false.

Keep going as much as you like. I'll be happy to repeat the truth the next time I'm on.

For some reason, the blob decided to embrace hate groups while he was on the stage last Tuesday. When he was asked to denounce them...he didn't. Blob supporters crave violence...he proved it. And you're constantly proving it now. Thanks. Please continue.

And as I said, he already denounced them in 2017. He doesn't need to do it again, because someone who wouldn't vote for him anyway, got their panties all bunched up over it.

He doesn't need to do it every time corrupt supporters of corrupt politicians on the left, scream about racism.

I support him, and I don't care what you think, because he's better than left-wingers. Just flat out, he's better than Democrats.

 

[candycorn]

I would love to see a third party to get a chance. Unfortunately, I think the Democrats and Republicans make it hard. In the last election 2016, I thought for sure a third party could get 5% and get federal funding. I think for sure they are Making it hard for them. Republicans and Democrats get almost $100 million dollars to run for office. Third parties get nothing.

Page doesn't exist

English news from the Voice of America. VOA news provides coverage from around the world and learning English lessons from VOA Special English.

www.voanews.com

If you really want a 3rd party, you'll have to completely change how voting is done. Instead of winner takes all, we would have to have a system of proportional voting, where you vote for the party.

Then if the 3rd party gets 25% of the vote, they would get 25% of the seats in congress, or something to that effect.

This is like what they do in the UK.

Here's my problem. I've watched UK elections for years and years now. I was watching the vote live, with the 2016 Brexit vote.

And after all these years, what I learned from the UK is.... 3rd parties will solve nothing. There is zero evidence that having a 3rd party, or 4th party, or 25th party, has any positive effects whatsoever.

I was listening to a commentator from the UK, talking about how 3rd parties only provide unbelievable grid lock, and high chances of corruption.

So here's how it works in the UK.... The big parties make huge promises to voters. Then the election comes around, and you end up with 40%/40% for the two major parties, and 20% for the 3rd party.

Then in order to form a government, one of the two parties will form a coalition with the third party.

Now that you have two parties, in coalition, both parties tell the voters "Sorry can't do all those things you voted us in here to do, because our Coalition partner isn't on board."

Or!.... the other thing that can happen, is that usually it's the larger party, will engage in borderline bribery, to give favors or special projects in the 3rd parties district, to get them to vote for the legislation the larger party wants.

Back room deals, and under the table hand shakes.

Either way, you end up with the exact same problems we have in our system with two parties. No matter how many times people say the grass is greener in with more parties, I simply haven't found any evidence they work better.

I'm not opposed to 3rd parties, but I just don't see the value. I just don't. No evidence that they will improve anything. Jesse Ventura ran as a 3rd party candidate, and won, and the result was he had no pull with either party. It was just even more grid lock, than when a Republican or Democrat was in office.

There is very little value nationally. If the argument is for down ballot races, then a third party can have some impact.

If the Green Party had a senatorial majority, they'd be doing exactly what Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell did/are doing. The problem is that we have a 230+ y/o business plan that isn't built for the politics we have today. The first thing that the party bosses do is look for a loophole and exploit it. Green, Red, Blue, Libertarian...it makes no difference.

And no, term limits are not the solution either. All Term limits do is change the actors but the script remains the same. Meanwhile the lack of experience in dealing with adversaries who know how to play the game hurts the nation.

I don't think the business plan that has worked extremely well for 230 years, is the problem.

In that case, the rest of the post is a moot point.

We literally have nothing written into the document that describes the Senate Majority Leader who essentially vetoes bills for the President. There is nothing in the document that prevents the Senate from just letting every justice on the supreme court die and never replacing them.

I know, I know, you'll say that it will never happen...right? Never is a long time and if Biden wins, can you picture any scenario where a GOP senate gives his nominees a hearing, much less approves any of them?

I can't.

Name for me one country on the face of this planet, where party bosses do not look for loopholes and exploit them?

There probably are none. Does that mean that we shouldn't try to close as many of those loopholes as possible?

Ironically, I somewhat agree with your conclusion. That even term limits won't clearly fix anything.

I wager the difference is, we disagree on the cause.

When one side is willing to label everyone who disagrees with them as racists, you can't have an honest debate.

When one side is willing to allow entire sections of the city to burn, and willfully chooses to not enforce the law, how can you have an honest debate?

When one side is openly and overtly corrupt, and the public doesn't care, what system in the world is going to fix that?

Yeah, none of that listed above "caused" the legislative chaos bloodhogs was talking about. But since you brought it up, Trump's overt corruption is something we all should care about.

Never is a long time and if Biden wins, can you picture any scenario where a GOP senate gives his nominees a hearing, much less approves any of them?

That depends. It's not like the GOP is going to make up completely fabricated charges, like I don't know... Kavanough, or Bork, or Thomas.

There is clearly a consistent track record of lying and fabricating charges to stop judges they don't like... when I don't see the GOP engaging in such activities.

Besides that, judges should be stripped of the power to change law anyway. Appointing judges shouldn't be any more controversial than hiring a security guard. Meaning as long as they have served time enforcing the law (very different from rewriting law), they should be confirmed.

Trump's overt corruption is something we all should care about.

Sure. Name one example of this 'overt corruption'. Is it anything like funneling campaign money through a front company, to AOC's boyfriend?

On February 20, GOP political consultant Luke Thompson unveiled screenshots of FEC records via his Medium page showing the congresswoman's campaign paid $6,191.32 to Brand New Congress LLC, a progressive PAC and consulting firm that hired Cortez's boyfriend, Riley Roberts, as a marketing consultant during the fall of 2017 not long after Cortez's campaign began.​

FEC complaint filed against Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez

The Coolidge Reagan Foundation filed an FEC complaint against Cortez's campaign team on Wednesday over funds her election team paid to a political group that employed her boyfriend

www.dailymail.co.uk

Brand New Congress PAC payments to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's boyfriend Riley Roberts scrutinized

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not immune to the taint of money in politics. During her long-shot run for Congress, a political action committee backing her campaign was putting cash in...

apnews.com

About as clear as it gets. Intentionally creating an LLC, and having a boyfriend hired as a 'marketing consultant' has has never worked as a consultant, or in marketing.

Nothing overtly corrupt about that. Nope. Not a thing.

Yeah, he just happened to hire 7 felons.
No corruption there.

Did they engage in criminal action in office? You know... like AOC funneling money through a front company, to her boyfriend who magically turned into a marketing consultant?

Are you saying that ex-convicts should be assumed to be engaging in crime after they are released from prison? If so, why do Democrats want to reduce the prison population when you assume they will engage in crime, before they do anything?

Was AOC convicted of anything? Nope
Were Trump's "best people" convicted? Yes.

Trump's campaign was a criminal enterprise by any measure.

I would love to see a third party to get a chance. Unfortunately, I think the Democrats and Republicans make it hard. In the last election 2016, I thought for sure a third party could get 5% and get federal funding. I think for sure they are Making it hard for them. Republicans and Democrats get almost $100 million dollars to run for office. Third parties get nothing.

Page doesn't exist

English news from the Voice of America. VOA news provides coverage from around the world and learning English lessons from VOA Special English.

www.voanews.com

If you really want a 3rd party, you'll have to completely change how voting is done. Instead of winner takes all, we would have to have a system of proportional voting, where you vote for the party.

Then if the 3rd party gets 25% of the vote, they would get 25% of the seats in congress, or something to that effect.

This is like what they do in the UK.

Here's my problem. I've watched UK elections for years and years now. I was watching the vote live, with the 2016 Brexit vote.

And after all these years, what I learned from the UK is.... 3rd parties will solve nothing. There is zero evidence that having a 3rd party, or 4th party, or 25th party, has any positive effects whatsoever.

I was listening to a commentator from the UK, talking about how 3rd parties only provide unbelievable grid lock, and high chances of corruption.

So here's how it works in the UK.... The big parties make huge promises to voters. Then the election comes around, and you end up with 40%/40% for the two major parties, and 20% for the 3rd party.

Then in order to form a government, one of the two parties will form a coalition with the third party.

Now that you have two parties, in coalition, both parties tell the voters "Sorry can't do all those things you voted us in here to do, because our Coalition partner isn't on board."

Or!.... the other thing that can happen, is that usually it's the larger party, will engage in borderline bribery, to give favors or special projects in the 3rd parties district, to get them to vote for the legislation the larger party wants.

Back room deals, and under the table hand shakes.

Either way, you end up with the exact same problems we have in our system with two parties. No matter how many times people say the grass is greener in with more parties, I simply haven't found any evidence they work better.

I'm not opposed to 3rd parties, but I just don't see the value. I just don't. No evidence that they will improve anything. Jesse Ventura ran as a 3rd party candidate, and won, and the result was he had no pull with either party. It was just even more grid lock, than when a Republican or Democrat was in office.

There is very little value nationally. If the argument is for down ballot races, then a third party can have some impact.

If the Green Party had a senatorial majority, they'd be doing exactly what Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell did/are doing. The problem is that we have a 230+ y/o business plan that isn't built for the politics we have today. The first thing that the party bosses do is look for a loophole and exploit it. Green, Red, Blue, Libertarian...it makes no difference.

And no, term limits are not the solution either. All Term limits do is change the actors but the script remains the same. Meanwhile the lack of experience in dealing with adversaries who know how to play the game hurts the nation.

I don't think the business plan that has worked extremely well for 230 years, is the problem.

In that case, the rest of the post is a moot point.

We literally have nothing written into the document that describes the Senate Majority Leader who essentially vetoes bills for the President. There is nothing in the document that prevents the Senate from just letting every justice on the supreme court die and never replacing them.

I know, I know, you'll say that it will never happen...right? Never is a long time and if Biden wins, can you picture any scenario where a GOP senate gives his nominees a hearing, much less approves any of them?

I can't.

Name for me one country on the face of this planet, where party bosses do not look for loopholes and exploit them?

There probably are none. Does that mean that we shouldn't try to close as many of those loopholes as possible?

Ironically, I somewhat agree with your conclusion. That even term limits won't clearly fix anything.

I wager the difference is, we disagree on the cause.

When one side is willing to label everyone who disagrees with them as racists, you can't have an honest debate.

When one side is willing to allow entire sections of the city to burn, and willfully chooses to not enforce the law, how can you have an honest debate?

When one side is openly and overtly corrupt, and the public doesn't care, what system in the world is going to fix that?

Yeah, none of that listed above "caused" the legislative chaos bloodhogs was talking about. But since you brought it up, Trump's overt corruption is something we all should care about.

Never is a long time and if Biden wins, can you picture any scenario where a GOP senate gives his nominees a hearing, much less approves any of them?

That depends. It's not like the GOP is going to make up completely fabricated charges, like I don't know... Kavanough, or Bork, or Thomas.

There is clearly a consistent track record of lying and fabricating charges to stop judges they don't like... when I don't see the GOP engaging in such activities.

Besides that, judges should be stripped of the power to change law anyway. Appointing judges shouldn't be any more controversial than hiring a security guard. Meaning as long as they have served time enforcing the law (very different from rewriting law), they should be confirmed.

Trump's overt corruption is something we all should care about.

Sure. Name one example of this 'overt corruption'. Is it anything like funneling campaign money through a front company, to AOC's boyfriend?

On February 20, GOP political consultant Luke Thompson unveiled screenshots of FEC records via his Medium page showing the congresswoman's campaign paid $6,191.32 to Brand New Congress LLC, a progressive PAC and consulting firm that hired Cortez's boyfriend, Riley Roberts, as a marketing consultant during the fall of 2017 not long after Cortez's campaign began.​

FEC complaint filed against Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez

The Coolidge Reagan Foundation filed an FEC complaint against Cortez's campaign team on Wednesday over funds her election team paid to a political group that employed her boyfriend

www.dailymail.co.uk

Brand New Congress PAC payments to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's boyfriend Riley Roberts scrutinized

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not immune to the taint of money in politics. During her long-shot run for Congress, a political action committee backing her campaign was putting cash in...

apnews.com

About as clear as it gets. Intentionally creating an LLC, and having a boyfriend hired as a 'marketing consultant' has has never worked as a consultant, or in marketing.

Nothing overtly corrupt about that. Nope. Not a thing.

Yeah, he just happened to hire 7 felons.
No corruption there.

Did they engage in criminal action in office? You know... like AOC funneling money through a front company, to her boyfriend who magically turned into a marketing consultant?

Are you saying that ex-convicts should be assumed to be engaging in crime after they are released from prison? If so, why do Democrats want to reduce the prison population when you assume they will engage in crime, before they do anything?

Was AOC convicted of anything? Nope
Were Trump's "best people" convicted? Yes.

Trump's campaign was a criminal enterprise by any measure.

That's because we're better than you. Just because it's Trump's guy, doesn't mean we won't convict him, because we're the good people.

You left-wingers are the evil people. They will defend evil, no matter how bad it is, provided it's their guy.

Al Gore made calls from his office, to shake down companies for donations. Completely illegal. Not even a debatable point. You can't use your Federal Office to shake down people for money. And it's not debatable that he did it. We had the audio tapes.

Did the left-wing care? Not at all.

Hillary Clinton, told the FBI that she....... after 20 years in the highest levels of government..... had no idea whatsoever, how to tell the difference between classified and unclassified information.

Either she was the absolute most ignorant and incompetent politicians in the last 100 years.... or more likely.... she was corrupt to her core.

Did the left-wing care? Not at all.

See that's the difference. The lack of convictions of clear blatantly corrupt left-wing politicians is not evidence that they are magically not evil and corrupt... it's evidence the people who support those politicians are just as evil and corrupt as the politicians themselves.

The reasons Republicans will convict those who engage in illegal activity, even if they are close to a Republicans President... is because we are just flat out better people. It's that simple. We're good people in this country. We're better than them.

The felons are "better"? Yeah, make me laugh harder.

 

[candycorn]

For some reason, the blob decided to embrace hate groups while he was on the stage last Tuesday. When he was asked to denounce them...he didn't. Blob supporters crave violence...he proved it. And you're constantly proving it now. Thanks. Please continue.

 

[Andylusion]

I would love to see a third party to get a chance. Unfortunately, I think the Democrats and Republicans make it hard. In the last election 2016, I thought for sure a third party could get 5% and get federal funding. I think for sure they are Making it hard for them. Republicans and Democrats get almost $100 million dollars to run for office. Third parties get nothing.

Page doesn't exist

English news from the Voice of America. VOA news provides coverage from around the world and learning English lessons from VOA Special English.

www.voanews.com

If you really want a 3rd party, you'll have to completely change how voting is done. Instead of winner takes all, we would have to have a system of proportional voting, where you vote for the party.

Then if the 3rd party gets 25% of the vote, they would get 25% of the seats in congress, or something to that effect.

This is like what they do in the UK.

Here's my problem. I've watched UK elections for years and years now. I was watching the vote live, with the 2016 Brexit vote.

And after all these years, what I learned from the UK is.... 3rd parties will solve nothing. There is zero evidence that having a 3rd party, or 4th party, or 25th party, has any positive effects whatsoever.

I was listening to a commentator from the UK, talking about how 3rd parties only provide unbelievable grid lock, and high chances of corruption.

So here's how it works in the UK.... The big parties make huge promises to voters. Then the election comes around, and you end up with 40%/40% for the two major parties, and 20% for the 3rd party.

Then in order to form a government, one of the two parties will form a coalition with the third party.

Now that you have two parties, in coalition, both parties tell the voters "Sorry can't do all those things you voted us in here to do, because our Coalition partner isn't on board."

Or!.... the other thing that can happen, is that usually it's the larger party, will engage in borderline bribery, to give favors or special projects in the 3rd parties district, to get them to vote for the legislation the larger party wants.

Back room deals, and under the table hand shakes.

Either way, you end up with the exact same problems we have in our system with two parties. No matter how many times people say the grass is greener in with more parties, I simply haven't found any evidence they work better.

I'm not opposed to 3rd parties, but I just don't see the value. I just don't. No evidence that they will improve anything. Jesse Ventura ran as a 3rd party candidate, and won, and the result was he had no pull with either party. It was just even more grid lock, than when a Republican or Democrat was in office.

There is very little value nationally. If the argument is for down ballot races, then a third party can have some impact.

If the Green Party had a senatorial majority, they'd be doing exactly what Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell did/are doing. The problem is that we have a 230+ y/o business plan that isn't built for the politics we have today. The first thing that the party bosses do is look for a loophole and exploit it. Green, Red, Blue, Libertarian...it makes no difference.

And no, term limits are not the solution either. All Term limits do is change the actors but the script remains the same. Meanwhile the lack of experience in dealing with adversaries who know how to play the game hurts the nation.

I don't think the business plan that has worked extremely well for 230 years, is the problem.

In that case, the rest of the post is a moot point.

We literally have nothing written into the document that describes the Senate Majority Leader who essentially vetoes bills for the President. There is nothing in the document that prevents the Senate from just letting every justice on the supreme court die and never replacing them.

I know, I know, you'll say that it will never happen...right? Never is a long time and if Biden wins, can you picture any scenario where a GOP senate gives his nominees a hearing, much less approves any of them?

I can't.

Name for me one country on the face of this planet, where party bosses do not look for loopholes and exploit them?

There probably are none. Does that mean that we shouldn't try to close as many of those loopholes as possible?

Ironically, I somewhat agree with your conclusion. That even term limits won't clearly fix anything.

I wager the difference is, we disagree on the cause.

When one side is willing to label everyone who disagrees with them as racists, you can't have an honest debate.

When one side is willing to allow entire sections of the city to burn, and willfully chooses to not enforce the law, how can you have an honest debate?

When one side is openly and overtly corrupt, and the public doesn't care, what system in the world is going to fix that?

Yeah, none of that listed above "caused" the legislative chaos bloodhogs was talking about. But since you brought it up, Trump's overt corruption is something we all should care about.

Never is a long time and if Biden wins, can you picture any scenario where a GOP senate gives his nominees a hearing, much less approves any of them?

That depends. It's not like the GOP is going to make up completely fabricated charges, like I don't know... Kavanough, or Bork, or Thomas.

There is clearly a consistent track record of lying and fabricating charges to stop judges they don't like... when I don't see the GOP engaging in such activities.

Besides that, judges should be stripped of the power to change law anyway. Appointing judges shouldn't be any more controversial than hiring a security guard. Meaning as long as they have served time enforcing the law (very different from rewriting law), they should be confirmed.

Trump's overt corruption is something we all should care about.

Sure. Name one example of this 'overt corruption'. Is it anything like funneling campaign money through a front company, to AOC's boyfriend?

On February 20, GOP political consultant Luke Thompson unveiled screenshots of FEC records via his Medium page showing the congresswoman's campaign paid $6,191.32 to Brand New Congress LLC, a progressive PAC and consulting firm that hired Cortez's boyfriend, Riley Roberts, as a marketing consultant during the fall of 2017 not long after Cortez's campaign began.​

FEC complaint filed against Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez

The Coolidge Reagan Foundation filed an FEC complaint against Cortez's campaign team on Wednesday over funds her election team paid to a political group that employed her boyfriend

www.dailymail.co.uk

Brand New Congress PAC payments to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's boyfriend Riley Roberts scrutinized

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not immune to the taint of money in politics. During her long-shot run for Congress, a political action committee backing her campaign was putting cash in...

apnews.com

About as clear as it gets. Intentionally creating an LLC, and having a boyfriend hired as a 'marketing consultant' has has never worked as a consultant, or in marketing.

Nothing overtly corrupt about that. Nope. Not a thing.

Yeah, he just happened to hire 7 felons.
No corruption there.

Did they engage in criminal action in office? You know... like AOC funneling money through a front company, to her boyfriend who magically turned into a marketing consultant?

Are you saying that ex-convicts should be assumed to be engaging in crime after they are released from prison? If so, why do Democrats want to reduce the prison population when you assume they will engage in crime, before they do anything?

Was AOC convicted of anything? Nope
Were Trump's "best people" convicted? Yes.

Trump's campaign was a criminal enterprise by any measure.

I would love to see a third party to get a chance. Unfortunately, I think the Democrats and Republicans make it hard. In the last election 2016, I thought for sure a third party could get 5% and get federal funding. I think for sure they are Making it hard for them. Republicans and Democrats get almost $100 million dollars to run for office. Third parties get nothing.

Page doesn't exist

English news from the Voice of America. VOA news provides coverage from around the world and learning English lessons from VOA Special English.

www.voanews.com

If you really want a 3rd party, you'll have to completely change how voting is done. Instead of winner takes all, we would have to have a system of proportional voting, where you vote for the party.

Then if the 3rd party gets 25% of the vote, they would get 25% of the seats in congress, or something to that effect.

This is like what they do in the UK.

Here's my problem. I've watched UK elections for years and years now. I was watching the vote live, with the 2016 Brexit vote.

And after all these years, what I learned from the UK is.... 3rd parties will solve nothing. There is zero evidence that having a 3rd party, or 4th party, or 25th party, has any positive effects whatsoever.

I was listening to a commentator from the UK, talking about how 3rd parties only provide unbelievable grid lock, and high chances of corruption.

So here's how it works in the UK.... The big parties make huge promises to voters. Then the election comes around, and you end up with 40%/40% for the two major parties, and 20% for the 3rd party.

Then in order to form a government, one of the two parties will form a coalition with the third party.

Now that you have two parties, in coalition, both parties tell the voters "Sorry can't do all those things you voted us in here to do, because our Coalition partner isn't on board."

Or!.... the other thing that can happen, is that usually it's the larger party, will engage in borderline bribery, to give favors or special projects in the 3rd parties district, to get them to vote for the legislation the larger party wants.

Back room deals, and under the table hand shakes.

Either way, you end up with the exact same problems we have in our system with two parties. No matter how many times people say the grass is greener in with more parties, I simply haven't found any evidence they work better.

I'm not opposed to 3rd parties, but I just don't see the value. I just don't. No evidence that they will improve anything. Jesse Ventura ran as a 3rd party candidate, and won, and the result was he had no pull with either party. It was just even more grid lock, than when a Republican or Democrat was in office.

There is very little value nationally. If the argument is for down ballot races, then a third party can have some impact.

If the Green Party had a senatorial majority, they'd be doing exactly what Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell did/are doing. The problem is that we have a 230+ y/o business plan that isn't built for the politics we have today. The first thing that the party bosses do is look for a loophole and exploit it. Green, Red, Blue, Libertarian...it makes no difference.

And no, term limits are not the solution either. All Term limits do is change the actors but the script remains the same. Meanwhile the lack of experience in dealing with adversaries who know how to play the game hurts the nation.

I don't think the business plan that has worked extremely well for 230 years, is the problem.

In that case, the rest of the post is a moot point.

We literally have nothing written into the document that describes the Senate Majority Leader who essentially vetoes bills for the President. There is nothing in the document that prevents the Senate from just letting every justice on the supreme court die and never replacing them.

I know, I know, you'll say that it will never happen...right? Never is a long time and if Biden wins, can you picture any scenario where a GOP senate gives his nominees a hearing, much less approves any of them?

I can't.

Name for me one country on the face of this planet, where party bosses do not look for loopholes and exploit them?

There probably are none. Does that mean that we shouldn't try to close as many of those loopholes as possible?

Ironically, I somewhat agree with your conclusion. That even term limits won't clearly fix anything.

I wager the difference is, we disagree on the cause.

When one side is willing to label everyone who disagrees with them as racists, you can't have an honest debate.

When one side is willing to allow entire sections of the city to burn, and willfully chooses to not enforce the law, how can you have an honest debate?

When one side is openly and overtly corrupt, and the public doesn't care, what system in the world is going to fix that?

Yeah, none of that listed above "caused" the legislative chaos bloodhogs was talking about. But since you brought it up, Trump's overt corruption is something we all should care about.

Never is a long time and if Biden wins, can you picture any scenario where a GOP senate gives his nominees a hearing, much less approves any of them?

That depends. It's not like the GOP is going to make up completely fabricated charges, like I don't know... Kavanough, or Bork, or Thomas.

There is clearly a consistent track record of lying and fabricating charges to stop judges they don't like... when I don't see the GOP engaging in such activities.

Besides that, judges should be stripped of the power to change law anyway. Appointing judges shouldn't be any more controversial than hiring a security guard. Meaning as long as they have served time enforcing the law (very different from rewriting law), they should be confirmed.

Trump's overt corruption is something we all should care about.

Sure. Name one example of this 'overt corruption'. Is it anything like funneling campaign money through a front company, to AOC's boyfriend?

On February 20, GOP political consultant Luke Thompson unveiled screenshots of FEC records via his Medium page showing the congresswoman's campaign paid $6,191.32 to Brand New Congress LLC, a progressive PAC and consulting firm that hired Cortez's boyfriend, Riley Roberts, as a marketing consultant during the fall of 2017 not long after Cortez's campaign began.​

FEC complaint filed against Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez

The Coolidge Reagan Foundation filed an FEC complaint against Cortez's campaign team on Wednesday over funds her election team paid to a political group that employed her boyfriend

www.dailymail.co.uk

Brand New Congress PAC payments to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's boyfriend Riley Roberts scrutinized

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not immune to the taint of money in politics. During her long-shot run for Congress, a political action committee backing her campaign was putting cash in...

apnews.com

About as clear as it gets. Intentionally creating an LLC, and having a boyfriend hired as a 'marketing consultant' has has never worked as a consultant, or in marketing.

Nothing overtly corrupt about that. Nope. Not a thing.

Yeah, he just happened to hire 7 felons.
No corruption there.

Did they engage in criminal action in office? You know... like AOC funneling money through a front company, to her boyfriend who magically turned into a marketing consultant?

Are you saying that ex-convicts should be assumed to be engaging in crime after they are released from prison? If so, why do Democrats want to reduce the prison population when you assume they will engage in crime, before they do anything?

Was AOC convicted of anything? Nope
Were Trump's "best people" convicted? Yes.

Trump's campaign was a criminal enterprise by any measure.

That's because we're better than you. Just because it's Trump's guy, doesn't mean we won't convict him, because we're the good people.

You left-wingers are the evil people. They will defend evil, no matter how bad it is, provided it's their guy.

Al Gore made calls from his office, to shake down companies for donations. Completely illegal. Not even a debatable point. You can't use your Federal Office to shake down people for money. And it's not debatable that he did it. We had the audio tapes.

Did the left-wing care? Not at all.

Hillary Clinton, told the FBI that she....... after 20 years in the highest levels of government..... had no idea whatsoever, how to tell the difference between classified and unclassified information.

Either she was the absolute most ignorant and incompetent politicians in the last 100 years.... or more likely.... she was corrupt to her core.

Did the left-wing care? Not at all.

See that's the difference. The lack of convictions of clear blatantly corrupt left-wing politicians is not evidence that they are magically not evil and corrupt... it's evidence the people who support those politicians are just as evil and corrupt as the politicians themselves.

The reasons Republicans will convict those who engage in illegal activity, even if they are close to a Republicans President... is because we are just flat out better people. It's that simple. We're good people in this country. We're better than them.

The felons are "better"? Yeah, make me laugh harder.

Because we convicted them. That's why they are felons. Democrat felons, they never convicted. Because Democrats and left-wingers are no better than the people they support.

Yes, we are flat out better people.

 

[Andylusion]

For some reason, the blob decided to embrace hate groups while he was on the stage last Tuesday. When he was asked to denounce them...he didn't. Blob supporters crave violence...he proved it. And you're constantly proving it now. Thanks. Please continue.

I will continue, thanks.
And as I said, he already denounced them in 2017. He doesn't need to do it again, because someone who wouldn't vote for him anyway, got their panties all bunched up over it.

He doesn't need to do it every time corrupt supporters of corrupt politicians on the left, scream about racism.

I support him, and I don't care what you think, because he's better than left-wingers. Just flat out, he's better than Democrats.

 

[candycorn]

I would love to see a third party to get a chance. Unfortunately, I think the Democrats and Republicans make it hard. In the last election 2016, I thought for sure a third party could get 5% and get federal funding. I think for sure they are Making it hard for them. Republicans and Democrats get almost $100 million dollars to run for office. Third parties get nothing.

Page doesn't exist

English news from the Voice of America. VOA news provides coverage from around the world and learning English lessons from VOA Special English.

www.voanews.com

If you really want a 3rd party, you'll have to completely change how voting is done. Instead of winner takes all, we would have to have a system of proportional voting, where you vote for the party.

Then if the 3rd party gets 25% of the vote, they would get 25% of the seats in congress, or something to that effect.

This is like what they do in the UK.

Here's my problem. I've watched UK elections for years and years now. I was watching the vote live, with the 2016 Brexit vote.

And after all these years, what I learned from the UK is.... 3rd parties will solve nothing. There is zero evidence that having a 3rd party, or 4th party, or 25th party, has any positive effects whatsoever.

I was listening to a commentator from the UK, talking about how 3rd parties only provide unbelievable grid lock, and high chances of corruption.

So here's how it works in the UK.... The big parties make huge promises to voters. Then the election comes around, and you end up with 40%/40% for the two major parties, and 20% for the 3rd party.

Then in order to form a government, one of the two parties will form a coalition with the third party.

Now that you have two parties, in coalition, both parties tell the voters "Sorry can't do all those things you voted us in here to do, because our Coalition partner isn't on board."

Or!.... the other thing that can happen, is that usually it's the larger party, will engage in borderline bribery, to give favors or special projects in the 3rd parties district, to get them to vote for the legislation the larger party wants.

Back room deals, and under the table hand shakes.

Either way, you end up with the exact same problems we have in our system with two parties. No matter how many times people say the grass is greener in with more parties, I simply haven't found any evidence they work better.

I'm not opposed to 3rd parties, but I just don't see the value. I just don't. No evidence that they will improve anything. Jesse Ventura ran as a 3rd party candidate, and won, and the result was he had no pull with either party. It was just even more grid lock, than when a Republican or Democrat was in office.

There is very little value nationally. If the argument is for down ballot races, then a third party can have some impact.

If the Green Party had a senatorial majority, they'd be doing exactly what Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell did/are doing. The problem is that we have a 230+ y/o business plan that isn't built for the politics we have today. The first thing that the party bosses do is look for a loophole and exploit it. Green, Red, Blue, Libertarian...it makes no difference.

And no, term limits are not the solution either. All Term limits do is change the actors but the script remains the same. Meanwhile the lack of experience in dealing with adversaries who know how to play the game hurts the nation.

I don't think the business plan that has worked extremely well for 230 years, is the problem.

In that case, the rest of the post is a moot point.

We literally have nothing written into the document that describes the Senate Majority Leader who essentially vetoes bills for the President. There is nothing in the document that prevents the Senate from just letting every justice on the supreme court die and never replacing them.

I know, I know, you'll say that it will never happen...right? Never is a long time and if Biden wins, can you picture any scenario where a GOP senate gives his nominees a hearing, much less approves any of them?

I can't.

Name for me one country on the face of this planet, where party bosses do not look for loopholes and exploit them?

There probably are none. Does that mean that we shouldn't try to close as many of those loopholes as possible?

Ironically, I somewhat agree with your conclusion. That even term limits won't clearly fix anything.

I wager the difference is, we disagree on the cause.

When one side is willing to label everyone who disagrees with them as racists, you can't have an honest debate.

When one side is willing to allow entire sections of the city to burn, and willfully chooses to not enforce the law, how can you have an honest debate?

When one side is openly and overtly corrupt, and the public doesn't care, what system in the world is going to fix that?

Yeah, none of that listed above "caused" the legislative chaos bloodhogs was talking about. But since you brought it up, Trump's overt corruption is something we all should care about.

Never is a long time and if Biden wins, can you picture any scenario where a GOP senate gives his nominees a hearing, much less approves any of them?

That depends. It's not like the GOP is going to make up completely fabricated charges, like I don't know... Kavanough, or Bork, or Thomas.

There is clearly a consistent track record of lying and fabricating charges to stop judges they don't like... when I don't see the GOP engaging in such activities.

Besides that, judges should be stripped of the power to change law anyway. Appointing judges shouldn't be any more controversial than hiring a security guard. Meaning as long as they have served time enforcing the law (very different from rewriting law), they should be confirmed.

Trump's overt corruption is something we all should care about.

Sure. Name one example of this 'overt corruption'. Is it anything like funneling campaign money through a front company, to AOC's boyfriend?

On February 20, GOP political consultant Luke Thompson unveiled screenshots of FEC records via his Medium page showing the congresswoman's campaign paid $6,191.32 to Brand New Congress LLC, a progressive PAC and consulting firm that hired Cortez's boyfriend, Riley Roberts, as a marketing consultant during the fall of 2017 not long after Cortez's campaign began.​

FEC complaint filed against Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez

The Coolidge Reagan Foundation filed an FEC complaint against Cortez's campaign team on Wednesday over funds her election team paid to a political group that employed her boyfriend

www.dailymail.co.uk

Brand New Congress PAC payments to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's boyfriend Riley Roberts scrutinized

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not immune to the taint of money in politics. During her long-shot run for Congress, a political action committee backing her campaign was putting cash in...

apnews.com

About as clear as it gets. Intentionally creating an LLC, and having a boyfriend hired as a 'marketing consultant' has has never worked as a consultant, or in marketing.

Nothing overtly corrupt about that. Nope. Not a thing.

Yeah, he just happened to hire 7 felons.
No corruption there.

Did they engage in criminal action in office? You know... like AOC funneling money through a front company, to her boyfriend who magically turned into a marketing consultant?

Are you saying that ex-convicts should be assumed to be engaging in crime after they are released from prison? If so, why do Democrats want to reduce the prison population when you assume they will engage in crime, before they do anything?

Was AOC convicted of anything? Nope
Were Trump's "best people" convicted? Yes.

Trump's campaign was a criminal enterprise by any measure.

I would love to see a third party to get a chance. Unfortunately, I think the Democrats and Republicans make it hard. In the last election 2016, I thought for sure a third party could get 5% and get federal funding. I think for sure they are Making it hard for them. Republicans and Democrats get almost $100 million dollars to run for office. Third parties get nothing.

Page doesn't exist

English news from the Voice of America. VOA news provides coverage from around the world and learning English lessons from VOA Special English.

www.voanews.com

If you really want a 3rd party, you'll have to completely change how voting is done. Instead of winner takes all, we would have to have a system of proportional voting, where you vote for the party.

Then if the 3rd party gets 25% of the vote, they would get 25% of the seats in congress, or something to that effect.

This is like what they do in the UK.

Here's my problem. I've watched UK elections for years and years now. I was watching the vote live, with the 2016 Brexit vote.

And after all these years, what I learned from the UK is.... 3rd parties will solve nothing. There is zero evidence that having a 3rd party, or 4th party, or 25th party, has any positive effects whatsoever.

I was listening to a commentator from the UK, talking about how 3rd parties only provide unbelievable grid lock, and high chances of corruption.

So here's how it works in the UK.... The big parties make huge promises to voters. Then the election comes around, and you end up with 40%/40% for the two major parties, and 20% for the 3rd party.

Then in order to form a government, one of the two parties will form a coalition with the third party.

Now that you have two parties, in coalition, both parties tell the voters "Sorry can't do all those things you voted us in here to do, because our Coalition partner isn't on board."

Or!.... the other thing that can happen, is that usually it's the larger party, will engage in borderline bribery, to give favors or special projects in the 3rd parties district, to get them to vote for the legislation the larger party wants.

Back room deals, and under the table hand shakes.

Either way, you end up with the exact same problems we have in our system with two parties. No matter how many times people say the grass is greener in with more parties, I simply haven't found any evidence they work better.

I'm not opposed to 3rd parties, but I just don't see the value. I just don't. No evidence that they will improve anything. Jesse Ventura ran as a 3rd party candidate, and won, and the result was he had no pull with either party. It was just even more grid lock, than when a Republican or Democrat was in office.

There is very little value nationally. If the argument is for down ballot races, then a third party can have some impact.

If the Green Party had a senatorial majority, they'd be doing exactly what Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell did/are doing. The problem is that we have a 230+ y/o business plan that isn't built for the politics we have today. The first thing that the party bosses do is look for a loophole and exploit it. Green, Red, Blue, Libertarian...it makes no difference.

And no, term limits are not the solution either. All Term limits do is change the actors but the script remains the same. Meanwhile the lack of experience in dealing with adversaries who know how to play the game hurts the nation.

I don't think the business plan that has worked extremely well for 230 years, is the problem.

In that case, the rest of the post is a moot point.

We literally have nothing written into the document that describes the Senate Majority Leader who essentially vetoes bills for the President. There is nothing in the document that prevents the Senate from just letting every justice on the supreme court die and never replacing them.

I know, I know, you'll say that it will never happen...right? Never is a long time and if Biden wins, can you picture any scenario where a GOP senate gives his nominees a hearing, much less approves any of them?

I can't.

Name for me one country on the face of this planet, where party bosses do not look for loopholes and exploit them?

There probably are none. Does that mean that we shouldn't try to close as many of those loopholes as possible?

Ironically, I somewhat agree with your conclusion. That even term limits won't clearly fix anything.

I wager the difference is, we disagree on the cause.

When one side is willing to label everyone who disagrees with them as racists, you can't have an honest debate.

When one side is willing to allow entire sections of the city to burn, and willfully chooses to not enforce the law, how can you have an honest debate?

When one side is openly and overtly corrupt, and the public doesn't care, what system in the world is going to fix that?

Yeah, none of that listed above "caused" the legislative chaos bloodhogs was talking about. But since you brought it up, Trump's overt corruption is something we all should care about.

Never is a long time and if Biden wins, can you picture any scenario where a GOP senate gives his nominees a hearing, much less approves any of them?

That depends. It's not like the GOP is going to make up completely fabricated charges, like I don't know... Kavanough, or Bork, or Thomas.

There is clearly a consistent track record of lying and fabricating charges to stop judges they don't like... when I don't see the GOP engaging in such activities.

Besides that, judges should be stripped of the power to change law anyway. Appointing judges shouldn't be any more controversial than hiring a security guard. Meaning as long as they have served time enforcing the law (very different from rewriting law), they should be confirmed.

Trump's overt corruption is something we all should care about.

Sure. Name one example of this 'overt corruption'. Is it anything like funneling campaign money through a front company, to AOC's boyfriend?

On February 20, GOP political consultant Luke Thompson unveiled screenshots of FEC records via his Medium page showing the congresswoman's campaign paid $6,191.32 to Brand New Congress LLC, a progressive PAC and consulting firm that hired Cortez's boyfriend, Riley Roberts, as a marketing consultant during the fall of 2017 not long after Cortez's campaign began.​

FEC complaint filed against Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez

The Coolidge Reagan Foundation filed an FEC complaint against Cortez's campaign team on Wednesday over funds her election team paid to a political group that employed her boyfriend

www.dailymail.co.uk

Brand New Congress PAC payments to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's boyfriend Riley Roberts scrutinized

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not immune to the taint of money in politics. During her long-shot run for Congress, a political action committee backing her campaign was putting cash in...

apnews.com

About as clear as it gets. Intentionally creating an LLC, and having a boyfriend hired as a 'marketing consultant' has has never worked as a consultant, or in marketing.

Nothing overtly corrupt about that. Nope. Not a thing.

Yeah, he just happened to hire 7 felons.
No corruption there.

Did they engage in criminal action in office? You know... like AOC funneling money through a front company, to her boyfriend who magically turned into a marketing consultant?

Are you saying that ex-convicts should be assumed to be engaging in crime after they are released from prison? If so, why do Democrats want to reduce the prison population when you assume they will engage in crime, before they do anything?

Was AOC convicted of anything? Nope
Were Trump's "best people" convicted? Yes.

Trump's campaign was a criminal enterprise by any measure.

That's because we're better than you. Just because it's Trump's guy, doesn't mean we won't convict him, because we're the good people.

You left-wingers are the evil people. They will defend evil, no matter how bad it is, provided it's their guy.

Al Gore made calls from his office, to shake down companies for donations. Completely illegal. Not even a debatable point. You can't use your Federal Office to shake down people for money. And it's not debatable that he did it. We had the audio tapes.

Did the left-wing care? Not at all.

Hillary Clinton, told the FBI that she....... after 20 years in the highest levels of government..... had no idea whatsoever, how to tell the difference between classified and unclassified information.

Either she was the absolute most ignorant and incompetent politicians in the last 100 years.... or more likely.... she was corrupt to her core.

Did the left-wing care? Not at all.

See that's the difference. The lack of convictions of clear blatantly corrupt left-wing politicians is not evidence that they are magically not evil and corrupt... it's evidence the people who support those politicians are just as evil and corrupt as the politicians themselves.

The reasons Republicans will convict those who engage in illegal activity, even if they are close to a Republicans President... is because we are just flat out better people. It's that simple. We're good people in this country. We're better than them.

The felons are "better"? Yeah, make me laugh harder.

Because we convicted them. That's why they are felons. Democrat felons, they never convicted. Because Democrats and left-wingers are no better than the people they support.

Yes, we are flat out better people.

LOL..

So you felons are "better people" First you embrace hate groups, now you're singing the praises of felons.

Nice.

The same DOJ that convicted 7 of Trump's hand-picked hires can't convict a Democrat of anything?

Yeah, make us laugh harder at you...if possible.

 

[Andylusion]

I would love to see a third party to get a chance. Unfortunately, I think the Democrats and Republicans make it hard. In the last election 2016, I thought for sure a third party could get 5% and get federal funding. I think for sure they are Making it hard for them. Republicans and Democrats get almost $100 million dollars to run for office. Third parties get nothing.

Page doesn't exist

English news from the Voice of America. VOA news provides coverage from around the world and learning English lessons from VOA Special English.

www.voanews.com

If you really want a 3rd party, you'll have to completely change how voting is done. Instead of winner takes all, we would have to have a system of proportional voting, where you vote for the party.

Then if the 3rd party gets 25% of the vote, they would get 25% of the seats in congress, or something to that effect.

This is like what they do in the UK.

Here's my problem. I've watched UK elections for years and years now. I was watching the vote live, with the 2016 Brexit vote.

And after all these years, what I learned from the UK is.... 3rd parties will solve nothing. There is zero evidence that having a 3rd party, or 4th party, or 25th party, has any positive effects whatsoever.

I was listening to a commentator from the UK, talking about how 3rd parties only provide unbelievable grid lock, and high chances of corruption.

So here's how it works in the UK.... The big parties make huge promises to voters. Then the election comes around, and you end up with 40%/40% for the two major parties, and 20% for the 3rd party.

Then in order to form a government, one of the two parties will form a coalition with the third party.

Now that you have two parties, in coalition, both parties tell the voters "Sorry can't do all those things you voted us in here to do, because our Coalition partner isn't on board."

Or!.... the other thing that can happen, is that usually it's the larger party, will engage in borderline bribery, to give favors or special projects in the 3rd parties district, to get them to vote for the legislation the larger party wants.

Back room deals, and under the table hand shakes.

Either way, you end up with the exact same problems we have in our system with two parties. No matter how many times people say the grass is greener in with more parties, I simply haven't found any evidence they work better.

I'm not opposed to 3rd parties, but I just don't see the value. I just don't. No evidence that they will improve anything. Jesse Ventura ran as a 3rd party candidate, and won, and the result was he had no pull with either party. It was just even more grid lock, than when a Republican or Democrat was in office.

There is very little value nationally. If the argument is for down ballot races, then a third party can have some impact.

If the Green Party had a senatorial majority, they'd be doing exactly what Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell did/are doing. The problem is that we have a 230+ y/o business plan that isn't built for the politics we have today. The first thing that the party bosses do is look for a loophole and exploit it. Green, Red, Blue, Libertarian...it makes no difference.

And no, term limits are not the solution either. All Term limits do is change the actors but the script remains the same. Meanwhile the lack of experience in dealing with adversaries who know how to play the game hurts the nation.

I don't think the business plan that has worked extremely well for 230 years, is the problem.

In that case, the rest of the post is a moot point.

We literally have nothing written into the document that describes the Senate Majority Leader who essentially vetoes bills for the President. There is nothing in the document that prevents the Senate from just letting every justice on the supreme court die and never replacing them.

I know, I know, you'll say that it will never happen...right? Never is a long time and if Biden wins, can you picture any scenario where a GOP senate gives his nominees a hearing, much less approves any of them?

I can't.

Name for me one country on the face of this planet, where party bosses do not look for loopholes and exploit them?

There probably are none. Does that mean that we shouldn't try to close as many of those loopholes as possible?

Ironically, I somewhat agree with your conclusion. That even term limits won't clearly fix anything.

I wager the difference is, we disagree on the cause.

When one side is willing to label everyone who disagrees with them as racists, you can't have an honest debate.

When one side is willing to allow entire sections of the city to burn, and willfully chooses to not enforce the law, how can you have an honest debate?

When one side is openly and overtly corrupt, and the public doesn't care, what system in the world is going to fix that?

Yeah, none of that listed above "caused" the legislative chaos bloodhogs was talking about. But since you brought it up, Trump's overt corruption is something we all should care about.

Never is a long time and if Biden wins, can you picture any scenario where a GOP senate gives his nominees a hearing, much less approves any of them?

That depends. It's not like the GOP is going to make up completely fabricated charges, like I don't know... Kavanough, or Bork, or Thomas.

There is clearly a consistent track record of lying and fabricating charges to stop judges they don't like... when I don't see the GOP engaging in such activities.

Besides that, judges should be stripped of the power to change law anyway. Appointing judges shouldn't be any more controversial than hiring a security guard. Meaning as long as they have served time enforcing the law (very different from rewriting law), they should be confirmed.

Trump's overt corruption is something we all should care about.

Sure. Name one example of this 'overt corruption'. Is it anything like funneling campaign money through a front company, to AOC's boyfriend?

On February 20, GOP political consultant Luke Thompson unveiled screenshots of FEC records via his Medium page showing the congresswoman's campaign paid $6,191.32 to Brand New Congress LLC, a progressive PAC and consulting firm that hired Cortez's boyfriend, Riley Roberts, as a marketing consultant during the fall of 2017 not long after Cortez's campaign began.​

FEC complaint filed against Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez

The Coolidge Reagan Foundation filed an FEC complaint against Cortez's campaign team on Wednesday over funds her election team paid to a political group that employed her boyfriend

www.dailymail.co.uk

Brand New Congress PAC payments to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's boyfriend Riley Roberts scrutinized

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not immune to the taint of money in politics. During her long-shot run for Congress, a political action committee backing her campaign was putting cash in...

apnews.com

About as clear as it gets. Intentionally creating an LLC, and having a boyfriend hired as a 'marketing consultant' has has never worked as a consultant, or in marketing.

Nothing overtly corrupt about that. Nope. Not a thing.

Yeah, he just happened to hire 7 felons.
No corruption there.

Did they engage in criminal action in office? You know... like AOC funneling money through a front company, to her boyfriend who magically turned into a marketing consultant?

Are you saying that ex-convicts should be assumed to be engaging in crime after they are released from prison? If so, why do Democrats want to reduce the prison population when you assume they will engage in crime, before they do anything?

Was AOC convicted of anything? Nope
Were Trump's "best people" convicted? Yes.

Trump's campaign was a criminal enterprise by any measure.

I would love to see a third party to get a chance. Unfortunately, I think the Democrats and Republicans make it hard. In the last election 2016, I thought for sure a third party could get 5% and get federal funding. I think for sure they are Making it hard for them. Republicans and Democrats get almost $100 million dollars to run for office. Third parties get nothing.

Page doesn't exist

English news from the Voice of America. VOA news provides coverage from around the world and learning English lessons from VOA Special English.

www.voanews.com

If you really want a 3rd party, you'll have to completely change how voting is done. Instead of winner takes all, we would have to have a system of proportional voting, where you vote for the party.

Then if the 3rd party gets 25% of the vote, they would get 25% of the seats in congress, or something to that effect.

This is like what they do in the UK.

Here's my problem. I've watched UK elections for years and years now. I was watching the vote live, with the 2016 Brexit vote.

And after all these years, what I learned from the UK is.... 3rd parties will solve nothing. There is zero evidence that having a 3rd party, or 4th party, or 25th party, has any positive effects whatsoever.

I was listening to a commentator from the UK, talking about how 3rd parties only provide unbelievable grid lock, and high chances of corruption.

So here's how it works in the UK.... The big parties make huge promises to voters. Then the election comes around, and you end up with 40%/40% for the two major parties, and 20% for the 3rd party.

Then in order to form a government, one of the two parties will form a coalition with the third party.

Now that you have two parties, in coalition, both parties tell the voters "Sorry can't do all those things you voted us in here to do, because our Coalition partner isn't on board."

Or!.... the other thing that can happen, is that usually it's the larger party, will engage in borderline bribery, to give favors or special projects in the 3rd parties district, to get them to vote for the legislation the larger party wants.

Back room deals, and under the table hand shakes.

Either way, you end up with the exact same problems we have in our system with two parties. No matter how many times people say the grass is greener in with more parties, I simply haven't found any evidence they work better.

I'm not opposed to 3rd parties, but I just don't see the value. I just don't. No evidence that they will improve anything. Jesse Ventura ran as a 3rd party candidate, and won, and the result was he had no pull with either party. It was just even more grid lock, than when a Republican or Democrat was in office.

There is very little value nationally. If the argument is for down ballot races, then a third party can have some impact.

If the Green Party had a senatorial majority, they'd be doing exactly what Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell did/are doing. The problem is that we have a 230+ y/o business plan that isn't built for the politics we have today. The first thing that the party bosses do is look for a loophole and exploit it. Green, Red, Blue, Libertarian...it makes no difference.

And no, term limits are not the solution either. All Term limits do is change the actors but the script remains the same. Meanwhile the lack of experience in dealing with adversaries who know how to play the game hurts the nation.

I don't think the business plan that has worked extremely well for 230 years, is the problem.

In that case, the rest of the post is a moot point.

We literally have nothing written into the document that describes the Senate Majority Leader who essentially vetoes bills for the President. There is nothing in the document that prevents the Senate from just letting every justice on the supreme court die and never replacing them.

I know, I know, you'll say that it will never happen...right? Never is a long time and if Biden wins, can you picture any scenario where a GOP senate gives his nominees a hearing, much less approves any of them?

I can't.

Name for me one country on the face of this planet, where party bosses do not look for loopholes and exploit them?

There probably are none. Does that mean that we shouldn't try to close as many of those loopholes as possible?

Ironically, I somewhat agree with your conclusion. That even term limits won't clearly fix anything.

I wager the difference is, we disagree on the cause.

When one side is willing to label everyone who disagrees with them as racists, you can't have an honest debate.

When one side is willing to allow entire sections of the city to burn, and willfully chooses to not enforce the law, how can you have an honest debate?

When one side is openly and overtly corrupt, and the public doesn't care, what system in the world is going to fix that?

Yeah, none of that listed above "caused" the legislative chaos bloodhogs was talking about. But since you brought it up, Trump's overt corruption is something we all should care about.

Never is a long time and if Biden wins, can you picture any scenario where a GOP senate gives his nominees a hearing, much less approves any of them?

That depends. It's not like the GOP is going to make up completely fabricated charges, like I don't know... Kavanough, or Bork, or Thomas.

There is clearly a consistent track record of lying and fabricating charges to stop judges they don't like... when I don't see the GOP engaging in such activities.

Besides that, judges should be stripped of the power to change law anyway. Appointing judges shouldn't be any more controversial than hiring a security guard. Meaning as long as they have served time enforcing the law (very different from rewriting law), they should be confirmed.

Trump's overt corruption is something we all should care about.

Sure. Name one example of this 'overt corruption'. Is it anything like funneling campaign money through a front company, to AOC's boyfriend?

On February 20, GOP political consultant Luke Thompson unveiled screenshots of FEC records via his Medium page showing the congresswoman's campaign paid $6,191.32 to Brand New Congress LLC, a progressive PAC and consulting firm that hired Cortez's boyfriend, Riley Roberts, as a marketing consultant during the fall of 2017 not long after Cortez's campaign began.​

FEC complaint filed against Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez

The Coolidge Reagan Foundation filed an FEC complaint against Cortez's campaign team on Wednesday over funds her election team paid to a political group that employed her boyfriend

www.dailymail.co.uk

Brand New Congress PAC payments to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's boyfriend Riley Roberts scrutinized

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not immune to the taint of money in politics. During her long-shot run for Congress, a political action committee backing her campaign was putting cash in...

apnews.com

About as clear as it gets. Intentionally creating an LLC, and having a boyfriend hired as a 'marketing consultant' has has never worked as a consultant, or in marketing.

Nothing overtly corrupt about that. Nope. Not a thing.

Yeah, he just happened to hire 7 felons.
No corruption there.

Did they engage in criminal action in office? You know... like AOC funneling money through a front company, to her boyfriend who magically turned into a marketing consultant?

Are you saying that ex-convicts should be assumed to be engaging in crime after they are released from prison? If so, why do Democrats want to reduce the prison population when you assume they will engage in crime, before they do anything?

Was AOC convicted of anything? Nope
Were Trump's "best people" convicted? Yes.

Trump's campaign was a criminal enterprise by any measure.

That's because we're better than you. Just because it's Trump's guy, doesn't mean we won't convict him, because we're the good people.

You left-wingers are the evil people. They will defend evil, no matter how bad it is, provided it's their guy.

Al Gore made calls from his office, to shake down companies for donations. Completely illegal. Not even a debatable point. You can't use your Federal Office to shake down people for money. And it's not debatable that he did it. We had the audio tapes.

Did the left-wing care? Not at all.

Hillary Clinton, told the FBI that she....... after 20 years in the highest levels of government..... had no idea whatsoever, how to tell the difference between classified and unclassified information.

Either she was the absolute most ignorant and incompetent politicians in the last 100 years.... or more likely.... she was corrupt to her core.

Did the left-wing care? Not at all.

See that's the difference. The lack of convictions of clear blatantly corrupt left-wing politicians is not evidence that they are magically not evil and corrupt... it's evidence the people who support those politicians are just as evil and corrupt as the politicians themselves.

The reasons Republicans will convict those who engage in illegal activity, even if they are close to a Republicans President... is because we are just flat out better people. It's that simple. We're good people in this country. We're better than them.

The felons are "better"? Yeah, make me laugh harder.

Because we convicted them. That's why they are felons. Democrat felons, they never convicted. Because Democrats and left-wingers are no better than the people they support.

Yes, we are flat out better people.

LOL..

So you felons are "better people" First you embrace hate groups, now you're singing the praises of felons.

Nice.

The same DOJ that convicted 7 of Trump's hand-picked hires can't convict a Democrat of anything?

Yeah, make us laugh harder at you...if possible.

You can keep laughing all you want, doesn't change the facts.

The fact AOC and Hillary, and numerous other left-wing Democrats are all well documented as being corrupt, isn't even debatable. But the supporters of Democrats, like those on here, refuse to convict them of corruption. That makes those people, no better than the corrupt people in office.

Again, we don't do that. If I find out someone I voted for actually engages in real crime, I don't vote for them again.

Because we're better than those on the other side. It's just a fact. Laugh you want at your own sides lack of morals and standards, but that laughing reflects on you, not me

 

[candycorn]

Trump failed to denounce the Proud Boys.

 

[candycorn]

 

[Andylusion]

View attachment 397283

Trump failed to denounce the Proud Boys.

Enrique Tarrio says Proud Boys not White supremacists

Enrique Tarrio insists that the Proud Boys aren’t White supremacists, and he would be in a position to know. For one, he’s the international chairman. For another, he’s Black.

m.washingtontimes.com

The leader of the Proud Boys, is a black man.

So you just blew yourself up. Congrats on destroying yourself in your own post.

 

[candycorn]

View attachment 397283

Trump failed to denounce the Proud Boys.

Enrique Tarrio says Proud Boys not White supremacists

Enrique Tarrio insists that the Proud Boys aren’t White supremacists, and he would be in a position to know. For one, he’s the international chairman. For another, he’s Black.

m.washingtontimes.com

The leader of the Proud Boys, is a black man.

So you just blew yourself up. Congrats on destroying yourself in your own post.

 

[candycorn]

Great ad by the Lincoln Project about Trump being asked to denounce hate groups:

 

[Andylusion]

View attachment 397283

Trump failed to denounce the Proud Boys.

Enrique Tarrio says Proud Boys not White supremacists

Enrique Tarrio insists that the Proud Boys aren’t White supremacists, and he would be in a position to know. For one, he’s the international chairman. For another, he’s Black.

m.washingtontimes.com

The leader of the Proud Boys, is a black man.

So you just blew yourself up. Congrats on destroying yourself in your own post.

View attachment 397289

So let's try some evidence over opinion.

 

[Andylusion]

Great ad by the Lincoln Project about Trump being asked to denounce hate groups:

Yeah.... so the person who just promoted the Proud Boys as being a white supremacist hate group, and didn't even know the leader of the group was a black man... is now promoting this video as truth?

Sorry, you are lacking a bit of credibility.

 

[candycorn]

Great ad by the Lincoln Project about Trump being asked to denounce hate groups:

Yeah.... so the person who just promoted the Proud Boys as being a white supremacist hate group, and didn't even know the leader of the group was a black man... is now promoting this video as truth?

Sorry, you are lacking a bit of credibility.

LOL...

We know who the founder is
We know who organized the Charlottesville Riots
We know who the proud boys are.
We know Trump (and his supporters) crave violence
It's a match made in heaven.

Too bad he is such a fan of white supremacists groups and didn't denounce them when he had the chance.

 

[Andylusion]

Great ad by the Lincoln Project about Trump being asked to denounce hate groups:

Yeah.... so the person who just promoted the Proud Boys as being a white supremacist hate group, and didn't even know the leader of the group was a black man... is now promoting this video as truth?

Sorry, you are lacking a bit of credibility.

LOL...

We know who the founder is
We know who organized the Charlottesville Riots
We know who the proud boys are.
We know Trump (and his supporters) crave violence
It's a match made in heaven.

Too bad he is such a fan of white supremacists groups and didn't denounce them when he had the chance.

To repeat...
And as I said, he already denounced white supremacists in 2017. He doesn't need to do it again, because someone who wouldn't vote for him anyway, got their panties all bunched up over it.

He doesn't need to do it every time corrupt supporters of corrupt politicians on the left, scream about racism.

I support him, and I don't care what you think, because he's better than left-wingers. Just flat out, he's better than Democrats.

 

[candycorn]

Great ad by the Lincoln Project about Trump being asked to denounce hate groups:

Yeah.... so the person who just promoted the Proud Boys as being a white supremacist hate group, and didn't even know the leader of the group was a black man... is now promoting this video as truth?

Sorry, you are lacking a bit of credibility.

LOL...

We know who the founder is
We know who organized the Charlottesville Riots
We know who the proud boys are.
We know Trump (and his supporters) crave violence
It's a match made in heaven.

Too bad he is such a fan of white supremacists groups and didn't denounce them when he had the chance.

To repeat...
And as I said, he already denounced white supremacists in 2017. He doesn't need to do it again, because someone who wouldn't vote for him anyway, got their panties all bunched up over it.

He doesn't need to do it every time corrupt supporters of corrupt politicians on the left, scream about racism.

I support him, and I don't care what you think, because he's better than left-wingers. Just flat out, he's better than Democrats.

One can only conclude that he supports white supremacists since he wouldn't denounce them at the debate.

 

[Andylusion]

Great ad by the Lincoln Project about Trump being asked to denounce hate groups:

Yeah.... so the person who just promoted the Proud Boys as being a white supremacist hate group, and didn't even know the leader of the group was a black man... is now promoting this video as truth?

Sorry, you are lacking a bit of credibility.

LOL...

We know who the founder is
We know who organized the Charlottesville Riots
We know who the proud boys are.
We know Trump (and his supporters) crave violence
It's a match made in heaven.

Too bad he is such a fan of white supremacists groups and didn't denounce them when he had the chance.

To repeat...
And as I said, he already denounced white supremacists in 2017. He doesn't need to do it again, because someone who wouldn't vote for him anyway, got their panties all bunched up over it.

He doesn't need to do it every time corrupt supporters of corrupt politicians on the left, scream about racism.

I support him, and I don't care what you think, because he's better than left-wingers. Just flat out, he's better than Democrats.

One can only conclude that he supports white supremacists since he wouldn't denounce them at the debate.

And as I said, he already denounced white supremacists in 2017. He doesn't need to do it again, because someone who wouldn't vote for him anyway, got their panties all bunched up over it.

He doesn't need to do it every time corrupt supporters of corrupt politicians on the left, scream about racism.

I support him, and I don't care what you think, because he's better than left-wingers. Just flat out, he's better than Democrats.