Im back on the Trump bandwagon. Let me tell you why.

[Dr Grump]

[

I am also happy you don't live here. Makes for a better America. I hope you like where ever it is you are from because we don't want you here.

You couldn't pay me to live in America.

 

[Dr Grump]

When you hit the "reply" button, you are implying that your post will be a "reply" to my post.

But your post in no way addressed my point.
Your admit now that the partisan ship greatly predates Obama, but still need to smear the Right with the accusation of racism.
That is making, normal partisan politics, personal.
That is what is tearing this nation apart.
And that is on you and the Left.
Your dislike of Republican presidents is irrelevant to that. One can oppose a candidate, even with bitter partisanship, without personally smearing and hating your ideological opponents.

But the LEft has been taking it to the next level, ie personal and hatred, for a long time.


And this nation is being torn apart by it.

I disagree. The right made it personal when some nobody from Arkansas beat the person who had the 'right' to be president in Bush Snr.

 

[Dr Grump]

It seems to bug you because you get upset when I bring up the fact you don't get a vote.

Please point to even one post that suggests I'm upset because I don't vote.

 

[Boss]

But then a nut like trump wins because of name recognition.

I'm sorry while I agree with you I want to see if you re elect all those Republicans who are also funded by foreign countries and wallstreet. Citizens united made it legal to take money from anyone and you don't even have to say who the money is from.

This is why I don't buy Republicans care about taking money when it was the cons on the supreme Court who passed citizens united.

I'm sorry, Citizen's United did not make anything legal that wasn't already legal before McCain-Feingold. The court ruled a provision of McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional.

M-F was enacted into law in 2002 and the challenge by Citizens was in 2010. So, for eight years, the law was unconstitutional. CU had a legitimate commercial company producing and selling a video of Hillary Clinton corruption leading up to the 2008 presidential election season. She was going to be running against Obama and none of this needed to come out on her. So lawsuits were filed and CU was shut down and couldn't sell their product.

The SCOTUS ruling was essentially saying that CU has the same rights as John Q. Citizen, this is their business interest and they should be free to pursue that as American citizens comprising a 'corporation'. A 'corporation', Justice Roberts concluded, is simply a "group" ...or "creed" and you cannot discriminate against people based on what "group" or "creed" they belong to. This led to the rhetorical line of the libtarded... 'corporations are people!'

It is a Federal crime to accept money from a foreign interest and seek Federal office and probably all state offices. So no, there aren't any Republicans doing that, unless you have some evidence to bring a case. Most go to prison for it, Hillary is the exception. She was smart enough to run the money through Bill and the Foundation.

You don't like My Plan? I thought it was brilliant! One sheet per candidate, we could even publicly pay for the printing. Heck, we could even handle the printing and distribution at a tiny fraction of what we currently dole out in matching funds.

Now first of all, the formal election season would be shorter... candidates wouldn't want to commit and then be sequestered from the public, so they would wait and not formally announce they were seeking the office.... so there are problems there... but then they are missing out on putting out their sheet... so at some point they will move to that as the election nears.

Anything you try to do to make the elections not require money is kind of futile... it's going to happen because money is speech in so many ways. There will be people writing articles, making movies, writing books... people will be on talk shows and Sunday news programs. So the "money changing" will still be happening in politics.... nature of the beast baby.

Mostly, you completely miss the real problem. It's not about the money and it's potential corruption of candidates... it's about the integrity and character of the candidates themselves. You should nominate the incorruptible instead of trying to shield the corruptible from corruption.

But then, you would need sense to do that.

 

[owebo]

[

I am also happy you don't live here. Makes for a better America. I hope you like where ever it is you are from because we don't want you here.

You couldn't pay me to live in America.

You made my day knowing you're not here!!!!!!!

 

[sealybobo]

View attachment 84692

You Dummycrats would be in SERIOUS trouble if we took money outta politics!

Do it!

Sorry we don't continue fighting you with one hand tied behind our back.

Not all rich people are evil. Just Republicans.

Dick Armey TRIED to do it when the CFR debate was going on. Your side didn't want any part of it.

You candidate funnels money from foreign countries through her foundation for political favors. Her entire campaign is being funded by Wall Street while you morons sit here and rail about corporatism. The very people who are ******* us all over are the ones who have your candidate in their back pocket. And all you do is look at it like a football rivalry or something.

Here's MY idea for campaign finance reform... if you're running of any federal office, you get to have one 8 1/2 x 14 sheet of paper, both sides... you can put pictures or logos on it, or whatever you please.., list your platform... write an essay... whatever you like. But that's ALL you get to do. No TV commercials or appearances. No interviews, no press conferences, no public appearances. The reason you must eliminate those things is to make it fair. Some venues are better than others, some networks are more prestigious, there is too many elements that could give one candidate an advantage unfairly, so we have to eliminate all possibilities. You have your sheet... people can speak on your behalf... but that's it for campaigning. You can't raise funds, you can't accept contributions from anyone.

Both sides of the aisle wanted CFR, it was a disaster and many knew it would lead to a disastrous conclusion.

What state do you live in? And boss you?

Anyone who lives in a solid blue or red state that knows their candidate is going to lose no matter what shouldn't throw away their vote on hillary or the Republican party. Vote for green or liberal or libertarian or tea-party. That vote will give their parties more power money and influence.

I can't do it. I need hillary to win michigan

Excuses, excuses, if not now when?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

2010 2014 or 2018

 

[sealybobo]

But then a nut like trump wins because of name recognition.

I'm sorry while I agree with you I want to see if you re elect all those Republicans who are also funded by foreign countries and wallstreet. Citizens united made it legal to take money from anyone and you don't even have to say who the money is from.

This is why I don't buy Republicans care about taking money when it was the cons on the supreme Court who passed citizens united.

I'm sorry, Citizen's United did not make anything legal that wasn't already legal before McCain-Feingold. The court ruled a provision of McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional.

M-F was enacted into law in 2002 and the challenge by Citizens was in 2010. So, for eight years, the law was unconstitutional. CU had a legitimate commercial company producing and selling a video of Hillary Clinton corruption leading up to the 2008 presidential election season. She was going to be running against Obama and none of this needed to come out on her. So lawsuits were filed and CU was shut down and couldn't sell their product.

The SCOTUS ruling was essentially saying that CU has the same rights as John Q. Citizen, this is their business interest and they should be free to pursue that as American citizens comprising a 'corporation'. A 'corporation', Justice Roberts concluded, is simply a "group" ...or "creed" and you cannot discriminate against people based on what "group" or "creed" they belong to. This led to the rhetorical line of the libtarded... 'corporations are people!'

It is a Federal crime to accept money from a foreign interest and seek Federal office and probably all state offices. So no, there aren't any Republicans doing that, unless you have some evidence to bring a case. Most go to prison for it, Hillary is the exception. She was smart enough to run the money through Bill and the Foundation.

You don't like My Plan? I thought it was brilliant! One sheet per candidate, we could even publicly pay for the printing. Heck, we could even handle the printing and distribution at a tiny fraction of what we currently dole out in matching funds.

Now first of all, the formal election season would be shorter... candidates wouldn't want to commit and then be sequestered from the public, so they would wait and not formally announce they were seeking the office.... so there are problems there... but then they are missing out on putting out their sheet... so at some point they will move to that as the election nears.

Anything you try to do to make the elections not require money is kind of futile... it's going to happen because money is speech in so many ways. There will be people writing articles, making movies, writing books... people will be on talk shows and Sunday news programs. So the "money changing" will still be happening in politics.... nature of the beast baby.

Mostly, you completely miss the real problem. It's not about the money and it's potential corruption of candidates... it's about the integrity and character of the candidates themselves. You should nominate the incorruptible instead of trying to shield the corruptible from corruption.

But then, you would need sense to do that.

Bullshit.

 

[jillian]

[
Nothing in my post asked you to agree or support past Republican Presidents.

My point was that the bitter partisanship you have seen over the last 8 years is not something that began BECAUSE some guy with black skin was elected.

And yet, that is the narrative that the Left has been shoving down the throats of the American people.

And that is tearing this nation apart.

Do you have something to say now, that actually addresses my point?

Where did I say that anything in your posts said otherwise? There are no restrictions/rules about what I or you post or in what context.

I agree the bitter partisanship has been going on for a while. However, if you believe with Obama that to some people it has nothing to do with him being black, or with Hillary it has nothing to do with her being a woman, I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. I'm not saying that this is a reason the majority hate them, but for some it is an absolute issue. And that is helping tear your nation apart. That aside, both sides are to blame. However, I put more blame on the right because they keep on selecting and electing ******* retards. And it's not like they don't have great candidates. Hillary would be toast if Rubio or Bush had been the GoP candidate. Cruz would have been closer and I think Hillary would have won that. Cruz is just so unlikable on so many levels. Not because he's a dumb hick like Trump, but because he just has a nasty streak.

When you hit the "reply" button, you are implying that your post will be a "reply" to my post.

But your post in no way addressed my point.


Your admit now that the partisan ship greatly predates Obama, but still need to smear the Right with the accusation of racism.


That is making, normal partisan politics, personal.

That is what is tearing this nation apart.

And that is on you and the Left.

Your dislike of Republican presidents is irrelevant to that. One can oppose a candidate, even with bitter partisanship, without personally smearing and hating your ideological opponents.

But the LEft has been taking it to the next level, ie personal and hatred, for a long time.


And this nation is being torn apart by it.

GOP leadership had a meeting the day of president obamas inauguration, where they decided that they would obstruct him from day one. he was not given the normal honeymoon given to all presidents....even baby bush (despite the controversy over how he took office). that was done intentionally. no other president in our history ever had his birthplace questioned. (even though the same people didn't give a damn that ted cruz REALLY wasn't born here).

when your fellow right-wingers have photos of the president and first lady as simians, that is about race and not about party disagreement.

it is clear that the right had a breakdown over having a black president. it is also clear to most of us that trump's only appeal was a racist one....and that when he says he's making america "great" again he means white male again.

that said "partisanship" and the right's desire to constantly demand that legitimate elections be overridden by impeachment started with bill clinton. the GOP never got over the trailer park trash made good unseating daddy bush.

 

[Boss]

But then a nut like trump wins because of name recognition.

I'm sorry while I agree with you I want to see if you re elect all those Republicans who are also funded by foreign countries and wallstreet. Citizens united made it legal to take money from anyone and you don't even have to say who the money is from.

This is why I don't buy Republicans care about taking money when it was the cons on the supreme Court who passed citizens united.

I'm sorry, Citizen's United did not make anything legal that wasn't already legal before McCain-Feingold. The court ruled a provision of McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional.

M-F was enacted into law in 2002 and the challenge by Citizens was in 2010. So, for eight years, the law was unconstitutional. CU had a legitimate commercial company producing and selling a video of Hillary Clinton corruption leading up to the 2008 presidential election season. She was going to be running against Obama and none of this needed to come out on her. So lawsuits were filed and CU was shut down and couldn't sell their product.

The SCOTUS ruling was essentially saying that CU has the same rights as John Q. Citizen, this is their business interest and they should be free to pursue that as American citizens comprising a 'corporation'. A 'corporation', Justice Roberts concluded, is simply a "group" ...or "creed" and you cannot discriminate against people based on what "group" or "creed" they belong to. This led to the rhetorical line of the libtarded... 'corporations are people!'

It is a Federal crime to accept money from a foreign interest and seek Federal office and probably all state offices. So no, there aren't any Republicans doing that, unless you have some evidence to bring a case. Most go to prison for it, Hillary is the exception. She was smart enough to run the money through Bill and the Foundation.

You don't like My Plan? I thought it was brilliant! One sheet per candidate, we could even publicly pay for the printing. Heck, we could even handle the printing and distribution at a tiny fraction of what we currently dole out in matching funds.

Now first of all, the formal election season would be shorter... candidates wouldn't want to commit and then be sequestered from the public, so they would wait and not formally announce they were seeking the office.... so there are problems there... but then they are missing out on putting out their sheet... so at some point they will move to that as the election nears.

Anything you try to do to make the elections not require money is kind of futile... it's going to happen because money is speech in so many ways. There will be people writing articles, making movies, writing books... people will be on talk shows and Sunday news programs. So the "money changing" will still be happening in politics.... nature of the beast baby.

Mostly, you completely miss the real problem. It's not about the money and it's potential corruption of candidates... it's about the integrity and character of the candidates themselves. You should nominate the incorruptible instead of trying to shield the corruptible from corruption.

But then, you would need sense to do that.

Bullshit.

Yes, I presumed that would be your rebuttal but I expected you to be more wordy about it. Nice of you to hone your argument down for us to a single word, saves us a lot of time reading.

 

[Boss]

GOP leadership had a meeting the day of president obamas inauguration, where they decided that they would obstruct him from day one. he was not given the normal honeymoon given to all presidents....even baby bush (despite the controversy over how he took office). that was done intentionally. no other president in our history ever had his birthplace questioned. (even though the same people didn't give a damn that ted cruz REALLY wasn't born here).

when your fellow right-wingers have photos of the president and first lady as simians, that is about race and not about party disagreement.

it is clear that the right had a breakdown over having a black president. it is also clear to most of us that trump's only appeal was a racist one....and that when he says he's making america "great" again he means white male again.

We understand you live in your own little fantasy bubble.

 

[jillian]

GOP leadership had a meeting the day of president obamas inauguration, where they decided that they would obstruct him from day one. he was not given the normal honeymoon given to all presidents....even baby bush (despite the controversy over how he took office). that was done intentionally. no other president in our history ever had his birthplace questioned. (even though the same people didn't give a damn that ted cruz REALLY wasn't born here).

when your fellow right-wingers have photos of the president and first lady as simians, that is about race and not about party disagreement.

it is clear that the right had a breakdown over having a black president. it is also clear to most of us that trump's only appeal was a racist one....and that when he says he's making america "great" again he means white male again.

We understand you live in your own little fantasy bubble.

only to those who live in rightwingnuthackworld.

 

[jillian]

I get a vote, that's all I need, you get nothing which is all you get.

And I don't care...

It seems to bug you because you get upset when I bring up the fact you don't get a vote.

you seem to be listening to the voices in your head again.

 

[sealybobo]

GOP leadership had a meeting the day of president obamas inauguration, where they decided that they would obstruct him from day one. he was not given the normal honeymoon given to all presidents....even baby bush (despite the controversy over how he took office). that was done intentionally. no other president in our history ever had his birthplace questioned. (even though the same people didn't give a damn that ted cruz REALLY wasn't born here).

when your fellow right-wingers have photos of the president and first lady as simians, that is about race and not about party disagreement.

it is clear that the right had a breakdown over having a black president. it is also clear to most of us that trump's only appeal was a racist one....and that when he says he's making america "great" again he means white male again.

We understand you live in your own little fantasy bubble.

It's not a fantasy bubble it's called the USA.

No worries. Things are going very bad for people like you. Politically speaking

 

[owebo]

GOP leadership had a meeting the day of president obamas inauguration, where they decided that they would obstruct him from day one. he was not given the normal honeymoon given to all presidents....even baby bush (despite the controversy over how he took office). that was done intentionally. no other president in our history ever had his birthplace questioned. (even though the same people didn't give a damn that ted cruz REALLY wasn't born here).

when your fellow right-wingers have photos of the president and first lady as simians, that is about race and not about party disagreement.

it is clear that the right had a breakdown over having a black president. it is also clear to most of us that trump's only appeal was a racist one....and that when he says he's making america "great" again he means white male again.

We understand you live in your own little fantasy bubble.

It's not a fantasy bubble it's called the USA.

No worries. Things are going very bad for people like you. Politically speaking

You will not like the next 8 years of Trump....

 

[Papageorgio]

[

I am also happy you don't live here. Makes for a better America. I hope you like where ever it is you are from because we don't want you here.

You couldn't pay me to live in America.

Good, we don't want you in America.

 

[Papageorgio]

Do it!

Sorry we don't continue fighting you with one hand tied behind our back.

Not all rich people are evil. Just Republicans.

Dick Armey TRIED to do it when the CFR debate was going on. Your side didn't want any part of it.

You candidate funnels money from foreign countries through her foundation for political favors. Her entire campaign is being funded by Wall Street while you morons sit here and rail about corporatism. The very people who are ******* us all over are the ones who have your candidate in their back pocket. And all you do is look at it like a football rivalry or something.

Here's MY idea for campaign finance reform... if you're running of any federal office, you get to have one 8 1/2 x 14 sheet of paper, both sides... you can put pictures or logos on it, or whatever you please.., list your platform... write an essay... whatever you like. But that's ALL you get to do. No TV commercials or appearances. No interviews, no press conferences, no public appearances. The reason you must eliminate those things is to make it fair. Some venues are better than others, some networks are more prestigious, there is too many elements that could give one candidate an advantage unfairly, so we have to eliminate all possibilities. You have your sheet... people can speak on your behalf... but that's it for campaigning. You can't raise funds, you can't accept contributions from anyone.

Both sides of the aisle wanted CFR, it was a disaster and many knew it would lead to a disastrous conclusion.

What state do you live in? And boss you?

Anyone who lives in a solid blue or red state that knows their candidate is going to lose no matter what shouldn't throw away their vote on hillary or the Republican party. Vote for green or liberal or libertarian or tea-party. That vote will give their parties more power money and influence.

I can't do it. I need hillary to win michigan

Excuses, excuses, if not now when?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

2010 2014 or 2018

Yep, you are all talk and no real character.

 

[Papageorgio]

I get a vote, that's all I need, you get nothing which is all you get.

And I don't care...

It seems to bug you because you get upset when I bring up the fact you don't get a vote.

you seem to be listening to the voices in your head again.

Jillian, your material is getting old, you are not entertaining as you once were. Now please get some new stuff and get back here.

 

[Correll]

When you hit the "reply" button, you are implying that your post will be a "reply" to my post.

But your post in no way addressed my point.
Your admit now that the partisan ship greatly predates Obama, but still need to smear the Right with the accusation of racism.
That is making, normal partisan politics, personal.
That is what is tearing this nation apart.
And that is on you and the Left.
Your dislike of Republican presidents is irrelevant to that. One can oppose a candidate, even with bitter partisanship, without personally smearing and hating your ideological opponents.

But the LEft has been taking it to the next level, ie personal and hatred, for a long time.


And this nation is being torn apart by it.

I disagree. The right made it personal when some nobody from Arkansas beat the person who had the 'right' to be president in Bush Snr.

Got it, you are too young to remember the 80s and refuse to listen.

REgardless, my point stands. The opposition to Obama is part the new normal and NOT caused by his skin color.

THus, when you leftists claim otherwise, and insist on dishonestly and vilely smearing the Right with false accusations of racism,

that is YOU tearing this nation apart.

 

[Dr Grump]

Got it, you are too young to remember the 80s and refuse to listen.

REgardless, my point stands. The opposition to Obama is part the new normal and NOT caused by his skin color.

THus, when you leftists claim otherwise, and insist on dishonestly and vilely smearing the Right with false accusations of racism,

that is YOU tearing this nation apart.

I remember the 80s well.
It all started under Clinton. That is when i really noticed things getting nasty. So, you and I agree to disagree.

 

[Papageorgio]

When you hit the "reply" button, you are implying that your post will be a "reply" to my post.

But your post in no way addressed my point.
Your admit now that the partisan ship greatly predates Obama, but still need to smear the Right with the accusation of racism.
That is making, normal partisan politics, personal.
That is what is tearing this nation apart.
And that is on you and the Left.
Your dislike of Republican presidents is irrelevant to that. One can oppose a candidate, even with bitter partisanship, without personally smearing and hating your ideological opponents.

But the LEft has been taking it to the next level, ie personal and hatred, for a long time.


And this nation is being torn apart by it.

I disagree. The right made it personal when some nobody from Arkansas beat the person who had the 'right' to be president in Bush Snr.

Got it, you are too young to remember the 80s and refuse to listen.

REgardless, my point stands. The opposition to Obama is part the new normal and NOT caused by his skin color.

THus, when you leftists claim otherwise, and insist on dishonestly and vilely smearing the Right with false accusations of racism,

that is YOU tearing this nation apart.

I agree, the skin color doesn't matter, his lack of leadership skills and his policies are where I have issues with him. He could be purple, green or blue and I would still not care for his policies.

The left is very dishonest.

The left hated Reagan and still blame him, 28 years after he left office the left still hate him, even after his death.