We're mad at Russia for "hacking" elections

[NYcarbineer]

https://nypost.com/2018/02/20/the-r...us-that-we-werent-already-doing-to-ourselves/

yet we know the DNC "hacked" their elections to get hillary the nod, hell she bought the damn thing, but we don't care about that. maybe there is a valid point here in that russia is wrong to jack with us but look at what we're doing to ourselves. that should bother people more because if anything we're supposed to have each others backs as americans.

where did that mindset fade off to?

The problem with your premise is that the DNC didn’t hack anything did nothing illegal or even unethical. A political party is free to choose their candidate anyway they choose, they are under no obligation to even ask for input let alone bound to follow it.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

i would disagree that having 1 person shove out other candidates cause it's "her turn" would not be "unethical" in the least. legalities and so forth i'll give you because i simply don't know. but i do know what i saw was simply pretty shameful.

You really like making shit up to fit your narrative don't you? Sanders wasn't "shoved out" he lost fair and square. He wasn't kept off a single ballot in any state. Despite not being registered as a Democrat or ever having raised money for Democrats, Bernie got to run as a Democrat with DNC funds for his campaign. Just stop with the "poor Bernie" narrative.

Bernie got fewer votes than HRC did, and lost. Unlike how Trump got appointed president.

 

[iceberg]

https://nypost.com/2018/02/20/the-r...us-that-we-werent-already-doing-to-ourselves/

yet we know the DNC "hacked" their elections to get hillary the nod, hell she bought the damn thing, but we don't care about that. maybe there is a valid point here in that russia is wrong to jack with us but look at what we're doing to ourselves. that should bother people more because if anything we're supposed to have each others backs as americans.

where did that mindset fade off to?

The problem with your premise is that the DNC didn’t hack anything did nothing illegal or even unethical. A political party is free to choose their candidate anyway they choose, they are under no obligation to even ask for input let alone bound to follow it.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

i would disagree that having 1 person shove out other candidates cause it's "her turn" would not be "unethical" in the least. legalities and so forth i'll give you because i simply don't know. but i do know what i saw was simply pretty shameful.

There is nothing shameful about the party having a clear choice of who they want.
The current primary system is fairly new, before this current system the “people” had no input into the choice of the candidate.

I think a very good argument could be made that the quality of candidates has gone down the longer we go with the current system. People like Lincoln and Coolidge would never make it through today’s primaries


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

total agreement we're getting crap for candidates, but i disagree on how they handled bernie. he's got every right to run and have the same party support as hillary. the people should get to decide who is running, i thought. i mean we hear the popular vote a lot even though that's not how things are done.

so if the DNC and RNC can put up who they want, how they want, and the votes don't matter - why do we vote again? in your defense of these actions you really take the value away from our only "power" over the government.

i'm not ready to give that up yet.

 

[DJT for Life]

Russians didn't hack this election The HANDWRITING is on the wall dummies
(Reuters) - A Democrat easily won a Kentucky House of Representatives special election on Tuesday, the 37th U.S. legislative seat flipped to the party from Republicans since Donald Trump's 2016 election as president, the Democratic National Committee said.

Linda Belcher won by more than a 2-1 margin over Republican Rebecca Johnson, the widow of a Republican whose death in December led to the election.

Belcher had held the seat before being narrowly defeated by Dan Johnson as Republican Trump won the presidency in November 2016. In Kentucky's 49th House District, which is south of Louisville, Trump outpolled Democrat Hillary Clinton by 72 percent to 23 percent in the presidential vote.

That's really weak.

Belcher had that District for awhile until she got edged out by Johnson.
Johnson didn't beat her 72-23. Wife probably wasn't qualified.

btw...If the dems have flipped 37 seats how come the GOP still controls
the house?

Weak What did Trump win it by??

It's not weak, it's a fact. Trump won by 72-23 over Clinton. Belcher got
edged out by Johnson. Even though Trump was dominant, Johnson wasn't.
He was lucky to win.

You don't understand Kentucky politics. Democrats dominate Kentucky,
in registration and in state politics. But National Contests (Pres) always
goes to the GOP and the state is always called right at 7pm when their
polls close.

That election means nothing.

Do any of the elections that dems have won mean anything?? OR once again they're all nothingburgers??

Probably nothing. They were held before the tax cuts kicked in and made
liars out of the dems. That plan has gone from 37% approval in Dec to
51% in Feb. It will continue to grow.

 

[eddiew37]

Russians didn't hack this election The HANDWRITING is on the wall dummies
(Reuters) - A Democrat easily won a Kentucky House of Representatives special election on Tuesday, the 37th U.S. legislative seat flipped to the party from Republicans since Donald Trump's 2016 election as president, the Democratic National Committee said.

Linda Belcher won by more than a 2-1 margin over Republican Rebecca Johnson, the widow of a Republican whose death in December led to the election.

Belcher had held the seat before being narrowly defeated by Dan Johnson as Republican Trump won the presidency in November 2016. In Kentucky's 49th House District, which is south of Louisville, Trump outpolled Democrat Hillary Clinton by 72 percent to 23 percent in the presidential vote.

That's really weak.

Belcher had that District for awhile until she got edged out by Johnson.
Johnson didn't beat her 72-23. Wife probably wasn't qualified.

btw...If the dems have flipped 37 seats how come the GOP still controls
the house?

Weak What did Trump win it by??

It's not weak, it's a fact. Trump won by 72-23 over Clinton. Belcher got
edged out by Johnson. Even though Trump was dominant, Johnson wasn't.
He was lucky to win.

You don't understand Kentucky politics. Democrats dominate Kentucky,
in registration and in state politics. But National Contests (Pres) always
goes to the GOP and the state is always called right at 7pm when their
polls close.

That election means nothing.

Do any of the elections that dems have won mean anything?? OR once again they're all nothingburgers??

Probably nothing. They were held before the tax cuts kicked in and made
liars out of the dems. That plan has gone from 37% approval in Dec to
51% in Feb. It will continue to grow.

I for one loved taxcuts BUT I'll vote republican when HELL freezes over

 

[gipper]

https://nypost.com/2018/02/20/the-r...us-that-we-werent-already-doing-to-ourselves/

yet we know the DNC "hacked" their elections to get hillary the nod, hell she bought the damn thing, but we don't care about that. maybe there is a valid point here in that russia is wrong to jack with us but look at what we're doing to ourselves. that should bother people more because if anything we're supposed to have each others backs as americans.

where did that mindset fade off to?

The problem with your premise is that the DNC didn’t hack anything did nothing illegal or even unethical. A political party is free to choose their candidate anyway they choose, they are under no obligation to even ask for input let alone bound to follow it.




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Have you forgotten how they screwed Bernie?

WTF!

Do you lefties fail to pay attention?

screwed him w/o lube or payment afterwards. but while unethical, was it "illegal"? i've not had time to look back at all that was found but i thought there were illegal things uncovered.

unethical is bad and i'm amazed people are all over the rights ethics while they ignore their own but that's a different issue than illegal.

It was certainly unethical and the uninformed poster I responded to, claimed the DNC did nothing unethical. Clearly he/she/it is uninformed.

 

[gipper]

https://nypost.com/2018/02/20/the-r...us-that-we-werent-already-doing-to-ourselves/

yet we know the DNC "hacked" their elections to get hillary the nod, hell she bought the damn thing, but we don't care about that. maybe there is a valid point here in that russia is wrong to jack with us but look at what we're doing to ourselves. that should bother people more because if anything we're supposed to have each others backs as americans.

where did that mindset fade off to?

The problem with your premise is that the DNC didn’t hack anything did nothing illegal or even unethical. A political party is free to choose their candidate anyway they choose, they are under no obligation to even ask for input let alone bound to follow it.




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Have you forgotten how they screwed Bernie?

WTF!

Do you lefties fail to pay attention?

lol, so those of us who supported Bernie are supposed to take the blame for that?

Hey Dumb Deer, how the fuck did you conclude that from my post?

I blame the DNC, which if you weren't so slanted and uninformed, would too.

Why do you support an unethical political party?

 

[LeftofLeft]

https://nypost.com/2018/02/20/the-r...us-that-we-werent-already-doing-to-ourselves/

yet we know the DNC "hacked" their elections to get hillary the nod, hell she bought the damn thing, but we don't care about that. maybe there is a valid point here in that russia is wrong to jack with us but look at what we're doing to ourselves. that should bother people more because if anything we're supposed to have each others backs as americans.

where did that mindset fade off to?

So you support Russian interference in our elections because you think the Democrats pulled some shit in their primaries?

You know that is fucking irrational to the point of being insane, right?

What steps are Democrats proposing to close the risk gap of Russians or any other foreign entity interfering with US Elections? .

The Democrats overwhelmingly voted for the Russians sanctions that Trump won't now implement, for one thing.

Sanctions are going to curb election interference???

 

[BluesLegend]

A Democrat incumbent who NARROWLY lost her seat to a Republican, won back her seat after he died.

 

[iceberg]

https://nypost.com/2018/02/20/the-r...us-that-we-werent-already-doing-to-ourselves/

yet we know the DNC "hacked" their elections to get hillary the nod, hell she bought the damn thing, but we don't care about that. maybe there is a valid point here in that russia is wrong to jack with us but look at what we're doing to ourselves. that should bother people more because if anything we're supposed to have each others backs as americans.

where did that mindset fade off to?

So you support Russian interference in our elections because you think the Democrats pulled some shit in their primaries?

You know that is fucking irrational to the point of being insane, right?

What steps are Democrats proposing to close the risk gap of Russians or any other foreign entity interfering with US Elections? .

The Democrats overwhelmingly voted for the Russians sanctions that Trump won't now implement, for one thing.

Sanctions are going to curb election interference???

depends on the sanctions but at least is is something.

 

[Irish Mike]

https://nypost.com/2018/02/20/the-r...us-that-we-werent-already-doing-to-ourselves/

yet we know the DNC "hacked" their elections to get hillary the nod, hell she bought the damn thing, but we don't care about that.


Its because the liberal media hasn't told us we are suppose to care yet.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

https://nypost.com/2018/02/20/the-r...us-that-we-werent-already-doing-to-ourselves/

yet we know the DNC "hacked" their elections to get hillary the nod, hell she bought the damn thing, but we don't care about that. maybe there is a valid point here in that russia is wrong to jack with us but look at what we're doing to ourselves. that should bother people more because if anything we're supposed to have each others backs as americans.

where did that mindset fade off to?

The problem with your premise is that the DNC didn’t hack anything did nothing illegal or even unethical. A political party is free to choose their candidate anyway they choose, they are under no obligation to even ask for input let alone bound to follow it.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

i would disagree that having 1 person shove out other candidates cause it's "her turn" would not be "unethical" in the least. legalities and so forth i'll give you because i simply don't know. but i do know what i saw was simply pretty shameful.

There is nothing shameful about the party having a clear choice of who they want.
The current primary system is fairly new, before this current system the “people” had no input into the choice of the candidate.

I think a very good argument could be made that the quality of candidates has gone down the longer we go with the current system. People like Lincoln and Coolidge would never make it through today’s primaries


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

total agreement we're getting crap for candidates, but i disagree on how they handled bernie. he's got every right to run and have the same party support as hillary. the people should get to decide who is running, i thought. i mean we hear the popular vote a lot even though that's not how things are done.

so if the DNC and RNC can put up who they want, how they want, and the votes don't matter - why do we vote again? in your defense of these actions you really take the value away from our only "power" over the government.

i'm not ready to give that up yet.

Do you think the GOP should have given the same level of support to all 17 candidates this past election? And did they?

I am really not sure why the parties choose to move to a primary system and allow the people to have a voice. I tend to side with the idea it was done to give people a sense of power in the process.

Constitutionally, voting is done for elected offices, not nominees. Thus how a party, which is a private entity, chooses their candidates is not covered.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[iceberg]

https://nypost.com/2018/02/20/the-r...us-that-we-werent-already-doing-to-ourselves/

yet we know the DNC "hacked" their elections to get hillary the nod, hell she bought the damn thing, but we don't care about that. maybe there is a valid point here in that russia is wrong to jack with us but look at what we're doing to ourselves. that should bother people more because if anything we're supposed to have each others backs as americans.

where did that mindset fade off to?

The problem with your premise is that the DNC didn’t hack anything did nothing illegal or even unethical. A political party is free to choose their candidate anyway they choose, they are under no obligation to even ask for input let alone bound to follow it.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

i would disagree that having 1 person shove out other candidates cause it's "her turn" would not be "unethical" in the least. legalities and so forth i'll give you because i simply don't know. but i do know what i saw was simply pretty shameful.

There is nothing shameful about the party having a clear choice of who they want.
The current primary system is fairly new, before this current system the “people” had no input into the choice of the candidate.

I think a very good argument could be made that the quality of candidates has gone down the longer we go with the current system. People like Lincoln and Coolidge would never make it through today’s primaries


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

total agreement we're getting crap for candidates, but i disagree on how they handled bernie. he's got every right to run and have the same party support as hillary. the people should get to decide who is running, i thought. i mean we hear the popular vote a lot even though that's not how things are done.

so if the DNC and RNC can put up who they want, how they want, and the votes don't matter - why do we vote again? in your defense of these actions you really take the value away from our only "power" over the government.

i'm not ready to give that up yet.

Do you think the GOP should have given the same level of support to all 17 candidates this past election? And did they?

I am really not sure why the parties choose to move to a primary system and allow the people to have a voice. I tend to side with the idea it was done to give people a sense of power in the process.

Constitutionally, voting is done for elected offices, not nominees. Thus how a party, which is a private entity, chooses their candidates is not covered.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

They tried damn hard to stop trump.

 

[Eaglewings]

https://nypost.com/2018/02/20/the-r...us-that-we-werent-already-doing-to-ourselves/

yet we know the DNC "hacked" their elections to get hillary the nod, hell she bought the damn thing, but we don't care about that. maybe there is a valid point here in that russia is wrong to jack with us but look at what we're doing to ourselves. that should bother people more because if anything we're supposed to have each others backs as americans.

where did that mindset fade off to?

So you support Russian interference in our elections because you think the Democrats pulled some shit in their primaries?

You know that is fucking irrational to the point of being insane, right?

Your Messiah said before the election there was no interference by the Russians into the election and demanded Trump stop whining.

Then....BINGO...Trump won. Then the narrative had to change and it duped people like you easily.

Seems plausible BO and the pantsuit believed the Russians were working to get the criminal elected. When that didn't happen, they quickly changed their tune of a fair election to blame the Russians and Trump for colliding and stealing the election.

Duped you again!!!

Show us where Obama said there was no interference from Russia


.

See? Now this is what we expect from a D voter. You don't pay attention.

Obama did nothing about Russian interference because he thought they were bought by Cankles.

What Obama did

1. alerted Zuckerberg about facebook hacking and spamming from the trolls

2. Tried to get a bipartisan alert about the hacking from McConnell who refused to work with Obama
He would have been that he was trying to fix the election and Trump and his followers were going to call him a partisan hack..like you still are

3. He put sanctions on Russia and closed down a a Russian embassy which Trump let expire for his buddy Putin

4. Trump was screaming about a voting hack if he lost..but he won so he shut up

5. Trump has known for a year and supports Putin while hating on the democrats, not calling out any warnings to the American people..

If Trump has never alerted his followers , he and the GOP would be seen as a liars..denying just how bad it is for the American people.

 

[Eaglewings]

The problem with your premise is that the DNC didn’t hack anything did nothing illegal or even unethical. A political party is free to choose their candidate anyway they choose, they are under no obligation to even ask for input let alone bound to follow it.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

i would disagree that having 1 person shove out other candidates cause it's "her turn" would not be "unethical" in the least. legalities and so forth i'll give you because i simply don't know. but i do know what i saw was simply pretty shameful.

There is nothing shameful about the party having a clear choice of who they want.
The current primary system is fairly new, before this current system the “people” had no input into the choice of the candidate.

I think a very good argument could be made that the quality of candidates has gone down the longer we go with the current system. People like Lincoln and Coolidge would never make it through today’s primaries


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

total agreement we're getting crap for candidates, but i disagree on how they handled bernie. he's got every right to run and have the same party support as hillary. the people should get to decide who is running, i thought. i mean we hear the popular vote a lot even though that's not how things are done.

so if the DNC and RNC can put up who they want, how they want, and the votes don't matter - why do we vote again? in your defense of these actions you really take the value away from our only "power" over the government.

i'm not ready to give that up yet.

Do you think the GOP should have given the same level of support to all 17 candidates this past election? And did they?

I am really not sure why the parties choose to move to a primary system and allow the people to have a voice. I tend to side with the idea it was done to give people a sense of power in the process.

Constitutionally, voting is done for elected offices, not nominees. Thus how a party, which is a private entity, chooses their candidates is not covered.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

They tried damn hard to stop trump.

Ryan and the GOP hates Trump and tried to cheat in Colorado to get him out..Fox news hated him...so stop being a victim..

 

[iceberg]

i would disagree that having 1 person shove out other candidates cause it's "her turn" would not be "unethical" in the least. legalities and so forth i'll give you because i simply don't know. but i do know what i saw was simply pretty shameful.

There is nothing shameful about the party having a clear choice of who they want.
The current primary system is fairly new, before this current system the “people” had no input into the choice of the candidate.

I think a very good argument could be made that the quality of candidates has gone down the longer we go with the current system. People like Lincoln and Coolidge would never make it through today’s primaries


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

total agreement we're getting crap for candidates, but i disagree on how they handled bernie. he's got every right to run and have the same party support as hillary. the people should get to decide who is running, i thought. i mean we hear the popular vote a lot even though that's not how things are done.

so if the DNC and RNC can put up who they want, how they want, and the votes don't matter - why do we vote again? in your defense of these actions you really take the value away from our only "power" over the government.

i'm not ready to give that up yet.

Do you think the GOP should have given the same level of support to all 17 candidates this past election? And did they?

I am really not sure why the parties choose to move to a primary system and allow the people to have a voice. I tend to side with the idea it was done to give people a sense of power in the process.

Constitutionally, voting is done for elected offices, not nominees. Thus how a party, which is a private entity, chooses their candidates is not covered.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

They tried damn hard to stop trump.

Ryan and the GOP hates Trump and tried to cheat in Colorado to get him out..Fox news hated him...so stop being a victim..

Who said shit about being s victim?

I said the RNC was doing the same thing and now I'm a victim.

I swear you use words for emotional effect but damn sure not for fact.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The problem with your premise is that the DNC didn’t hack anything did nothing illegal or even unethical. A political party is free to choose their candidate anyway they choose, they are under no obligation to even ask for input let alone bound to follow it.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

i would disagree that having 1 person shove out other candidates cause it's "her turn" would not be "unethical" in the least. legalities and so forth i'll give you because i simply don't know. but i do know what i saw was simply pretty shameful.

There is nothing shameful about the party having a clear choice of who they want.
The current primary system is fairly new, before this current system the “people” had no input into the choice of the candidate.

I think a very good argument could be made that the quality of candidates has gone down the longer we go with the current system. People like Lincoln and Coolidge would never make it through today’s primaries


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

total agreement we're getting crap for candidates, but i disagree on how they handled bernie. he's got every right to run and have the same party support as hillary. the people should get to decide who is running, i thought. i mean we hear the popular vote a lot even though that's not how things are done.

so if the DNC and RNC can put up who they want, how they want, and the votes don't matter - why do we vote again? in your defense of these actions you really take the value away from our only "power" over the government.

i'm not ready to give that up yet.

Do you think the GOP should have given the same level of support to all 17 candidates this past election? And did they?

I am really not sure why the parties choose to move to a primary system and allow the people to have a voice. I tend to side with the idea it was done to give people a sense of power in the process.

Constitutionally, voting is done for elected offices, not nominees. Thus how a party, which is a private entity, chooses their candidates is not covered.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

They tried damn hard to stop trump.

And they gave basically no support to Fiorina, Pataki, Santorum, Graham...just to name a few


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Eaglewings]

There is nothing shameful about the party having a clear choice of who they want.
The current primary system is fairly new, before this current system the “people” had no input into the choice of the candidate.

I think a very good argument could be made that the quality of candidates has gone down the longer we go with the current system. People like Lincoln and Coolidge would never make it through today’s primaries


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

total agreement we're getting crap for candidates, but i disagree on how they handled bernie. he's got every right to run and have the same party support as hillary. the people should get to decide who is running, i thought. i mean we hear the popular vote a lot even though that's not how things are done.

so if the DNC and RNC can put up who they want, how they want, and the votes don't matter - why do we vote again? in your defense of these actions you really take the value away from our only "power" over the government.

i'm not ready to give that up yet.

Do you think the GOP should have given the same level of support to all 17 candidates this past election? And did they?

I am really not sure why the parties choose to move to a primary system and allow the people to have a voice. I tend to side with the idea it was done to give people a sense of power in the process.

Constitutionally, voting is done for elected offices, not nominees. Thus how a party, which is a private entity, chooses their candidates is not covered.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

They tried damn hard to stop trump.

Ryan and the GOP hates Trump and tried to cheat in Colorado to get him out..Fox news hated him...so stop being a victim..

Who said shit about being s victim?

I said the RNC was doing the same thing and now I'm a victim.

I swear you use words for emotional effect but damn sure not for fact.

oh so sorry..I didn't read what you were commenting on..

 

[iceberg]

total agreement we're getting crap for candidates, but i disagree on how they handled bernie. he's got every right to run and have the same party support as hillary. the people should get to decide who is running, i thought. i mean we hear the popular vote a lot even though that's not how things are done.

so if the DNC and RNC can put up who they want, how they want, and the votes don't matter - why do we vote again? in your defense of these actions you really take the value away from our only "power" over the government.

i'm not ready to give that up yet.

Do you think the GOP should have given the same level of support to all 17 candidates this past election? And did they?

I am really not sure why the parties choose to move to a primary system and allow the people to have a voice. I tend to side with the idea it was done to give people a sense of power in the process.

Constitutionally, voting is done for elected offices, not nominees. Thus how a party, which is a private entity, chooses their candidates is not covered.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

They tried damn hard to stop trump.

Ryan and the GOP hates Trump and tried to cheat in Colorado to get him out..Fox news hated him...so stop being a victim..

Who said shit about being s victim?

I said the RNC was doing the same thing and now I'm a victim.

I swear you use words for emotional effect but damn sure not for fact.

oh so sorry..I didn't read what you were commenting on..

frustrating but yea, i've done that too.

 

[iceberg]

i would disagree that having 1 person shove out other candidates cause it's "her turn" would not be "unethical" in the least. legalities and so forth i'll give you because i simply don't know. but i do know what i saw was simply pretty shameful.

There is nothing shameful about the party having a clear choice of who they want.
The current primary system is fairly new, before this current system the “people” had no input into the choice of the candidate.

I think a very good argument could be made that the quality of candidates has gone down the longer we go with the current system. People like Lincoln and Coolidge would never make it through today’s primaries


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

total agreement we're getting crap for candidates, but i disagree on how they handled bernie. he's got every right to run and have the same party support as hillary. the people should get to decide who is running, i thought. i mean we hear the popular vote a lot even though that's not how things are done.

so if the DNC and RNC can put up who they want, how they want, and the votes don't matter - why do we vote again? in your defense of these actions you really take the value away from our only "power" over the government.

i'm not ready to give that up yet.

Do you think the GOP should have given the same level of support to all 17 candidates this past election? And did they?

I am really not sure why the parties choose to move to a primary system and allow the people to have a voice. I tend to side with the idea it was done to give people a sense of power in the process.

Constitutionally, voting is done for elected offices, not nominees. Thus how a party, which is a private entity, chooses their candidates is not covered.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

They tried damn hard to stop trump.

And they gave basically no support to Fiorina, Pataki, Santorum, Graham...just to name a few


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

early on i can understand that. if there is no following there is no following. but when down to 2 people and you see it get all cutthroat? dunno about illegal but i sure have a problem with people "cheating" to get ahead with our politics.

 

[DJT for Life]

That's really weak.

Belcher had that District for awhile until she got edged out by Johnson.
Johnson didn't beat her 72-23. Wife probably wasn't qualified.

btw...If the dems have flipped 37 seats how come the GOP still controls
the house?

Weak What did Trump win it by??

It's not weak, it's a fact. Trump won by 72-23 over Clinton. Belcher got
edged out by Johnson. Even though Trump was dominant, Johnson wasn't.
He was lucky to win.

You don't understand Kentucky politics. Democrats dominate Kentucky,
in registration and in state politics. But National Contests (Pres) always
goes to the GOP and the state is always called right at 7pm when their
polls close.

That election means nothing.

Do any of the elections that dems have won mean anything?? OR once again they're all nothingburgers??

Probably nothing. They were held before the tax cuts kicked in and made
liars out of the dems. That plan has gone from 37% approval in Dec to
51% in Feb. It will continue to grow.

I for one loved taxcuts BUT I'll vote republican when HELL freezes over

That's your choice.

But many will vote for the GOP because they will not vote against their
own paycheck.

The Internet, for good or bad, Is making more Americans, at least competent,
in understanding politics. When the dems start talking about giving more
to the middle class, while raising taxes on the corporations, the public
will know that will just cause them to lose their jobs and income and they'll
be back in the same mess that Obama put them.