Baseless accusations are Baseless.
CUAngler is a Homosexual Paedophile Anarchist (See how easy it is!)
I Love Russia
- Thread starter hopefultiger13
- Start date
Baseless accusations are Baseless.
CUAngler is a Homosexual Paedophile Anarchist (See how easy it is!)
Not at all dude, I'm a moderate. While I didn't vote for Trump (I thought that he was just a tiny bit worse than Hillary) I actually greatly dislike Hillary. I also hope that Trump does well as that is good for the country. I simply find it interesting how both sides of the aisle find reasons to justify things in their own party that they go nuts over when the other party does it. My wife is pretty liberal and nothing gets her and her fiends going like when I ask them these kinds of questions.
For instance, I reversed this question with some of her friends at a bar last night... If they didn't think Bill Clinton should have resigned over lying, why do they have a problem with Trump and Sessions now? It's just like on here... Except that the "libtard" remarks are changed to "Facist". Nobody's got an answer, just deflections with a side of blaming the other party and pointing out who did what. IMHO, this is exactly what's wrong with America and why I embrace what Trump was actually talking about in his speech. We all need to work together to MAGA... not going to happen while we act like this though.
If an Obama appointee had lied to Congress as Sessions had done you would be screaming bloody murder. Now when a Trump guy lies is is theater. smh
Yep. I would say TR would be aligned with the Democrats to the tune of 80 percent or more. That is why the choice of the quotation was rather comical.
There is no excuse to lie under oath. If you are gonna do that just say in advance I can't say I will be honest because my politics might get in the way. Advise and consent was put in their by the framers for a reason. If in the modern day it is determined that it is no longer applicable than maybe it can go by the wayside like the outdated electoral college.
I am almost positive Trump will choose to side with the country that enriches his pocket.
Sort of like what the Repubs did to Obama the last 8 years, no? It is what the opposite party not in power does: it agitates and torments the party in power. That is the way politics have worked since the Republic began.
Treetiger I'm linking the video of why they media/libs is complaining about Kellyanne Conway feet being on the couch. I'm glad we have a President that is saying what many already knew about them. I would love to hear your honest opinion about this video. The Truth Shall Set You Free!
He could retire now and never have to worry about money ever. Why do you think he's not even being paid to be President?
How would we know his financial status when he will not release his financial information as all other Presidents have done in the modern era? I mean anybody that would scam people at a fake university can't be doing all that good.
Let me add this final thought.
Democratic voters have a right to be pissed. I just think that they are
focusing their anger at the wrong villain.
They SHOULD be angry with the DNC.
The leaked documents prove that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz
and her cronies never intended to give Bernie Sanders a legitimate
shot at being the democratic candidate. (In fact, if anyone donated
to his campaign I believe that they have a legitimate case/potential
class action lawsuit under the statue of frauds.)
Further, they should be furious that the DNC didn't do a better job of
protecting their computer systems and leaving them exposed to the
potential of being hacked (Even though those hacks gave the insight
of how underhanded alot of the political dealings truly were.) Honestly,
you should expect more from the party of the candidate that invented
the internet.
Did Trump benefit from these documents being disclosed? Undoubtedly Yes.
But did he direct anyone to do it? completely unproven
Did the Russians try to impact an American election? again, no doubt
Is this type of influence unusual? No. America as well as many other
countries around the world have tried to influence politics and elections
for centuries.
Can we hold them accountable for it? doubtful
Should Democrats be upset with the party leadership that failed them miserably?
ABSOLUTELY
Democratic voters have a right to be pissed. I just think that they are
focusing their anger at the wrong villain.
They SHOULD be angry with the DNC.
The leaked documents prove that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz
and her cronies never intended to give Bernie Sanders a legitimate
shot at being the democratic candidate. (In fact, if anyone donated
to his campaign I believe that they have a legitimate case/potential
class action lawsuit under the statue of frauds.)
Further, they should be furious that the DNC didn't do a better job of
protecting their computer systems and leaving them exposed to the
potential of being hacked (Even though those hacks gave the insight
of how underhanded alot of the political dealings truly were.) Honestly,
you should expect more from the party of the candidate that invented
the internet.
Did Trump benefit from these documents being disclosed? Undoubtedly Yes.
But did he direct anyone to do it? completely unproven
Did the Russians try to impact an American election? again, no doubt
Is this type of influence unusual? No. America as well as many other
countries around the world have tried to influence politics and elections
for centuries.
Can we hold them accountable for it? doubtful
Should Democrats be upset with the party leadership that failed them miserably?
ABSOLUTELY
The electoral college is in no way outdated. It performed exactly as designed and
everyone understood how the system worked before they signed up for their
respective campaigns. You may not like the results, but don't blame the system
that has worked for 250 years.
Hope you were joking about that. You don't build buildings like he does without having some jack.
I'm socially conservative. I just don't recognize the modern Republican party as it has swung to the ultra right. I'm for conservation like Teddy Roosevelt--that kind of stewardship and personal responsibility should be a core republican value. I feel like micro-aggression and safe spaces are a liberal overreach/overreaction and difference and different ideas can be good things, for example. I could go on but I won't. The parties have become polarized and flip flop all over the place--one election season for global trade and the next for protecting coal and manufacturing jobs. One election for fixing the problems at home and not getting involved in foreign wars and then the next bringing democracy to the world.
I don't think people should be partisan--that is what political parties want to maintain control. I don't align with any one particular ideology or party, I'm all over the map, so no I won't shed being an independent. Sorry. Most of the time I comment on here from a more liberal perspective because of the kind of radical conservatism that gets posted, especially as Trump pushes the party further to the right.
To your points, Trump isn't a mainstream Republican voice as the actual nominee of the party? He didn't shed birtherism until a month before the election, and even then it wasn't an apology or anything substantive. Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, isn't an establishment republican voice?? I'd also contend that Breitbart and theblaze and even Alex Jones are increasingly more powerful voices in the Republican party. They certainly are marginalized voices with Bannon in the white house and Trump as the Republican figurehead trying to curry favor from someone like Jones. How many Republicans on here don't recognize #pizzagate as a complete fabrication by infowars to connect 'spirit cooking', performance artist Marina Abramovic,Podesta, and Hillary to child trafficking and satanism? I don't think it is a stretch to believe it is 30% of the voting population--pretty much the mainstream Republican ideology in an era of social media. I guess I am questioning how much power mainstream republican voices actually have these days.
Perjury is the criminal offense of lying under oath. Sessions was under oath and lied.
You're so enlightened, my friend. It's always been and always will be theater. We did see Obama appointees lie. And we will see Trump oneslie too. It's calledAmerican politics and it's dirty. Now grow up, move on, and make a change in four years.
There is a list of developers who have built buildings as big as his and gone bankrupt many times about a mile long. I know, I have one big one in my family.
There is no doubt it is a dirty, hard system. It always has been. In fact, I said the exact same thing in this thread where a Trump supporter was upset about the rough handling he is getting in Congress. Still, every smart politician knows you don't straight up lie under oath and Sessions might rue the day he did if a special prosecutor ever gets appointed.
It is highly debateable - if not laughable - that it performed exactly as intended 250 years ago. I know this for a fact, he was elected despite the will of the majority of the American public.
Not the first time that has happened. And that is exactly why it was proposed and enacted, to prevent the largest metropolitan areas from imposing their will on a more rural populace for whom it may be burdensome or inappropriate.
According to the Heritage Foundation (you should like that):
Alexander Hamilton defended the Electoral College in Federalist 68. He argued that it was important for the people as a whole to have a great deal of power in choosing their president, but it was also “desirable” that “the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
But the problem is that in virtually each state it is state law that the Electoral voters MUST vote with the majority of their state. Therefore, how can these electors use their unique skills of analyzing the qualities of the candidate? Answer - They for sure cannot. In fact, they are legally disallowed from using their judgement. Therefore it is essentially a majority rule only system that actually works against the majority candidate being in some unique instances (now three times). I would tend to agree with you that it could work like the framers wanted if almost each state law did not absolutely require the electors to vote with the majority will of the state.
Sooooooooo?? what, there was once a voice of disagreement on the vote that created it? Doesn't change the reasons for which it was enacted. If you want New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit and San Francisco determining who occupies the most power office in the land in opposition to the overwhelming opposition of the rest of the country fine. But, I (and many, many others) do not. The issues of the inner city are not our issues (because we had the good sense not to go live there.)
America is not and never has been a democracy. If you don't believe me go recite the Pledge of Allegiance. "And to the Democracy for which it stands?" No.
This is a constitutional republic and always has been; and it works.
Woe be it if we were to try and change it. The whims of the electorate change as often as the tides. Our forefathers were a lot smarter than a lot of my contemporaries want to give them credit for being.
You stated that it was acting as intended, which is really not true since no judgement is now allowed. Yes, I think you can make the claim that it is putting more power in the rural voters' hands as opposed to the city voters. Is that good or bad? IDK but I do know that I just gave you the Federalist interpretative of what the framers intended with the electoral college from the nation's elite, conservative think tank. Clearly it is not acting as was originally intended. Perhaps instead there should be an amendment to only count, say, 95 percent or so votes from the inner city. Is that what you are proposing? BTW, you do realize you elected a man from New York City, right?
Last edited:
You quoted one of the founding fathers, but not the framer's of the Constitution (Jefferson, Adams & Franklin). ACA was passed by Congress but I can give you more than one voting in dissent. But now this discussion is past its prime. The electoral college is not outdated and provides vital protections. If you disagree then clearly you have an agenda.
Last edited:
I have seen several Trumpsters on here use this line of reasoning as to why it is no big deal that Russia hacked our election (because America has done it too for centuries). Let's dig into that. Why has America done this in the past? One reason. CONTROL. We have been putting a pro-america / pro-democracy puppet in place so that we can CONTROL that country and get what we want. Now historically, this has almost always blown up in our faces. Eventually, some "bad hombres" as tour boy Trump calls them get the people to rise up, overthrow the government and then they become extremely anti-american. (see, Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.)
So, I would stop using that as a talking point. You are basically saying that you are cool with Russia's puppet running our country. If you are cool with that, I say GTFO. You are not a real American.
His wealth is hilariously exagerated. We know he's in debt to China $650 million. His son has already tipped his hand that he owes money to Russia. At best his wealth is tied up in real estate, and at worst, he's way in the hole. His previous 3 bankruptcy filings leads us to the probable guess that he's back again. He is TERRIBLE with money.
Ok, but you didn't see me say that this is no big deal. It is. But I AM pointing out that we need to avoid being hypocrites in making it seem like this is a first. This has been going on since before Jesus walked the earth. Doesn't make it right, but it's not unusual by world standards. If you are right that Russia was trying to CONTROL us, do you think they were successful?? I say no. Again, if you want to be angry, fine. But focus your anger on the DNC who didn't sufficiently protect their computer systems to prevent such an intrusion.
No. you draw the wrong conclusion. I am not okay with what they allegedly did, but neither you nor I can do a thing to reverse it. Encourage the DNC to purchase some anti-intrusion/encryption software and learn how to use it. As for your suggestion to
GTFO, I appreciate your invitation to leave, but I'm no snow flake and Canada just ain't my style. So I respectfully decline.
The DNC was hacked because electing Trump would destabilize the U.S. If it was in Putins interest to elect Hilary, it would have been the RNC that would have been hacked.
They tried to hack the RNC. But the RNC had adequate safeguards in place.
Lol. The administrations biggest frustration thus far has been that internal info is being leaked to the press. Trump still uses an insecure Android phone. Pence emails now reveal he used an AOL account for official business (hello, Hillary!). Neither party knows technology.
