Can we just agree now that the GOP field is full of crazies?? (WARNING: POLITICAL)

steveschneider wrote:

The_Dude wrote:

No. It will continue as long as the sheep buy the lies of the establishment for both parties.

We need someone to come in that actually speaks the truth and just doesn't pay lip service in order to acquire power.

However, the idiotic masses will just line up in droves repeating the rhetoric from both sides and nothing will change.

Standards of living for Americans will continue to go down, we will continue to amass a ton of debt, and for the first time ever in this country the next generation won't live better lives than the previous ones.

The America we knew that made us the greatest country on earth is dead.

I think the real problem is the public.

The public has failed, we are supposed to stay vigilant and informed, I think the blame for all of the countries problems falls on the public. The elite 1% are involved in the political system, the poor and middle class are not.

When it costs a billion dollars to run for president, everyone loses.

The_Dude wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:the greatest thing about Donald Trump is that he's now pushing his fellow republicans to say some of the same hate-filled rhetoric in hopes of getting attention from the mainstream media.. it's like spoiled brat kids trying to get mommy and daddy's attention.

what's funny, too, and sad - yet totally predictable - is how he's taking advantage of the right's racist fear and paranoia - just like the NRA does. They realize how intellectually challenged their base is and appeal to their most fundamental intellectual flaws and emotional insecurities. Which, in turn, provides them with the power and attention they so greatly desire.

it's fun to watch.

That's fine and all, as long as you can admit Hilary is doing the exact same thing to her base.

oh, yeah - horrible candidate and a fairly loathsome person. Though she's not beating the drums of hate, racism and xenophobia in the way the right does.

but infinitely better, philosophically, than anyone running under the republican banner. Which isn't terribly difficult.

The_Dude wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

I think the real problem is the public.

The public has failed, we are supposed to stay vigilant and informed, I think the blame for all of the countries problems falls on the public. The elite 1% are involved in the political system, the poor and middle class are not.

When it costs a billion dollars to run for president, everyone loses.

Not really, if we'd organize we could elect better politicians and they wouldn't have to spend that much. Look at Jesse Ventura's campaign in Minnesota, he won that state with a small budget.

Also, every 2 years you can vote out a portion of the members of the house and senate. If people would form voting blocks and say remove corporate personhood or we are voting in this candidate it would be effective.

Problem though is people are too lazy and uninformed to do anything about it.

steveschneider wrote:

The_Dude wrote:

When it costs a billion dollars to run for president, everyone loses.

Not really, if we'd organize we could elect better politicians and they wouldn't have to spend that much. Look at Jesse Ventura's campaign in Minnesota, he won that state with a small budget.

Also, every 2 years you can vote out a portion of the members of the house and senate. If people would form voting blocks and say remove corporate personhood or we are voting in this candidate it would be effective.

Problem though is people are too lazy and uninformed to do anything about it.

this is the real problem. People who actually pay attention realize that money is the problem. It's the people who don't pay attention that believe everything the corporate media, talking heads and agenda-driven profiteers of politics tells them to believe.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:oh, yeah - horrible candidate and a fairly loathsome person. Though she's not beating the drums of hate, racism and xenophobia in the way the right does.

but infinitely better, philosophically, than anyone running under the republican banner. Which isn't terribly difficult.

Hell yes, infinitely better - that grinding sound of 3,000 abortions a day isn't hate - that's the sound of Love Democrat Style.

BobS and the Dems want to talk on and on about 30 deaths involving guns a day whilst ignoring the ongoing baby massacre enabled by their party.

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:oh, yeah - horrible candidate and a fairly loathsome person. Though she's not beating the drums of hate, racism and xenophobia in the way the right does.

but infinitely better, philosophically, than anyone running under the republican banner. Which isn't terribly difficult.

Hell yes, infinitely better - that grinding sound of 3,000 abortions a day isn't hate - that's the sound of Love Democrat Style.

BobS and the Dems want to talk on and on about 30 deaths involving guns a day whilst ignoring the ongoing baby massacre enabled by their party.

meh - a lot of them are black babies that'll just end up killing white people eventually.. or living off the government while voting for socialist muslims from Kenya. I wouldn't worry too much about it. Probably a good thing.

One of the chief indicators that the Fed uses to measure the economic prosperity of this country is the amount of bitching about abortion conservatives are doing. It's amazing how quiet everyone was about that issue, almost like it isn't really an issue and everyone recognized that there were bigger problems. People are slowly getting up in arms about it again, which must mean we really are doing better economically. Great news for everybody really. Keep bitching!

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:One of the chief indicators that the Fed uses to measure the economic prosperity of this country is the amount of bitching about abortion conservatives are doing. It's amazing how quiet everyone was about that issue, almost like it isn't really an issue and everyone recognized that there were bigger problems. People are slowly getting up in arms about it again, which must mean we really are doing better economically. Great news for everybody really. Keep bitching!

but.. but.. THE BABIES!!!

(that, once born, republicans attempt to deny education, food, healthcare, safety and most other basic human rights)

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:One of the chief indicators that the Fed uses to measure the economic prosperity of this country is the amount of bitching about abortion conservatives are doing. It's amazing how quiet everyone was about that issue, almost like it isn't really an issue and everyone recognized that there were bigger problems. People are slowly getting up in arms about it again, which must mean we really are doing better economically. Great news for everybody really. Keep bitching!

I've heard that teen pregnancy is down, which is normally great news. Plan B is working so I'm sure it will be illegal shortly.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:One of the chief indicators that the Fed uses to measure the economic prosperity of this country is the amount of bitching about abortion conservatives are doing. It's amazing how quiet everyone was about that issue, almost like it isn't really an issue and everyone recognized that there were bigger problems. People are slowly getting up in arms about it again, which must mean we really are doing better economically. Great news for everybody really. Keep bitching!

Sorry Pal, nice try but not true for me.   It's been my #1 voting issue for 35 years, good economy or bad.   Call me crazy but I can't support a party that enables the dismemberment of 3,000 babies a day.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:One of the chief indicators that the Fed uses to measure the economic prosperity of this country is the amount of bitching about abortion conservatives are doing. It's amazing how quiet everyone was about that issue, almost like it isn't really an issue and everyone recognized that there were bigger problems. People are slowly getting up in arms about it again, which must mean we really are doing better economically. Great news for everybody really. Keep bitching!

but.. but.. THE BABIES!!!

(that, once born, republicans attempt to deny education, food, healthcare, safety and most other basic human rights)

So the Dems solution of dismemberment is better?   OK.

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:One of the chief indicators that the Fed uses to measure the economic prosperity of this country is the amount of bitching about abortion conservatives are doing. It's amazing how quiet everyone was about that issue, almost like it isn't really an issue and everyone recognized that there were bigger problems. People are slowly getting up in arms about it again, which must mean we really are doing better economically. Great news for everybody really. Keep bitching!

Sorry Pal, nice try but not true for me.   It's been my #1 voting issue for 35 years, good economy or bad.   Call me crazy but I can't support a party that enables the dismemberment of 3,000 babies a day.

wow.. and I thought I had been to some wild parties..

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
but.. but.. THE BABIES!!!

(that, once born, republicans attempt to deny education, food, healthcare, safety and most other basic human rights)

So the Dems solution of dismemberment is better?   OK.

once again, a lot of these babies you're so concerned for will grow up to be black (and all that that means).. so it's not all bad.

Democrats arguing with Rep

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:
Sorry Pal, nice try but not true for me.   It's been my #1 voting issue for 35 years, good economy or bad.   Call me crazy but I can't support a party that enables the dismemberment of 3,000 babies a day.

wow.. and I thought I had been to some wild parties..

Try attending one of the parties you host.

I see so many home less people, and I recall being in San Diego and the majority of the homeless for gulf war vets.

So much thought and care for the unborn, once you are out of the womb tough shit.

Not to mention the trillions of dollars spent blowing up people over seas.

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:One of the chief indicators that the Fed uses to measure the economic prosperity of this country is the amount of bitching about abortion conservatives are doing. It's amazing how quiet everyone was about that issue, almost like it isn't really an issue and everyone recognized that there were bigger problems. People are slowly getting up in arms about it again, which must mean we really are doing better economically. Great news for everybody really. Keep bitching!

Sorry Pal, nice try but not true for me.   It's been my #1 voting issue for 35 years, good economy or bad.   Call me crazy but I can't support a party that enables the dismemberment of 3,000 babies a day.

Seriously?? That's your #1 issue?? Of all the issues you could focus on, you chose abortion, for which as Bob mentioned, you'd deny the majority of those babies basic healthcare, education, food and other services??

That's effed up.

Turtleneck wrote:Democrats arguing with Rep

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
wow.. and I thought I had been to some wild parties..

Try attending one of the parties you host.

Vlad wrote:Please Wells this up.

Seriously, I thought Hillary would have a tough time due to her low likability rating (heck, as a straight ticket Dem even I don't like her much). But this field of nut jobs the GOP has put forth...Are they trying to make this easy for her?? The only adult in that group is L. Graham. (I'd actually consider voting for him over Hillary.) But the rest of 'em.....

It's funny you mention Graham. When he first announced, I chuckled because I don't think he has the charisma or stage presence for the job. But, as I listened to him last weekend on G. Steph's
program, the more I think he is a reasonable candidate. I weep for America while Trump is ahead in the early, early, early polls.

Vlad wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:
Sorry Pal, nice try but not true for me.   It's been my #1 voting issue for 35 years, good economy or bad.   Call me crazy but I can't support a party that enables the dismemberment of 3,000 babies a day.

Seriously?? That's your #1 issue??  Of all the issues you could focus on, you chose abortion, for which as Bob mentioned, you'd deny the majority of those babies basic healthcare, education, food and other services??

That's effed up.

meh - I don't bemoan someone who has a pet issue that means a lot to them. But it does seem just a tad disingenuous when he is so unconcerned with people getting shot and killed for no reason, or going hungry.. or without healthcare - because it's in line with his political views - yet he seems so distraught with "babies" being "dismemebered" - because it's in line with his political views.

oh well - it's America and people have the absolute right to be hypocritical with regard to their views. And you just have to see those people for what they are.

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:One of the chief indicators that the Fed uses to measure the economic prosperity of this country is the amount of bitching about abortion conservatives are doing. It's amazing how quiet everyone was about that issue, almost like it isn't really an issue and everyone recognized that there were bigger problems. People are slowly getting up in arms about it again, which must mean we really are doing better economically. Great news for everybody really. Keep bitching!

Sorry Pal, nice try but not true for me.   It's been my #1 voting issue for 35 years, good economy or bad.   Call me crazy but I can't support a party that enables the dismemberment of 3,000 babies a day.

Whoa! Dismembering babies? Like newborn kids? I knew there was a lot a collateral damage in the mideast, but I didn't know it was on that scale.

How many babies would a nuclear bomb dropped on Iran dismember?

Floyd Robertson wrote:

Vlad wrote:Please Wells this up.

Seriously, I thought Hillary would have a tough time due to her low likability rating (heck, as a straight ticket Dem even I don't like her much).  But this field of nut jobs the GOP has put forth...Are they trying to make this easy for her??  The only adult in that group is L. Graham. (I'd actually consider voting for him over Hillary.)  But the rest of 'em.....

It's funny you mention Graham.  When he first announced,  I chuckled because I don't think he has the charisma or stage presence for the job.  But, as I listened to him last weekend  on G. Steph's
program, the more I think he is a reasonable candidate.  I weep for America while Trump is ahead in the early, early, early polls.

Lindsey Graham - a closet homosexual - does have the political gravitas that someone like Turmp wishes he had. I'm not sure, though, that he'll have the funding to make it too deep into the primaries.

Don't weep for America - you can weep, certainly, for the "Dancing With the Stars" devotees who think they're watching the "news" when they're watching Inside Edition. As faulty as America is, as a nation, we tend to get it right with regard to elections. (see two Obama elections).

5 of 6 Democrats have won the popular vote in the last 6 presidential elections. That's why republicans are so committed to dividing America on race, socioeconomic status, voter ID laws, etc - they know the electoral demographic is evolving and it's not evolving in their favor.

Gomer wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:
Sorry Pal, nice try but not true for me.   It's been my #1 voting issue for 35 years, good economy or bad.   Call me crazy but I can't support a party that enables the dismemberment of 3,000 babies a day.

Whoa! Dismembering babies? Like newborn kids? I knew there was a lot a collateral damage in the mideast, but I didn't know it was on that scale.

How many babies would a nuclear bomb dropped on Iran dismember?

you didn't hear?

Obama himself.. along with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers.. are dismembering babies on the street corners of Chicago!!

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:oh, yeah - horrible candidate and a fairly loathsome person. Though she's not beating the drums of hate, racism and xenophobia in the way the right does.

but infinitely better, philosophically, than anyone running under the republican banner. Which isn't terribly difficult.

Hell yes, infinitely better - that grinding sound of 3,000 abortions a day isn't hate - that's the sound of Love Democrat Style.

BobS and the Dems want to talk on and on about 30 deaths involving guns a day whilst ignoring the ongoing baby massacre enabled by their party.

Double standards are just part of being a liberal.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:

It's funny you mention Graham.  When he first announced,  I chuckled because I don't think he has the charisma or stage presence for the job.  But, as I listened to him last weekend  on G. Steph's
program, the more I think he is a reasonable candidate.  I weep for America while Trump is ahead in the early, early, early polls.

Lindsey Graham - a closet homosexual - does have the political gravitas that someone like Turmp wishes he had. I'm not sure, though, that he'll have the funding to make it too deep into the primaries.

Don't weep for America - you can weep, certainly, for the "Dancing With the Stars" devotees who think they're watching the "news" when they're watching Inside Edition. As faulty as America is, as a nation, we tend to get it right with regard to elections. (see two Obama elections).

5 of 6 Democrats have won the popular vote in the last 6 presidential elections. That's why republicans are so committed to dividing America on race, socioeconomic status, voter ID laws, etc - they know the electoral demographic is evolving and it's not evolving in their favor.

Republicans want to divide on class and race?   You have to be fucking kidding me.

Gomer wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:
Sorry Pal, nice try but not true for me.   It's been my #1 voting issue for 35 years, good economy or bad.   Call me crazy but I can't support a party that enables the dismemberment of 3,000 babies a day.

Whoa!  Dismembering babies?  Like newborn kids?  I knew there was a lot a collateral damage in the mideast, but I didn't know it was on that scale.

How many babies would a nuclear bomb dropped on Iran dismember?  

How is that relevant?  Not a single candidate I've ever supported has advocated that as a policy.    Enjoy your straw man.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Gomer wrote:
Whoa!  Dismembering babies?  Like newborn kids?  I knew there was a lot a collateral damage in the mideast, but I didn't know it was on that scale.

How many babies would a nuclear bomb dropped on Iran dismember?  

you didn't hear?

Obama himself.. along with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers.. are dismembering babies on the street corners of Chicago!!

Well Ayers was involved in some dismembering.

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
you didn't hear?

Obama himself.. along with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers.. are dismembering babies on the street corners of Chicago!!

Well Ayers was involved in some dismembering.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Gomer wrote:
Whoa! Dismembering babies? Like newborn kids? I knew there was a lot a collateral damage in the mideast, but I didn't know it was on that scale.

How many babies would a nuclear bomb dropped on Iran dismember?

you didn't hear?

Obama himself.. along with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers.. are dismembering babies on the street corners of Chicago!!

Are they selling the parts?

DWags wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:you didn't hear?

Obama himself.. along with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers.. are dismembering babies on the street corners of Chicago!!

Are they selling the parts?

Yes, which is illegal and morally corrupt.

Dems have been funneling money through PP for decades. Fund them federally, then PP gives political funding to Dems and run attack ads on GOP candidates. With taxpayer money.

Gotta give Dems credit...between PP, unions, etc they are the masters of funneling money for political gain.

The_Dude wrote:

DWags wrote:

Are they selling the parts?

Yes, which is illegal and morally corrupt.

Dems have been funneling money through PP for decades.  Fund them federally, then PP gives political funding to Dems and run attack ads on GOP candidates.  With taxpayer money.

Gotta give Dems credit...between PP, unions, etc they are the masters of funneling money for political gain.

I noticed this thread was fine until you swept in and started your normal shit. Slow night at MoGoBoard?

LooseGoose wrote:

Gomer wrote:
Whoa!  Dismembering babies?  Like newborn kids?  I knew there was a lot a collateral damage in the mideast, but I didn't know it was on that scale.

How many babies would a nuclear bomb dropped on Iran dismember?  

How is that relevant?  Not a single candidate I've ever supported has advocated that as a policy.    Enjoy your straw man.

You didn't say candidate. You said party. Now you want to hit the undo button?

To be clear though, while we're on the subject of straw men, you said dismembering "babies". The definition of baby is a young child. What definition are you using in your straw man?

I fucking hate the word straw man. It's a very annoying go to in these conversations.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I fucking hate the word straw man. It's a very annoying go to in these conversations.

And almost always used wrong.

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
Lindsey Graham - a closet homosexual - does have the political gravitas that someone like Turmp wishes he had. I'm not sure, though, that he'll have the funding to make it too deep into the primaries.

Don't weep for America - you can weep, certainly, for the "Dancing With the Stars" devotees who think they're watching the "news" when they're watching Inside Edition. As faulty as America is, as a nation, we tend to get it right with regard to elections. (see two Obama elections).

5 of 6 Democrats have won the popular vote in the last 6 presidential elections. That's why republicans are so committed to dividing America on race, socioeconomic status, voter ID laws, etc - they know the electoral demographic is evolving and it's not evolving in their favor.

Republicans want to divide on class and race?  

yes.

Trump would be great as President.

NigelUno wrote:Trump would be great as President.

agree completely. Republicans would be INSANE not to nominate him..

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

NigelUno wrote:Trump would be great as President.

agree completely. Republicans would be INSANE not to nominate him..

I heard he knows the President of Ford Motor Company, and that he will bring auto jobs back to the US.

NigelUno wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:agree completely. Republicans would be INSANE not to nominate him..  

I heard he knows the President of Ford Motor Company, and that he will bring auto jobs back to the US.

and all of our problems will go away because he's going to build a wall to keep those dirty brown rapists and murderers out of our otherwise peaceful country where white people never participate in mass shootings or kill unarmed black kids.

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
Lindsey Graham - a closet homosexual - does have the political gravitas that someone like Turmp wishes he had. I'm not sure, though, that he'll have the funding to make it too deep into the primaries.

Don't weep for America - you can weep, certainly, for the "Dancing With the Stars" devotees who think they're watching the "news" when they're watching Inside Edition. As faulty as America is, as a nation, we tend to get it right with regard to elections. (see two Obama elections).

5 of 6 Democrats have won the popular vote in the last 6 presidential elections. That's why republicans are so committed to dividing America on race, socioeconomic status, voter ID laws, etc - they know the electoral demographic is evolving and it's not evolving in their favor.

Republicans want to divide on class and race?   You have to be fucking kidding me.

No he isn't.  If you don't believe folks take a look at the link.  The GOP has created a political dynamic where many of their state house and state senate districts along Congressional districts demographics are so safe for the GOP any threat to an incumbent is from another Republican in a primary.

After the '64 elections the GOP was in a hole.  Nixon realized he needed to change the Electoral College political map paradigm.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 opened the door.  He went about it by changing "The Solid South" the Democrats had since the Civil War by beginning to flip Bourbon Democrats who were Democrats because they couldn't stomach being part of The Party of Lincoln for 100 years.  It worked, Nixon won in '68 and '72.  It's called Nixon's Southern Strategy.

After winning the nomination in '80, Reagan's first speech as the GOP candidate was at the Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi where he kicked off his "States Rights" agenda.  A continuation of Nixon's Southern Strategy.  In the Reagan years the GOP also began to line itself up with the Evangelical Movement and Roman Catholics who opposed abortion.  It's basically a different tact of the Southern Strategy on a national scale  and now abortion is part of the litmus test for any GOP candidate.  Sarah Palin used aborion when she was running and winning her first political election although that  office had nothing to do with abortion (Wasilla AK City Council) and she kept using it as she won the Alaskan governor's race.

When a party has chosen race (Southern Strategy) and abortion for over 6 election cycles you get a lot of candidates because they have rarely lost an election by being too extreme.

http://www.census.gov/mycd/#