Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mugtang

Poll: If the election were held today

2020 Election  

45 members have voted

  1. 1. Who would you vote for right now?

    • Democratic Nominee
      16
    • Trump
      16
    • 3rd Party
      11
    • Not going to vote
      2


Recommended Posts

A lame duck president would be in the best position to at least initiate changes to Medicare and SS. However, that party wouldn’t have a chance in the ensuing election. 

If Trump gets re-elected I think we will see some dramatic changes some people aren’t going to like, and not necessarily to Medicare and to SS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, modestobulldog said:

Any candidate who would not accept foreign information is a fool. Our country is stronger with foreign influence, it is up to the media and the American voter to sort the wheat from the chaff.

No collusion, no collusion, no collusion! Y'know what, I could actually go for some light collusion right about now. :rolleyes:

Further, the Chair of the FEC outright stated this week that doing what you suggest is a +++++ing crime.

Quote

Federal Election Commission Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub released a statement Thursday making clear that candidates for public office may not receive help from a foreign government, in what appeared to be a warning to President Trump, who said he would consider taking information about an opponent from another country.

Tweeting her statement, Weintraub wrote, “I would not have thought that I needed to say this.”

The head of the agency responsible for campaign finance laws clarified that any campaign that accepts help from a foreign government “risks being on the wrong end of a federal investigation.”

“Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office,” Weintraub wrote. “It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election. This is not a novel concept.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fec-chairwoman-warns-candidates-not-to-accept-help-from-foreign-governments/2019/06/13/fb8a7bfc-8e32-11e9-8f69-a2795fca3343_story.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, retrofade said:

No collusion, no collusion, no collusion! Y'know what, I could actually go for some light collusion right about now. :rolleyes:

Further, the Chair of the FEC outright stated this week that doing what you suggest is a +++++ing crime.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fec-chairwoman-warns-candidates-not-to-accept-help-from-foreign-governments/2019/06/13/fb8a7bfc-8e32-11e9-8f69-a2795fca3343_story.html

Your TDS caused you to miss the following from your linked article:

Weintraub’s statement, however, did not clear up the question of whether information is a thing of value, an issue Mueller wrote was difficult to resolve.

The warning appears more of a partisan jab given the FEC’s inability to fully enforce election laws in the past decade.

Just so everyone is clear, it is ok to pay for and receive foreign source rubbish as long as funds are laundered a couple times.  Not only is that paid info valuable for selected leaking to "news" organizations, it is perfect for FISA warrants and government faciltated spying on the opposition candidate and his organization.

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2019 at 2:43 PM, Orange said:

This is suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch bullshit.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/nov/29/donald-trump/donald-trump-falsely-says-family-separations-were-/

Despite President Donald Trump’s repeated claims that the Obama administration separated immigrant children from their parents at the border the same way the Trump administration did, the facts remain unchanged: that’s not true.

Family separations under the Obama administration did happen, but immigration experts say they were relatively rare; under Trump’s administration they were the systematic result of a policy to prosecute all immigrants who crossed illegally into the United States.

So it was because the Trump admin actually ENFORCED the EXISTING laws and the Obama admin didn't. Thanks for clearing that up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, modestobulldog said:

Your TDS caused you to miss the following from your linked article:

Weintraub’s statement, however, did not clear up the question of whether information is a thing of value, an issue Mueller wrote was difficult to resolve.

The warning appears more of a partisan jab given the FEC’s inability to fully enforce election laws in the past decade.

Just so everyone is clear, it is ok to pay for and receive foreign source rubbish as long as funds are laundered a couple times.  Not only is that paid info valuable for selected leaking to "news" organizations, it is perfect for FISA warrants and government faciltated spying on the opposition candidate and his organization.

Is the Steele dossier the same as getting knowingly stolen info from a foreign government though? No it's not. And even if it was "the same" and it is wrong to do, then that makes the Trump campaign wrong as well. So what are you defending besides wrongdoing here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, toonkee said:

Is the Steele dossier the same as getting knowingly stolen info from a foreign government though? No it's not. And even if it was "the same" and it is wrong to do, then that makes the Trump campaign wrong as well. So what are you defending besides wrongdoing here?

Truth is paramount.

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/15/2019 at 3:58 PM, SleepingGiantsFan said:

SHOW THE VOTES! SHOW THE VOTES! SHOW THE VOTES!

Some continued Trump supporters are as obvious as the back of your hand but I find it very surprising that as many posters will vote for Trump regardless of who runs against him as those of us who will vote for the Democrat regardless of who it is. (And, yeah, in my case that means even Warren or Bernie.)

That’s exactly why Trump will always poll lower than reality because some voters are afraid to tell anyone they’ll vote Trump, even on the phone to a pollster. They see how badly people have been targeted and criticized, but they’ll express it if no one else can know they voted that way. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rebelbacker said:

So it was because the Trump admin actually ENFORCED the EXISTING laws and the Obama admin didn't. Thanks for clearing that up. 

On this Father's Day...

...We still don't know exactly how many children have been separated from their moms and dads at the US-Mexico border. While Trump made a big show of ending the so-called "zero tolerance" policy one year ago, "separations are still taking place," the NYT's Caitlin Dickerson told me on Sunday. There are "no rules, even to this day."
→ The main point: Dickerson said "there's a lot that we don't know" about family separations and migrant detention facilities. She said "faulty data" is one of the challenges of the beat...
→ Dickerson's "The Weekly" story, "The Youngest Known Child Separated From His Family at the U.S. Border Under Trump," aired Sunday night on FX. Her story is in print on Monday. This separation happened when the baby was just four months old. Dickerson said "he spent five months separated from his parents. He's almost two now, and he's still not able to walk on his own, or to speak."
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, sactowndog said:

On this Father's Day...

...We still don't know exactly how many children have been separated from their moms and dads at the US-Mexico border. While Trump made a big show of ending the so-called "zero tolerance" policy one year ago, "separations are still taking place," the NYT's Caitlin Dickerson told me on Sunday. There are "no rules, even to this day."
→ The main point: Dickerson said "there's a lot that we don't know" about family separations and migrant detention facilities. She said "faulty data" is one of the challenges of the beat...
→ Dickerson's "The Weekly" story, "The Youngest Known Child Separated From His Family at the U.S. Border Under Trump," aired Sunday night on FX. Her story is in print on Monday. This separation happened when the baby was just four months old. Dickerson said "he spent five months separated from his parents. He's almost two now, and he's still not able to walk on his own, or to speak."
 

Why don’t you find out how many were separated during Obama’s era, and please get back to us with Obama outrage. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, sactowndog said:

On this Father's Day...

...We still don't know exactly how many children have been separated from their moms and dads at the US-Mexico border. While Trump made a big show of ending the so-called "zero tolerance" policy one year ago, "separations are still taking place," the NYT's Caitlin Dickerson told me on Sunday. There are "no rules, even to this day."
→ The main point: Dickerson said "there's a lot that we don't know" about family separations and migrant detention facilities. She said "faulty data" is one of the challenges of the beat...
→ Dickerson's "The Weekly" story, "The Youngest Known Child Separated From His Family at the U.S. Border Under Trump," aired Sunday night on FX. Her story is in print on Monday. This separation happened when the baby was just four months old. Dickerson said "he spent five months separated from his parents. He's almost two now, and he's still not able to walk on his own, or to speak."
 

 

3 hours ago, Nevada Convert said:

Why don’t you find out how many were separated during Obama’s era, and please get back to us with Obama outrage. 

Also, Sacto is willfully ignoring family fraud of many coming across the border.  

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, modestobulldog said:

 

Also, Sacto is willfully ignoring family fraud of many coming across the border.  

No not at all.  Unlike Trumpers like you I distinguish between having a sound immigration policy and destroying children as a means to an end.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Rebelbacker said:

So it was because the Trump admin actually ENFORCED the EXISTING laws and the Obama admin didn't. Thanks for clearing that up. 

Just because rules exist doesn't mean they need to be universally enforced at all times.  This is like saying anytime a cop gives a warning, he's a criminal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Nevada Convert said:

That’s exactly why Trump will always poll lower than reality because some voters are afraid to tell anyone they’ll vote Trump, even on the phone to a pollster. They see how badly people have been targeted and criticized, but they’ll express it if no one else can know they voted that way. 

You might be spot on on this.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

No not at all.  Unlike Trumpers like you I distinguish between having a sound immigration policy and destroying children as a means to an end.   

Who on this board is against a sound immigration policy?

I've already pointed out your hypocrisy about caring for children...carry on.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pokebball said:

You might be spot on on this.

If it's no longer possible in polite company to express support for a given political candidate, maybe you should analyze the horrific nature of that candidate instead of whining about polite company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Orange said:

Just because rules exist doesn't mean they need to be universally enforced at all times.  This is like saying anytime a cop gives a warning, he's a criminal.

If a cop gave a warning to a fraudulent parent who has kidnapped a child, it would be criminal.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, pokebball said:

If a cop gave a warning to a fraudulent parent who has kidnapped a child, it would be criminal.

Indeed, which is why the Obama administration had a POLICY of separating the child from the dangerous, fraudulent "parents" at that time if they could conclusively determine that this was the case.  Otherwise, they didn't needlessly destroy the well-being of a child by enforcing a law that was never meant to have that consequence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Orange said:

If it's no longer possible in polite company to express support for a given political candidate, maybe you should analyze the horrific nature of that candidate instead of whining about polite company.

OK Stalin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Orange said:

If it's no longer possible in polite company to express support for a given political candidate, maybe you should analyze the horrific nature of that candidate instead of whining about polite company.

Personally, I have never answered a pollster, on the phone or in person.  It's none of their business.

Additionally, society is what has changed.  More folks acting like you than there use to be.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...