Jump to content
Paulding.com
Sign in to follow this  
gpatt0n

Article: How we broke democracy

Recommended Posts

Gosh, it is news to me that anyone would think GD was the reason that Trump won.

 

pubby

You're one of the many, many reasons Clinton lost. :rofl:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're one of the many, many reasons Clinton lost. :rofl:

That's what pubby and some others here don't get...this election wasn't just a referendum on Hillary, but a revolt against the hate-filled Democratic Party and those who do it's dirty work. It was a rejection of pubby, Cain and others here who spread hate, slander their enemies, and lie to divide the American people.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They didn't know what had happened exactly, they thought one thing, said it and like Donald Trump, with his multitude of lies, doubled down again and again.

 

pubby

 

Bullchit!

 

Hillary knew enough to tell Chelsie the truth!

 

But not the American people

Edited by mach4
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bullchit!

 

Hillary knew enough to tell Chelsie the truth!

 

But not the American people

 

Ain't that the truth.... Continuing to ape that sad old rationalization, "they didn't know," is the clearest manifestation of living one's life in the political echo chamber.

 

- Jamie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ain't that the truth.... Continuing to ape that sad old rationalization, "they didn't know," is the clearest manifestation of living one's life in the political echo chamber.

 

- Jamie

 

If she had called it an act of terrorism - as she did 48 hours later- would that have given us a different outcome ? Which brings up the biggest 'IF' of all, if Ambassador Stevens had not gone to Benghazi as he was advised not to would he still be alive ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If she had called it an act of terrorism - as she did 48 hours later- would that have given us a different outcome ? Which brings up the biggest 'IF' of all, if Ambassador Stevens had not gone to Benghazi as he was advised not to would he still be alive ?

Had the State Department actually paid attention to the intelligence reports, would those people still be alive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had the State Department actually paid attention to the intelligence reports, would those people still be alive?

 

In country travel is at the sole discretion of the Ambassador, he was warned, he chose to ignore the warning. A fact you and your Republican friends chose to gloss over. It was a decision that cost him and three other American their lives.

May they rest in peace, which is unlikely as long as the Right can squeeze a few more political miles out of their unfortunate deaths.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In country travel is at the sole discretion of the Ambassador, he was warned, he chose to ignore the warning. A fact you and your Republican friends chose to gloss over. It was a decision that cost him and three other American their lives.

May they rest in peace, which is unlikely as long as the Right can squeeze a few more political miles out of their unfortunate deaths.

 

 

Not true.

 

515dU7WD38L._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

 

:nea:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Not true.

 

515dU7WD38L._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

 

:nea:

 

Kenneth R. Timmerman (born November 4, 1953) is a political writer and conservative activist who was the 2012 Republican nominee for U.S. Representative for the newly redrawn Maryland's 8th congressional district, facing the incumbent Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat.[1] Timmerman lost to Van Hollen in a landslide, 33% to 63%. In 2000, Timmerman was a candidate for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senator from Maryland. Timmerman is executive director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, an organization that works to support democratic movements in Iran. He authored Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson. Timmerman has also written on the spread of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. He is currently an Expert at Wikistrat.[2] He ran for Lieutenant Governor of Maryland on a ticket with businessman Charles Lollar in the 2014 Maryland gubernatorial election.[3][4] The Lollar/Timmerman ticket finished third in the Republican primary.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Timmerman

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Kenneth R. Timmerman (born November 4, 1953) is a political writer and conservative activist who was the 2012 Republican nominee for U.S. Representative for the newly redrawn Maryland's 8th congressional district, facing the incumbent Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat.[1] Timmerman lost to Van Hollen in a landslide, 33% to 63%. In 2000, Timmerman was a candidate for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senator from Maryland. Timmerman is executive director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, an organization that works to support democratic movements in Iran. He authored Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson. Timmerman has also written on the spread of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. He is currently an Expert at Wikistrat.[2] He ran for Lieutenant Governor of Maryland on a ticket with businessman Charles Lollar in the 2014 Maryland gubernatorial election.[3][4] The Lollar/Timmerman ticket finished third in the Republican primary.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Timmerman

 

 

 

I usually like to read a book before I form any opinions about it's veracity... but hey that's just me.

 

If I just read books by authors who I agree with, I would end up with a very narrow view of the world.

 

 

:rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In country travel is at the sole discretion of the Ambassador, he was warned, he chose to ignore the warning. A fact you and your Republican friends chose to gloss over. It was a decision that cost him and three other American their lives.

May they rest in peace, which is unlikely as long as the Right can squeeze a few more political miles out of their unfortunate deaths.

  • He traveled to Benghazi knowing full well that his physical and personnel security concerns had not been adequately addressed by the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security. Despite the security concerns, he traveled nonetheless due to personnel rotation in Benghazi and to re-establish contacts in Benghazi.
  • He left Benghazi on November 17, 2011, and returned as ambassador to Libya on September 10, 2012. In that intervening time, and in the six months prior to September 11, there had been 20 security incidents. Despite a CIA presence in Benghazi, Stevens was unaware of the evolution of the militias that subsequently killed him and his colleagues.

He addressed his security concerns to the State Dept. which ignored them. There were 20 security incidents reported to the State Dept. prior to the attack, yet State chose to ignore them. Why? He had personnel he was concerned about in Benghazi. So tell us why State chose to ignore everything?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know how it feels to have someone de friend you for your political belief....my own cousin did this to me with no words of warning just one day phoof de friended and blocked...and it hurt it hurt deep. I know alot of folks are upset about this election...although I did not vote for either one. It amazes me why we continue to fuss and fight..it won't change the outcome. Although I did'nt want Trump in office (I don't know why but this person scares me) all the talk about what he was (is) going to do goes against my grain as an American. BUT since I can't do anything about the election..I will suck it up and wait to fight again in 4 years....Also I will give Mr Trump time to prove himself. Anyway thats just my feelings about it...not that my opinion counts. Also I sure miss the old days of this site it was a fun place where we seemed to get along. So I hope someday it will be a great place to visit again.

I loved reading your response from A to Z. Yes, older times. And lots of insight & wisdom as well as battle zones for the pissed at heart. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I went to the polls this year the first thing I noticed was my lack of any choice . If the Country has not abandoned the two party system Paulding County certainly has. Either you cast your vote for a Republican, wasted your time and the voter waiting behind you to write in a candidate or you didn't vote at all. Is this because no Democrats live in Paulding, is this the will of the People or has voter restriction and gerrymandering made it such an improbable venture that no one outside the GOP will waste their time.

 

OPINION

NEIL BUCHANAN: ARE WE WITNESSING THE END OF DEMOCRACY?

 

... The Republicans' anti-democracy tactics, moreover, have not been limited to voter suppression efforts. There is, of course, the gerrymandered Republican majority in the House.

 

Think of it this way. So far, the Republicans have succeeded in making elections much more difficult for Democrats to win. Rather than an even playing field, Democrats have been running uphill. Now, we can expect that Trump and the Republicans will try to tilt the playing field even further, and they might make us carry anvils while we try to get to the top.

 

The reasons to fight are thus to prevent those election-rigging strategies from being adopted in the first place, and to win future elections even if we have to overcome all of the obstacles and disadvantages that the Republicans can impose on the majority of our country.

... If they can be stopped, we will still have a free country. If not, Trump and the Republicans will probably see the public relations value in continuing to go through the motions of holding elections, but the results will be no more in doubt than the 97 percent wins by dictators-for-life in countries that we like to think are politically beyond the pale.

http://www.newsweek.com/neil-buchanan-are-we-witnessing-end-democracy-524169

Edited by CitizenCain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I went to the polls this year the first thing I noticed was my lack of any choice . If the Country has not abandoned the two party system Paulding County certainly has. Either you cast your vote for a Republican, wasted your time and the voter waiting behind you to write in a candidate or you didn't vote at all. Is this because no Democrats live in Paulding, is this the will of the People or has voter restriction and gerrymandering made it such an improbable venture that no one outside the GOP will waste their time.

 

OPINION

NEIL BUCHANAN: ARE WE WITNESSING THE END OF DEMOCRACY?

 

... The Republicans' anti-democracy tactics, moreover, have not been limited to voter suppression efforts. There is, of course, the gerrymandered Republican majority in the House.

 

Think of it this way. So far, the Republicans have succeeded in making elections much more difficult for Democrats to win. Rather than an even playing field, Democrats have been running uphill. Now, we can expect that Trump and the Republicans will try to tilt the playing field even further, and they might make us carry anvils while we try to get to the top.

 

The reasons to fight are thus to prevent those election-rigging strategies from being adopted in the first place, and to win future elections even if we have to overcome all of the obstacles and disadvantages that the Republicans can impose on the majority of our country.

... If they can be stopped, we will still have a free country. If not, Trump and the Republicans will probably see the public relations value in continuing to go through the motions of holding elections, but the results will be no more in doubt than the 97 percent wins by dictators-for-life in countries that we like to think are politically beyond the pale.

http://www.newsweek.com/neil-buchanan-are-we-witnessing-end-democracy-524169

Two things:

 

1 - The author must not know the difference between a democracy and a republic. The U.S. is not a democracy.

 

2 - Are Democrats really so ignorant and gullible that they believe scare tactic garbage like this article? Never mind, I forgot that you posted it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things:

 

1 - The author must not know the difference between a democracy and a republic. The U.S. is not a democracy.

 

2 - Are Democrats really so ignorant and gullible that they believe scare tactic garbage like this article? Never mind, I forgot that you posted it.

 

se·man·tics
səˈman(t)iks/
noun
  1. the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.
    • the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.
      plural noun: semantics
      "such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff"

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

If you are going to insist on playing this petty, childish game of semantics and stop showing your ignorance you might try understanding the use of the word and the context in which it's used.

 

de·moc·ra·cy
dəˈmäkrəsē/
noun
  1. a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
    "capitalism and democracy are ascendant in the third world"
    synonyms: representative government, elective government;
    self-government, government by the people;
    "freedom of speech is essential to democracy"
    • a state governed by a democracy.
      plural noun: democracies
      "a multiparty democracy"
    • control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.
      "the intended extension of industrial democracy"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

se·man·tics
səˈman(t)iks/
noun
  1. the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.
    • the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.
      plural noun: semantics
      "such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff"

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

If you are going to insist on playing this petty, childish game of semantics and stop showing your ignorance you might try understanding the use of the word and the context in which it's used.

 

de·moc·ra·cy
dəˈmäkrəsē/
noun
  1. a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
    "capitalism and democracy are ascendant in the third world"
    synonyms: representative government, elective government;
    self-government, government by the people;
    "freedom of speech is essential to democracy"
    • a state governed by a democracy.
      plural noun: democracies
      "a multiparty democracy"
    • control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.
      "the intended extension of industrial democracy"

 

I'm quite certain that I have a better understanding of these two terms than you, and there is a clear difference in the context of the article you posted.

 

The assertion that Trump and the Republicans will destroy "democracy" is beyond ridiculous! Especially given the fact that the Democrats are the ones who do the bulk of cheating in the elections, as well as own the news media.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm quite certain that I have a better understanding of these two terms than you, and there is a clear difference in the context of the article you posted.

 

The assertion that Trump and the Republicans will destroy "democracy" is beyond ridiculous! Especially given the fact that the Democrats are the ones who do the bulk of cheating in the elections, as well as own the news media.

 

Well, Trump will make America Great Again, after the inexperienced, arrogant, narcissistic, self serving, first black president did all he could to Fundamentally Change America. I hope the change Trump brings will be in the best interest of America and not Globalization.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm quite certain that I have a better understanding of these two terms than you, and there is a clear difference in the context of the article you posted.

 

The assertion that Trump and the Republicans will destroy "democracy" is beyond ridiculous! Especially given the fact that the Democrats are the ones who do the bulk of cheating in the elections, as well as own the news media.

I will have to take issue with this because a republic is one of many forms of democracy. To distinguish between the two for the purpose of arguing is just splitting hairs. We are a representative government of a democratic process. Everyone understands that we don't directly decide every question like a pure democracy, but everyone also understands we have a democratic process to decide all questions. It is a common thing that has been said about our country since the 18th century so I don't see any reason to split hairs over the term. Arguing that we aren't a democracy is like saying the sky isn't blue because Carolina Blue is not the same color of "blue" most people think of when they hear the word "blue." And what kind of "context" are you talking about? The article doesn't make any distinction whatsoever between a republic and a democracy. It an opinion piece that warns of Trump being dangerous to our values as a nation. He is a law professor so I'm willing to be he knows a bit more about this than you do. Whether he is right or not is a completely different question, but I will bet he does know more than you do about this.

 

Then you made the accusation of a "fact" that one party "cheats" more than the other, an unsubstantiated claim.

 

I'm sure you will get the last word in. You're right. As always.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I went to the polls this year the first thing I noticed was my lack of any choice . If the Country has not abandoned the two party system Paulding County certainly has. Either you cast your vote for a Republican, wasted your time and the voter waiting behind you to write in a candidate or you didn't vote at all. Is this because no Democrats live in Paulding, is this the will of the People or has voter restriction and gerrymandering made it such an improbable venture that no one outside the GOP will waste their time.

 

OPINION

NEIL BUCHANAN: ARE WE WITNESSING THE END OF DEMOCRACY?

 

... The Republicans' anti-democracy tactics, moreover, have not been limited to voter suppression efforts. There is, of course, the gerrymandered Republican majority in the House.

 

Think of it this way. So far, the Republicans have succeeded in making elections much more difficult for Democrats to win. Rather than an even playing field, Democrats have been running uphill. Now, we can expect that Trump and the Republicans will try to tilt the playing field even further, and they might make us carry anvils while we try to get to the top.

 

The reasons to fight are thus to prevent those election-rigging strategies from being adopted in the first place, and to win future elections even if we have to overcome all of the obstacles and disadvantages that the Republicans can impose on the majority of our country.

... If they can be stopped, we will still have a free country. If not, Trump and the Republicans will probably see the public relations value in continuing to go through the motions of holding elections, but the results will be no more in doubt than the 97 percent wins by dictators-for-life in countries that we like to think are politically beyond the pale.

http://www.newsweek.com/neil-buchanan-are-we-witnessing-end-democracy-524169

 

Paulding was "red" when we moved here and I suspect it will be for a while longer. It will take another 20 years for the demographic to change but it will change, just like it will in all of GA soon.

 

​The article makes some good points and I agree with some of it but disagree on others. We'll see.

 

​You're just raising your blood pressure. Are you sure you want to continue arguing over this stuff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, Trump will make America Great Again, after the inexperienced, arrogant, narcissistic, self serving, first black president did all he could to Fundamentally Change America. I hope the change Trump brings will be in the best interest of America and not Globalization.

 

You're against Paulding's airport, you're against free international trade are you against progress in general or is it change of any kind scares you ?

 

 

Paulding was "red" when we moved here and I suspect it will be for a while longer. It will take another 20 years for the demographic to change but it will change, just like it will in all of GA soon.

 

​The article makes some good points and I agree with some of it but disagree on others. We'll see.

 

​You're just raising your blood pressure. Are you sure you want to continue arguing over this stuff?

 

Who's arguing ? I just figure after eight years of Obama bashing I'm due my turn, that and the direction this country is headed is both sad and frightening. And to be honest right now criticizing Republicans is like shooting goldfish in a barrel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will have to take issue with this because a republic is one of many forms of democracy. To distinguish between the two for the purpose of arguing is just splitting hairs. We are a representative government of a democratic process. Everyone understands that we don't directly decide every question like a pure democracy, but everyone also understands we have a democratic process to decide all questions. It is a common thing that has been said about our country since the 18th century so I don't see any reason to split hairs over the term. Arguing that we aren't a democracy is like saying the sky isn't blue because Carolina Blue is not the same color of "blue" most people think of when they hear the word "blue." And what kind of "context" are you talking about? The article doesn't make any distinction whatsoever between a republic and a democracy. It an opinion piece that warns of Trump being dangerous to our values as a nation. He is a law professor so I'm willing to be he knows a bit more about this than you do. Whether he is right or not is a completely different question, but I will bet he does know more than you do about this.

 

Then you made the accusation of a "fact" that one party "cheats" more than the other, an unsubstantiated claim.

 

I'm sure you will get the last word in. You're right. As always.

"Getting the last word in" and responding to a discussion can be two very different things. But I did notice you had to get your insult in.

 

The context I referred to is in the assertions the author made that Trump and the Republicans will destroy the democracy. The fact that we are a republic puts certain safeguards into place that prevents the mob rule that would be necessary to do what the author is trying to scare everyone with.

 

The only way to bypass said safeguards would be to declare marshal law, which would never happen except in case of a completely unprecedented tragedy, or to stack the SCOTUS with justices who would basically rewrite the constitution from the bench. The latter is what Hillary wanted to do, and yes that was very evident from the statements she made and the leaked e-mails.

 

As to voter suppression efforts or voter manipulation...neither side is innocent, but there are far more documented cases of the left trying to do it. Black Panthers standing at the polls, Democrats busing in people and paying them to vote a certain way, Dems rounding up homeless people to vote and giving them food or money to vote a certain way, etc. If you're not aware of this. you might want to fire up a search engine and look around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Getting the last word in" and responding to a discussion can be two very different things. But I did notice you had to get your insult in.

 

The context I referred to is in the assertions the author made that Trump and the Republicans will destroy the democracy. The fact that we are a republic puts certain safeguards into place that prevents the mob rule that would be necessary to do what the author is trying to scare everyone with.

 

The only way to bypass said safeguards would be to declare marshal law, which would never happen except in case of a completely unprecedented tragedy, or to stack the SCOTUS with justices who would basically rewrite the constitution from the bench. The latter is what Hillary wanted to do, and yes that was very evident from the statements she made and the leaked e-mails.

 

As to voter suppression efforts or voter manipulation...neither side is innocent, but there are far more documented cases of the left trying to do it. Black Panthers standing at the polls, Democrats busing in people and paying them to vote a certain way, Dems rounding up homeless people to vote and giving them food or money to vote a certain way, etc. If you're not aware of this. you might want to fire up a search engine and look around.

You missed the entire point.

 

It's Martial Law, not marshal law.

 

​Anything else I say is​ not going to matter. You're right. Always are.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed the entire point.

 

It's Martial Law, not marshal law.

 

​Anything else I say is​ not going to matter. You're right. Always are.

 

 

I see that pubby's troll has adopted pubby's tactics (always right, blah blah blah).

 

Sorry about the misspell, I'm responding in-between putting brakes on my truck.

 

But since you couldn't refute my point, I will assume you're out of ammo.

 

Time for a test drive. Ciao

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm sure you will get the last word in. You're right. As always.

 

Dunno about "always" right.

 

But he's right way more often than he's wrong.

 

Unlike the few sniveling libs around here who wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the butt.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that pubby's troll has adopted pubby's tactics (always right, blah blah blah).

 

Sorry about the misspell, I'm responding in-between putting brakes on my truck.

 

But since you couldn't refute my point, I will assume you're out of ammo.

 

Time for a test drive. Ciao

 

If I were you or your buddy Glass Dog I might say something like you just had your butt handed to you. But I won't because I am above such childish immature comments. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Dunno about "always" right.

 

But he's right way more often than he's wrong.

 

Unlike the few sniveling libs around here who wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the butt.

 

There's Chester Glassdogs now ! :rofl:

 

 

* I crack me up. ( I'll be here all night, don't forget to tip your waiter and waitress )

Edited by CitizenCain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Getting the last word in" and responding to a discussion can be two very different things. But I did notice you had to get your insult in.

 

The context I referred to is in the assertions the author made that Trump and the Republicans will destroy the democracy. The fact that we are a republic puts certain safeguards into place that prevents the mob rule that would be necessary to do what the author is trying to scare everyone with.

 

The only way to bypass said safeguards would be to declare marshal law, which would never happen except in case of a completely unprecedented tragedy, or to stack the SCOTUS with justices who would basically rewrite the constitution from the bench. The latter is what Hillary wanted to do, and yes that was very evident from the statements she made and the leaked e-mails.

 

As to voter suppression efforts or voter manipulation...neither side is innocent, but there are far more documented cases of the left trying to do it. Black Panthers standing at the polls, Democrats busing in people and paying them to vote a certain way, Dems rounding up homeless people to vote and giving them food or money to vote a certain way, etc. If you're not aware of this. you might want to fire up a search engine and look around.

The thing that you fail to remember is that the GOP is not the GOP of history but has been infiltrated by a host of folks who are extreme fundamentalists - as in religious fundamentalists.

 

I know that our institutions are under attack as the approval ratings for everything from the congress to the press to higher education, public education, foreign affairs, law enforcement and even the military have dropped ... some more than others but some quite dramatically.

 

We are then testing the weakened institutions with religious fundamentalism tied to political involvement that I've been following since the 1960s but has been going on since the days of Father McLaughlin.

 

The situation has already evolved to the point that to win congress, democrats will need 58 percent of all the votes cast for congress (yes, GD, the system is rigged) up from about 55 percent the last election. Because voter suppression is the best tool the republicans have and negativity is the best to make the majority want to turn off politics, give up and not vote ... that is the probable path.

 

One of the key things we do know is that these folks, most of which are prime examples of what are called the alt-right, are inclined toward strong man autocratic rule that exploits hate, fear and division to eke their way into power and hope to use that power for the greater glory of God their own enrichment.

 

Because of the 'demographic bomb' that is in place in the US, they knew they had a deadline and the victory of Barack Obama in 2008 and again in 2012 has made the ever more desperate. They know that the rules that got us here will in the future work ever more against them and they know that their best bet in maintaining power is to stop playing the game and instead, hammer down the populace.

 

The election of Donald Trump was a critical element to their success and frankly, given the state of demographics - I mean the Donald is losing by more than 2 million votes overall - it is obvious that the stakes were considered so high that it is certain there was a great incentive to cheat.

 

That there are enough people, including all the Trump voters out there who bought his line that the election was being rigged, to cast a shadow on the institution of elections in the fifty states.

 

Remember all institutions are under assault so why would the institution that we rely on to conduct elections and count the results be immune.

 

Bottom line folks, what is broken about democracy is the distrust that has been injected into the system from the days when Newt was a Bankbencher in congress through the contract for America that welshed on term limits (just as trump will) to the sellouts that Trump will make to the ultra wealthy (they just got a lot richer) to the sellout of the 'white middle class' ... who will be told it was those Muslims, Mexicans and others of color who are responsible for their failure.

 

Remember, divide and conquer is a proven formula that has worked for centuries ... so, bring on some more division GD ... by saying I'm the guy doing the dividing.

 

pubby

 

PS: You should look up the meaning of the big lie sometime ... but on second thought, you're so much a part of it, you probably already know will employ it yet again ... in your reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If I were you or your buddy Glass Dog I might say something like you just had your butt handed to you. But I won't because I am above such childish immature comments. <_<

If you consider an ad hominem with absolutely no substance attached to it handing one's butt to them, then you'd best stay away from any serious debating.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that you fail to remember is that the GOP is not the GOP of history but has been infiltrated by a host of folks who are extreme fundamentalists - as in religious fundamentalists.

 

I know that our institutions are under attack as the approval ratings for everything from the congress to the press to higher education, public education, foreign affairs, law enforcement and even the military have dropped ... some more than others but some quite dramatically.

 

We are then testing the weakened institutions with religious fundamentalism tied to political involvement that I've been following since the 1960s but has been going on since the days of Father McLaughlin.

 

The situation has already evolved to the point that to win congress, democrats will need 58 percent of all the votes cast for congress (yes, GD, the system is rigged) up from about 55 percent the last election. Because voter suppression is the best tool the republicans have and negativity is the best to make the majority want to turn off politics, give up and not vote ... that is the probable path.

 

One of the key things we do know is that these folks, most of which are prime examples of what are called the alt-right, are inclined toward strong man autocratic rule that exploits hate, fear and division to eke their way into power and hope to use that power for the greater glory of God their own enrichment.

 

Because of the 'demographic bomb' that is in place in the US, they knew they had a deadline and the victory of Barack Obama in 2008 and again in 2012 has made the ever more desperate. They know that the rules that got us here will in the future work ever more against them and they know that their best bet in maintaining power is to stop playing the game and instead, hammer down the populace.

 

The election of Donald Trump was a critical element to their success and frankly, given the state of demographics - I mean the Donald is losing by more than 2 million votes overall - it is obvious that the stakes were considered so high that it is certain there was a great incentive to cheat.

 

That there are enough people, including all the Trump voters out there who bought his line that the election was being rigged, to cast a shadow on the institution of elections in the fifty states.

 

Remember all institutions are under assault so why would the institution that we rely on to conduct elections and count the results be immune.

 

Bottom line folks, what is broken about democracy is the distrust that has been injected into the system from the days when Newt was a Bankbencher in congress through the contract for America that welshed on term limits (just as trump will) to the sellouts that Trump will make to the ultra wealthy (they just got a lot richer) to the sellout of the 'white middle class' ... who will be told it was those Muslims, Mexicans and others of color who are responsible for their failure.

 

Remember, divide and conquer is a proven formula that has worked for centuries ... so, bring on some more division GD ... by saying I'm the guy doing the dividing.

 

pubby

 

PS: You should look up the meaning of the big lie sometime ... but on second thought, you're so much a part of it, you probably already know will employ it yet again ... in your reply.

pubby

If the absentee and military votes were counted, I doubt Hillary would win the popular vote. But regardless...what this really means is that the electoral college system our founders put in place as a safeguard worked as it's supposed to. And this is critical to my point above about us being a republic; the majority (mob) doesn't rule.

 

I'm glad you admit to trying to divide Americans. You're being a loyal Democrat and following their marching orders. The leadership of the Democrats know that they cannot win by being truthful or forthcoming, so they lie and divide. Yes, the strategy comes from the top, and you and other's who bow to the donkey follow suit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that pubby's troll has adopted pubby's tactics (always right, blah blah blah).

 

Sorry about the misspell, I'm responding in-between putting brakes on my truck.

 

But since you couldn't refute my point, I will assume you're out of ammo.

 

Time for a test drive. Ciao

I have no idea what you mean by "pubby's troll" but I'm sure it is intended as some sort of insult.

 

​No, that's not a misspell but not knowing a completely different term and its meaning.

 

​I'm not interested in refuting your point because it doesn't matter. You were arguing about democracy vs republic and never said a word about any safeguards. Not one word. I pointed out that arguing between the two is not really valid and you came back with "safeguards" something you never even mentioned originally. The point is that I never even "refuted" any of your "points" the first time because I never engaged the argument.

 

Look elsewhere to argue because I'm not interested.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea what you mean by "pubby's troll" but I'm sure it is intended as some sort of insult.

 

​No, that's not a misspell but not knowing a completely different term and its meaning.

 

​I'm not interested in refuting your point because it doesn't matter. You were arguing about democracy vs republic and never said a word about any safeguards. Not one word. I pointed out that arguing between the two is not really valid and you came back with "safeguards" something you never even mentioned originally. The point is that I never even "refuted" any of your "points" the first time because I never engaged the argument.

 

Look elsewhere to argue because I'm not interested.

 

It is a misspell.

 

And you can't refute my point.

 

You just want to be right, but this time you aren't. I laid out my reasoning above and it's consistent with the constitution. If we were a pure democracy, Hillary might have won. That's why we're a republic, because our founders saw the danger in mob rule.

I have it 80/20 stercus tauri .

 

1632334-ring_girl.jpg

Your scoring is as fake as her....

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a misspell.

 

And you can't refute my point.

 

You just want to be right, but this time you aren't. I laid out my reasoning above and it's consistent with the constitution. If we were a pure democracy, Hillary might have won. That's why we're a republic, because our founders saw the danger in mob rule.

Your scoring is as fake as her....

 

:)

 

b34.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

b34.jpg

Why would I be butthurt? The election went as I wanted (Hillary losing).

 

You're the one who posts ten crybaby articles every day. I'm having quite the good time shooting you down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, here's the thing. I don't have a need to "refute [your] point." If someone wants to believe something, it is not difference to me one way or the other. My world is too big to engage in sparring over things that are just not important. In this case, you tried to make an issue over our nation being a republic and not a democracy. That was your point and that is what your targeted. You did not in any way saying anything about "safeguards." But honestly, that's fine. It doesn't matter to me either way. I know what you said and you know what your said. Everyone knows what you said. Doesn't matter to anyone except you. My world goes on. I just made a point about the whole "we're a republic and not a democracy" and you see it as some political contest of mega proportions.

 

​Obviously you see the world as an eternal struggle between Good and Evil, with your views being The Good and everyone else is wrong, and thus, The Evil. You have an insatiable desire to overrun another's thinking with your own. You sound just like the Taliban, the Christian "missionaries" in the New World, the Irish Republican Army, the Segregationists, etc. Now I know you don't believe any of what I'm saying and that is perfectly fine with me. I don't have a need to convince anyone that my ideas are better than another.

 

It is a misspell.

And you can't refute my point.

You just want to be right, but this time you aren't. I laid out my reasoning above and it's consistent with the constitution. If we were a pure democracy, Hillary might have won. That's why we're a republic, because our founders saw the danger in mob rule.


Your scoring is as fake as her....

:)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, here's the thing. I don't have a need to "refute [your] point." If someone wants to believe something, it is not difference to me one way or the other. My world is too big to engage in sparring over things that are just not important. In this case, you tried to make an issue over our nation being a republic and not a democracy. That was your point and that is what your targeted. You did not in any way saying anything about "safeguards." But honestly, that's fine. It doesn't matter to me either way. I know what you said and you know what your said. Everyone knows what you said. Doesn't matter to anyone except you. My world goes on. I just made a point about the whole "we're a republic and not a democracy" and you see it as some political contest of mega proportions.

 

​Obviously you see the world as an eternal struggle between Good and Evil, with your views being The Good and everyone else is wrong, and thus, The Evil. You have an insatiable desire to overrun another's thinking with your own. You sound just like the Taliban, the Christian "missionaries" in the New World, the Irish Republican Army, the Segregationists, etc. Now I know you don't believe any of what I'm saying and that is perfectly fine with me. I don't have a need to convince anyone that my ideas are better than another.

 

 

 

Post #61

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, here's the thing. I don't have a need to "refute [your] point." If someone wants to believe something, it is not difference to me one way or the other. My world is too big to engage in sparring over things that are just not important. In this case, you tried to make an issue over our nation being a republic and not a democracy. That was your point and that is what your targeted. You did not in any way saying anything about "safeguards." But honestly, that's fine. It doesn't matter to me either way. I know what you said and you know what your said. Everyone knows what you said. Doesn't matter to anyone except you. My world goes on. I just made a point about the whole "we're a republic and not a democracy" and you see it as some political contest of mega proportions.

 

​Obviously you see the world as an eternal struggle between Good and Evil, with your views being The Good and everyone else is wrong, and thus, The Evil. You have an insatiable desire to overrun another's thinking with your own. You sound just like the Taliban, the Christian "missionaries" in the New World, the Irish Republican Army, the Segregationists, etc. Now I know you don't believe any of what I'm saying and that is perfectly fine with me. I don't have a need to convince anyone that my ideas are better than another.

 

 

That's because he's Right and because the Right is always Right he can't be wrong. Now back to the topic.

 

The power that gerrymandering has brought to Republicans

 

How do conservative Republicans maintain so much power in the House, even though Americans reelected a liberal president and polls show that the GOP suffers from high disapproval ratings?

Salon editor David Daley’s punchy, though overstated, new book lays the blame for Republican power in the House on partisan gerrymandering, the byzantine process through which state legislatures draw district lines to favor incumbents from one party.

While the term “gerrymander” has been around since the early years of the republic, computer technology and big money have allowed governors and legislatures to perfect the process in ways that have never before been imagined, according to Daley. The same technology that allows Amazon to figure out who buys what in any home on a given block now allows party officials to do the same with elections.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-power-that-gerrymandering-has-brought-to-republicans/2016/06/17/045264ae-2903-11e6-ae4a-3cdd5fe74204_story.html?utm_term=.c1b710f35f8d

Edited by CitizenCain
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're against Paulding's airport, you're against free international trade are you against progress in general or is it change of any kind scares you ?

 

 

 

Yep, wanna know what I support? Not that I need your approval, but responsible government spending, programs and agreements that benefit the American People. Small Business, small government, it's the heart beat of America.

 

BTW, nothing is "free", absolutely nothing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, wanna know what I support? Not that I need your approval, but responsible government spending, programs and agreements that benefit the American People. Small Business, small government, it's the heart beat of America.

 

BTW, nothing is "free", absolutely nothing.

What he supports is big government, big spending (especially on government handouts), and taxing the sheeze out of the rich and businesses to pay for the big spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...