CRed05 Posted March 25, 2019 Report Share Posted March 25, 2019 Why do people keep calling him "Muller" when it's Mueller? Seems to be the only thing both sides agree on...how to incorrectly pronounce that name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 25, 2019 Report Share Posted March 25, 2019 (edited) It is frustrating to see the left leverage these bullshit tactics more and more, but there's no denying that all they're doing is taking pages out of the Rupert Murdoch playbook. Who himself took pages out of the Hearst and Pulitzer handbook on yellow journalism. Remember those two idiots managed to get the US involved in the spanish American war just through their newspapers. Both were democrats, but you have to remember that the democrats were the leading conservative party at the time (1880s-1890s). The connection between conservative journalism and "fake news" in the US is over 100 years old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_Spanish%E2%80%93American_War Yellow or Tabloid Journalism is the reason why they teach critical reading and reasoning in public schools. It also lead to a standardization of a journalism code of ethics as maintained by the Society of Professional Journalists. You know who holds the media accountable? the media. If the New York Times screws up, all the other reputable papers report on it and so on. They are businesses and a failing in the competitor means more market share and readers for those that report on it. It's a self regulating industry which means you can't make "fake news" illegal, but you can call it out when you see it. For those advocates of the free market, this is how a free market really works since government can't intervene on the basis of published subject matter since it is protected by the first amendment. You know who exploits this? tabloids and the internet. Since they are not illegal and can basically print or distribute anything, and since most reputable papers will usually stick to their lane of high level competitors, there isn't much stopping a someone from saying Hillary is running a human trafficking ring out of a pizza place in DC or that the Times is "Fake News" without proof because most Americans aren't going to fact check it themselves or even remember most of their critical reading lessons from 5th grade. For those who are always clamoring on about personal responsibility, this is how it looks without government intervention. Each individual is personally responsible for how informed they choose to be, and unfortunately if you are falling prey to Alex Jones and calling the NYT or WSJ fake news, you just aren't being responsible. Edited March 25, 2019 by Geeto67 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace1647545504 Posted March 25, 2019 Report Share Posted March 25, 2019 The funny thing about debates is they very very very very seldom changes either sides views. Sometimes it get personal,i too am guilty of this, and I wish it wouldn't. I am sure if we all got together we'd all get along as what brings us together is our love of cars. And I am sure some of you think I'm a dick ..I can be (ask my wife) but overall a pretty nice guy as I am sure we all are. Have a good day all mace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 25, 2019 Report Share Posted March 25, 2019 The funny thing about debates is they very very very very seldom changes either sides views. Change isn't instant. People's minds can change but they have to be open to change. re-frame your expectations so that rather than expecting people to come around to your point of view, you are able provide them with as much information as to your position as possible. And if they ask the hard questions about your position, and you don't know the answer, be ready to find out. Personally I am always looking for an informed, and well thought out view point on any issue just to make sure I am seeing all sides that I can. for me political discourse is more about how x person got to the conclusion rather than the actual end result. I don't always get that here, but it is nice to know how other's think. Traditional debates, like actual competition debates, are not meant to change either of the advocates minds, they are meant to inform the audience (or judges in competition) as to the nature of the different sides of an issue through advocacy of that position and addressing it's flaws. It's then up to the audience. What happens here isn't really "debate", but more of an informal discussion that degenerates into a verbal street fight. Sometimes it get personal,i too am guilty of this, and I wish it wouldn't. So don't take it personal. Political position shouldn't be a rigid belief that you need to hold tightly to, it should be something that evolves and develops over time as your viewpoint on life changes. It's not an insult to you if people disagree with you, and def not about political subject matter which is often a collections of scraps from 100 different places. It's not weakness to be open minded toward a different political perspective, and it's not a challenge to you, your intelligence, or your moral beliefs when someone disagrees and brings new information to the table. I am sure if we all got together we'd all get along as what brings us together is our love of cars. And I am sure some of you think I'm a dick ..I can be (ask my wife) but overall a pretty nice guy as I am sure we all are. Have a good day all We do all get together, it's called Cars and Coffee and it happens sat morning at lenox. I don't think anybody here really thinks someone else is a dick IRL, if they did this place would be just a pulsing nerve of FOMO and insecurity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeitgeist57 Posted March 25, 2019 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2019 If we boil every successful presidential run (whether an incumbent or challenger wins a 4-year term), it would come down to one specific measure: the economy. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/25/the-us-bond-yield-curve-has-inverted-heres-what-it-means.html The 3-month/10-year inversion is one of the strongest predicators for an economic/stock market recession. I'm obviously hopeful that Trump, the Federal Reserve, and the government works together to maintain strength and unity in the face of economic headwinds. Time will tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted March 25, 2019 Report Share Posted March 25, 2019 How much of this can be blamed on Trump though? Ordinarily I'd say a president doesn't have much actual influence over the economy... Trump is somewhat unique in that his trade wars have had a measurable impact on certain markets, but my gut tells me this potential recession is based on longer trends and doesn't actually have anything to do with him. But I'm curious about your take since I don't follow these things that closely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 25, 2019 Report Share Posted March 25, 2019 How much of this can be blamed on Trump though? Ordinarily I'd say a president doesn't have much actual influence over the economy... Trump is somewhat unique in that his trade wars have had a measurable impact on certain markets, but my gut tells me this potential recession is based on longer trends and doesn't actually have anything to do with him. But I'm curious about your take since I don't follow these things that closely. Generally speaking, the economy is like the tide - can't stop the ebb and flow, but historically though economic policy a president can influence it. We saw this in the recovery from the financial crisis with the Obama administration, measured stimulus initiatives, auto and bank bailouts, increased banking regulations, etc.. lead to a steady gradual growth on all fronts from 2010 to now. so you can't stop the tide from coming in or going out, but you can soften the blow of the change in direction. Where I begin to worry is with the consequences of some of Trump's economic initiatives and whether they will increase the severity of the effects of an incoming recession. There is a lot of tax money that isn't there this year and even in prosperous times we are looking at a growing deficit. Not having the money to pay for government programs isn't going to stop those government programs (including the military), which may cause a sharp tax increase. Trump has been increasingly hard on the Fed and suppressing interest rates, which can prop of the economy artificially for a little but can also have much more negative impacts further down the road. We saw a similar situation with LBJ in the 60's who did the same thing - leaned on the fed chair to keep interest rates low and the end result was the malaise of the 1970's with increasing, almost rampant inflation, stagnation in the economy, and record high unemployment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeitgeist57 Posted March 26, 2019 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2019 You guys are looking too much into this. Perception is reality; If Trump is president for an economic boom (which of course he’s been owning), he’s going to have to own it if the economy cools. Plus, both sides will spin the economy to their narrative. However, the adage still holds strong: “It’s the economy, stupid.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted March 26, 2019 Report Share Posted March 26, 2019 Why do people keep calling him "Muller" when it's Mueller? Seems to be the only thing both sides agree on...how to incorrectly pronounce that name. One would think both sides could finally agree that the last 2yrs the public let themselves be "played" as the entire conspiracy/collusion BS has been a fraud. Even if they don't come out and admit it, the anti-Trump media and clubs know they were either played or were promoting BS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 26, 2019 Report Share Posted March 26, 2019 One would think both sides could finally agree that the last 2yrs the public let themselves be "played" as the entire conspiracy/collusion BS has been a fraud. Even if they don't come out and admit it, the anti-Trump media and clubs know they were either played or were promoting BS. I dunno man, 34 indictments, most of which have led to convictions, mean it wasn't a fraud. These are all people connected to or working within the trump campaign. It's an undisputed fact that Russia meddled in our 2016 election, what can't be proven is how much trump himself knew about it and agreed to it. You realize that Trump's only defense to this is that he's stupid, right? Any other politician and we would hold them responsible for the actions of their hired employees, but this guy you seem willing to say "oh no, it's fine he didn't know what his own people were doing, how can he be held accountable for that?". Either he was in on it or he was the worlds biggest dupe. I'm ok with agreeing he's the world biggest dupe if you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace1647545504 Posted March 26, 2019 Report Share Posted March 26, 2019 (edited) Kerry I think you are looking at 2 different things .. 1) the convictions have nothing to do with the original investigation of russian collusion 2) the russians tried to get into the trump campaign but was spurned by the campaign..the investigation states as much. The dems were hoping for the smoking gun with false docs much like 43 was duped into thinking there were wmds in iran. Edited March 26, 2019 by Mace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted March 26, 2019 Report Share Posted March 26, 2019 I dunno man, 34 indictments, most of which have led to convictions, mean it wasn't a fraud. These are all people connected to or working within the trump campaign. It's an undisputed fact that Russia meddled in our 2016 election, what can't be proven is how much trump himself knew about it and agreed to it. 24 of which are Russians that will never come here for trial right? We already knew they were messing with elections and had been for decades. Even Obama's admin. knew they were. The point of this whole thing was because they came up with that fake document and were trying to pin something related to conspiracy to Trump and his team, etc. That was a complete fraud. You realize that Trump's only defense to this is that he's stupid, right? Any other politician and we would hold them responsible for the actions of their hired employees, but this guy you seem willing to say "oh no, it's fine he didn't know what his own people were doing, how can he be held accountable for that?". that's one story but for 2yrs they were trying to say he pulled off the ultimate take-on-America by stealing an election. I've said it all along that no one on his team, in his family and especially him would have been able to pull off this joke of what they call stealing the election. can't have it both ways but they tried. first he was dumb then he was a genius and now he's dumb, etc. Either he was in on it or he was the worlds biggest dupe. The Russian influence had nothing to do with him. Doesn't have to be as you put it one or the other. I watched election night live and remember thinking as indicators that he "might" actually win that he and Don Jr. were looking up at the screen and were both likely saying that to one another in disbelief. The 2016 influence began under Obama's team and they knew it. IMO some tried to use that as the insurance plan that was referenced. They did just about every single thing they could to get the bitch to win and couldn't so when that happened they tried every single thing they could to eliminate Trump outside killing him. Now they are moving goal posts and trying to change the rules, etc. It's laughable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeitgeist57 Posted March 26, 2019 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2019 Ohio SoS Frank LaRose was on NPR this morning, after they discussed Russia actively targeting mis-information campaigns in 37 states during the 2016 election season. LaRose stressed that Ohioans shouldn't fear the safety and validity of the electorial system. There was no evidence of actual Russian tampering, and "Psy-Ops" have been going on for decades: what used to be pamphlets pushed out the back of a plane are now memes and articles posted on social media. The American people need to be "skeptical consumers" of their media, and get their information from multiple sources. I have to say...well said by LaRose! I hope more and more people get to hear that message. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 26, 2019 Report Share Posted March 26, 2019 Kerry I think you are looking at 2 different things .. 1) the convictions have nothing to do with the original investigation of russian collusion 2) the russians tried to get into the trump campaign but was spurned by the campaign..the investigation states as much. The dems were hoping for the smoking gun with false docs much like 43 was duped into thinking there were wmds in iran. First off, neither of us has read the final report because it is not public, so we don't really know what it actually says, only interpretation from Barr and what has already publicly happened. The point of the investigation was to figure out how much Russian involvement there was in the Trump campaign. Collusion was one possibility, and probably the worst case scenario, but it wasn't the sole purpose of the investigation. I will agree it was the thing that critics of the president were hoping for, but that was a high hope. There are still plenty of charges against campaign members specifically for being involved with and representing foreign governments so....it's not true to say they have nothing to do with Russian collusion. Let me ask this question: Is it somehow "better" knowing that he still benefited from successful Russian Interference in the election? It's a fact the Russians interfered in our election, and it's also a fact that they interfered specifically to benefit Trump. Does it make you sleep better at night knowing that he didn't ask them to, but merely just exploited something bad that was already going on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 26, 2019 Report Share Posted March 26, 2019 24 of which are Russians that will never come here for trial right? We already knew they were messing with elections and had been for decades. Even Obama's admin. knew they were. The point of this whole thing was because they came up with that fake document and were trying to pin something related to conspiracy to Trump and his team, etc. That was a complete fraud. Manafort absolutely represented Russian interests. It wasn't a crime for him to be a lobbyist for Russian private interests, but it is a crime for him to hide it. He probably wouldn't have been hired to the campaign if it was public knowledge like it was supposed to be. He also laundered money and continued lobbying for Russian interests while working for the campaign. There certainly was smoke, they just can't prove fire. Same with Flynn, he lied about doing his job, and lied about being a lobbyist for Turkey. The point of this whole thing was to ferret out how many had connections like that in the campaign, and it seems like a lot. Sure maybe it didn't go all the way to the top, but you can't say it wasn't a successful investigation. that's one story but for 2yrs they were trying to say he pulled off the ultimate take-on-America by stealing an election. I've said it all along that no one on his team, in his family and especially him would have been able to pull off this joke of what they call stealing the election. can't have it both ways but they tried. first he was dumb then he was a genius and now he's dumb, etc. He absolutely stole the election, it just can't be proved that he had an agreement with the Russian Government to do so. It's not in question that the Russians interfered in the election, and it is not in question that some of the Russian interference was specifically targeted to help his campaign. They just can't prove that he agreed with them to do it. Does him just benefiting from a bad situation instead of planning it make it better? It doesn't make him a better president in any other metric? The Russian influence had nothing to do with him. Doesn't have to be as you put it one or the other. I watched election night live and remember thinking as indicators that he "might" actually win that he and Don Jr. were looking up at the screen and were both likely saying that to one another in disbelief. The 2016 influence began under Obama's team and they knew it. IMO some tried to use that as the insurance plan that was referenced. They did just about every single thing they could to get the bitch to win and couldn't so when that happened they tried every single thing they could to eliminate Trump outside killing him. Now they are moving goal posts and trying to change the rules, etc. It's laughable. Yes foreign governments have been meddling in the politics of other countries for centuries. The Romans did it, the Greeks, the holy roman empire, All of Europe for a millennia, the US has done it and created the fucked situation that is the middle east. Russia fucking with our election isn't new, being successful at disrupting it is. Again, they targeted Donald Trump, a candidate that specifically under-performed because he was most sympathetic to their interests, and would also cause the most disruption. so I ask you, does it matter that whether he actually had an agreement with them to do so or not? the end result was the same and It doesn't make him a better president. Are you at all worried about having a leader that wasn't really chosen free of influence from the Russians and doesn't really care about the american people? Are you concerned about having a country that is sympathetic to it's biggest global rival and is allowing it's power to grow while American influence shrinks? Whether you like it or not, I don't think the Russian election meddling would have been as successful if Donald Trump wasn't who he was, and he wouldn't have gotten as far if this hand' been a year where Russia was spurred into a full court press by the Magnisky act. Even if he isn't an agent of russia, he's always going to have the asterix of being the Russian installed president because he accidentally stumbled into the perfect storm of shit that got him elected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10phone2 Posted March 26, 2019 Report Share Posted March 26, 2019 Kerry, honest question and I'm not trolling. How is Russian election interference bad when universal in person voting id is not across the board? For both sides dropping off ballot boxes at the polling station is suspect at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted March 26, 2019 Report Share Posted March 26, 2019 (edited) Manafort absolutely represented Russian interests. It wasn't a crime for him to be a lobbyist for Russian private interests, but it is a crime for him to hide it. He probably wouldn't have been hired to the campaign if it was public knowledge like it was supposed to be. He also laundered money and continued lobbying for Russian interests while working for the campaign. There certainly was smoke, they just can't prove fire. Same with Flynn, he lied about doing his job, and lied about being a lobbyist for Turkey. The point of this whole thing was to ferret out how many had connections like that in the campaign, and it seems like a lot. Sure maybe it didn't go all the way to the top, but you can't say it wasn't a successful investigation. They failed to do what they set out to do which was implicate Trump. The crumbs they got along the way were solid but still crumbs. He absolutely stole the electionSo now he's a fucking genius con artist. LOL! Gotcha. so I ask you, does it matter that whether he actually had an agreement with them to do so or not? the end result was the same and It doesn't make him a better president.If it didn't matter there wouldn't have been an investigation, thus you answered your own question, but I know you already knew that. What made him a better candidate were his positions and agenda. The same agenda he's been going down the list with; a list he even pushed to his base for them to use as a score card too. Promises made, promises kept....or in many cases attempted to be kept as there's been plenty of resistance from even those in his own party. Are you at all worried about having a leader that wasn't really chosen free of influence from the Russians and doesn't really care about the american people? I don't think Obama gave a fuck-stick about the American People. What I care about is the POTUS supporting and pushing the topics and agendas that are important to me. He checks that box many times. Are you concerned about having a country that is sympathetic to it's biggest global rival and is allowing it's power to grow while American influence shrinks? My level of concern hasn't changed from the last administration. I remember the Hot Mic Moment well. Whether you like it or not, I don't think the Russian election meddling would have been as successful if Donald Trump wasn't who he was, and he wouldn't have gotten as far if this hand' been a year where Russia was spurred into a full court press by the Magnisky act. Haven't you had enough speculation over the last 2 years? I sure as fuck have. Even if he isn't an agent of russia, he's always going to have the asterix of being the Russian installed president because he accidentally stumbled into the perfect storm of shit that got him elected.Really....some would say he's an agent of Israel. The Russians real puppets were ALL OF THOSE who were a part of this made up conspiracy. Trump wasn't elected at all due to Russia or their actions. Hilary sucked donkey dicks and even her own team knew it, thus why they went through all they did to trip up Trump along the way. It will forever go down with a much bigger asterix as the most bumbled hoax / con-artist attempt that resulted in a fail and her name will always be attached directly to it. Edited March 26, 2019 by TTQ B4U Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 26, 2019 Report Share Posted March 26, 2019 Kerry, honest question and I'm not trolling. How is Russian election interference bad when universal in person voting id is not across the board? I am not sure I understand the question as there seem to be a lot of concepts smooshed up against each other. Russian interference =/= at the ballot box voter fraud in terms of risk profile and consequences. Let's be clear: Successful foreign government interference with our election is bad. Voter fraud is bad. These are different kinds of bad with different risk profiles, don't pull that whataboutism nonsense trying to draw a false equivalency between the two. For both sides dropping off ballot boxes at the polling station is suspect at best. Except this is not even a remotely true statement. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Briefing_Memo_Debunking_Voter_Fraud_Myth.pdf - voter impersonation fraud rarely happens - voter misrepresentation fraud rarely happens - the documented cases of voter fraud at the ballot site do not happen in statistically significant numbers to affect a presidential election. Where you do see voter fraud in growing is outside the polling place. Vote by mail fraud in North Carolina where members of one political party went around and collected unfilled out mail in ballots from people and then filled them out and sent them in is problematic. but even then it was a small isolated incident and while it had an effect at a local level impact at the national would be minuscule. https://www.npr.org/2018/12/08/674543576/voting-by-mail-is-on-the-rise-but-could-alleged-n-c-election-fraud-change-that you know what is bad? voter suppression, which is real, does happen in significant numbers to affect an election, and voter ID schemes are always a part of. There is no proof that having a specific "voter ID" or even having stricter ID standards has any effect on the small amount of voter fraud it is designed to protect. There is however, mountains of evidence that stricter ID requirements have a disproportionate effect on racial minorities, the elderly, the poor, and first time voters: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/how-voter-id-laws-discriminate-study/517218/ http://acluwv.org/voter-id-laws-bad-education-best-defense/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-we-know-about-voter-id-laws/ Add into the fact that voter suppression tends to favor conservative political candidates and its not hard to see why Republican politicians keep pushing these requirements that do more harm than good. But it isn't good for the country as a whole. The newest round of voter ID laws being pushed aren't any different from poll taxes, literacy tests, and other things that the voting rights act of 1965 did away with. It isn't like our existing voter registration schemes are ineffective. I would say the low fraud rate shows they are pretty effective, and they were designed to be accessible . Introducing something that does not increase any benefit, but introduces a specific amount of harm along one party's line - well that's good for nobody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 26, 2019 Report Share Posted March 26, 2019 They failed to do what they set out to do which was implicate Trump. The crumbs they got along the way were solid but still crumbs. They, meaning the FBI, set out to investigate a situation which looked suspect, and did exactly that. The conclusion may be unsatisfactory to those hoping it would result in a charge against the president, but that doesn't mean the investigation didn't accomplish what it set out to do. It uncovered several crimes, and more importantly it revealed a startling number of people attempting to cover up otherwise legal behavior - which even you have to admit is a strange thing to do. you keep saying "they" like this is the doing of one party. This is the Department of Justice and the FBI, and more specifically politically republican members of those organizations and several Trump appointees. Yeah maybe members of one political party unfairly attached their desires to the outcome hoping for the worst case scenario, but the DOJ doesn't work for them and neither does the FBI. Even if they were "suspect" they would be suspect of helping their own party. It's bullshit to play the partisan card. So now he's a fucking genius con artist. LOL! Gotcha. How many thieves do you know are geniuses? I think this is more like he saw an already broken store front window and decided to walk off with a TV. I'll never say he's a genius, but I will always recognize that he is opportunistic. It wasn't a secret that Russia was going to meddle in the election - they try every election, and it wasn't even news that they were trying really hard this year because of the Magnisnsky act. If it didn't matter there wouldn't have been an investigation, thus you answered your own question, but I know you already knew that. What made him a better candidate were his positions and agenda. The same agenda he's been going down the list with; a list he even pushed to his base for them to use as a score card too. Promises made, promises kept....or in many cases attempted to be kept as there's been plenty of resistance from even those in his own party. No you are confusing the two concepts and misunderstanding my question. It always matters that foreign powers meddle in any election and that should be investigated. That's not specific to Trump, it could have been anybody. What is specific to him are his terrible policies, and assuming he his not an agent of Russia doesn't fix that. You continue to ignore the larger problems with his presidency. Even if he didn't do anything illegal, there are clear instances where his actions are undeniably unethical. And that is the "Does it matter" question: "Does it matter to you, Tim, that the president is still unethical, even if it can't be proven what he did was illegal?" because it really seems like you are a "I'll take a win for my team anyway I can get it" person. I don't think Obama gave a fuck-stick about the American People. What I care about is the POTUS supporting and pushing the topics and agendas that are important to me. He checks that box many times. You don't think Obama gave a fuck-stick about your issues sounds more accurate. At the very least he was more ethical than our current administration, but you don't seem that concerned with what's "right", just what benefits you. My level of concern hasn't changed from the last administration. I remember the Hot Mic Moment well. well conspiracy theorists rarely change their stripes. Still, the impact of the "hot mic" and...say...I dunno...using NATO to keep Russian military action in check are two different things. Haven't you had enough speculation over the last 2 years? I sure as fuck have. I don't truck in speculation, I truck in what can be proven. In this case the investigation showed it couldn't be proven and I am ready to move on. It's not speculation that the Russians are doing everything they can to overturn the Magnisky Act, It's not speculation that they meddled in our election and did it successfully, and those things are out there and still need to be addressed. I just doubt they will be addressed by the person who benefits most from it, even if he didn't plan it. I'd love to be proven wrong on this point, but I don't expect it - current track record doesn't suggest it as a likely outcome. Really....some would say he's an agent of Israel. Some also say he's incompetent. I tend to take an Occam's razor approach to that, esp in the absence of proof he is an agent of Israel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdk 4219 Posted March 26, 2019 Report Share Posted March 26, 2019 Funny, it’s a law to have an ID on your person at all times, and a drivers license when driving, or a visa to leave the country, but an ID according to you shouldn’t be needed to vote, sounds pretty biased to me, and would certainly add to voter fraud. W Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdk 4219 Posted March 26, 2019 Report Share Posted March 26, 2019 You know what the funny thing is? Trump was born and raised in New York. Isn’t that where you come from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted March 26, 2019 Report Share Posted March 26, 2019 you keep saying "they" like this is the doing of one party. they is anyone you wish to put as his opposition. yes, people at the FBI, DOJ, Dems, Repubs, etc. Nothing that happened happened as a result of just one person, organization or party but in the end, they didn't bring the big man down. "Does it matter to you, Tim, that the president is still unethical, even if it can't be proven what he did was illegal?" nothing new to see here and you know it. gov't corruption has been rampant for decades if not longer and you know it. the LOL moment Friday was that everyone against Trump including the media just spilled the bucket of corruption on themselves.......again. it's no longer needed to even point it out. They failed at winning the election and they failed at getting him pinned down with "collusion" Hopefully that's the last of their over-use of that stupid word. I am ready to move on.Good. Too bad those that oppose him will continue to say "this is just the end of the beginning"......OMG what a sham they are trying to lead. Some also say he's incompetent.I have no problem with them stating that. Where I have a problem is 2yrs of total bullshit and lies and trying to play that things were pretty fucking obvious. We pay and elect these dumb ass reality TV Stars? Oh wait..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted March 26, 2019 Report Share Posted March 26, 2019 Funny, it’s a law to have an ID on your person at all times, and a drivers license when driving, or a visa to leave the country, but an ID according to you shouldn’t be needed to vote, sounds pretty biased to me, and would certainly add to voter fraud. W The entire voter ID opposition is stupid as fuck. OMG do we even need to play that game anymore? STFU to anyone who thinks that it's some type of hindering of a person's rights to see that they get up and get an ID. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 26, 2019 Report Share Posted March 26, 2019 (edited) Funny, it’s a law to have an ID on your person at all times, and a drivers license when driving, or a visa to leave the country, but an ID according to you shouldn’t be needed to vote, sounds pretty biased to me, and would certainly add to voter fraud. W No. No state has a law that REQUIRES you to have an ID at all times on your person. Some states do have a requirement that you be able to prove your identity, and most of the acceptable forms of proof are the same as accepted by the polling place. Having to provide a specific ID is not the same thing as proving your identity. you are required to have a license on your person when you are doing a licensed activity, but not everyone drives so not everyone needs a drivers license on them at all time. I get why you don't understand this, you just lack the knowledge. You think not having to present an ID means not having to prove who you are which is not true. You know what the funny thing is? Trump was born and raised in New York, right where you are from. Yeah we even when to the same school and come from the same neighborhood, decades apart. You know what's really funny to me? the rest of the nation finding out what a scumbag he was when NY'ers have known it since the 80's. by your logic, it's funny that you are not a murderous cult leader since Charles Manson is from Ohio. then again...you are often angry and thin skinned..... Edited March 26, 2019 by Geeto67 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 26, 2019 Report Share Posted March 26, 2019 The entire voter ID opposition is stupid as fuck. OMG do we even need to play that game anymore? STFU to anyone who thinks that it's some type of hindering of a person's rights to see that they get up and get an ID. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST If you can prove it does more good then harm I'll get on board. But you have to actually prove it. With actual statistics. I'll wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.