PDA

View Full Version : Election 2016



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5]

sandsjames
03-06-2016, 02:51 PM
Not to be bagging on un, the citizens of the US, but how many people died as a result of the western expansion of Americans, vs the Native Americans?

From the beginning, to the end, does anyone know how many Indians died here in the US?

Nope, but I'm sure it was a lot. A much higher number died before we were the U.S. though. I'd be willing to say that all of our "atrocities" are the fault of the British, since they were in charge when it all started.

And that's what I like to call justification of prior actions.

UncaRastus
03-06-2016, 04:02 PM
For sure, Sandy. While I was in England, I had to keep turning down the offers of free blankets ...

Rainmaker
03-06-2016, 04:08 PM
Not to be bagging on un, the citizens of the US, but how many people died as a result of the western expansion of Americans, vs the Native Americans?

From the beginning, to the end, does anyone know how many Indians died here in the US?

Most of them died from diseases because their immune systems weren't developed. And actually they started the genocide.

Because a Fun fact is that OVER 5 million Europeans died of syphilis brought back by Columbus crew (including half the population of Naples & venice). So those captured slave girls that the noble Indians living in Utopian bliss offered up were the gift that kept on giving.

Rainmaker
03-06-2016, 04:54 PM
Very simple reason for that. It's because Hitler was the only one of those who we were directly at war with.

Guess that's why the Korean war is called the Forgotten war.

sandsjames
03-06-2016, 04:57 PM
Guess that's why the Korean war is called the Forgotten war.You know what I mean. The Korean War was completely different than WWII. In Korea we were in defensive/protective mode for S. Korea.

MikeKerriii
03-06-2016, 06:41 PM
Not to be bagging on us, the citizens of the US, but how many people died as a result of the western expansion of Americans, vs the Native Americans?

From the beginning, to the end, does anyone know how many Indians died here in the US?

The huge hit in the Indian population came from unintentional transfers of diseases the Europeans did not even consider very serious, Most of the dying came in the 16 and 17th centuries. Few of the deaths were intentional in any way



The syphilis came from North American Indians, has pretty much been thrown in histories trashcan since there is evidence of Syphilis before Columbus and is just another fact that everyone knows but has no connection to reality

http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/325

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_epidemics

Rainmaker
03-06-2016, 08:09 PM
The syphilis came from North American Indians, has pretty much been thrown in histories trashcan

Don't allow your Political Correctness to sell the Indians short......The widely accepted view is that venereal syphilis came to Europe with the return of Columbus from his first voyage of discovery of the New World.

You no longer have to listen to your Marxist professor at Berkley! With a simple google search, we can literally find about 344,000 links on the subject.

http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/contagion/syphilis.html

"Origins

Syphilis is generally believed to have come originally from the New World, imported into Europe by Christopher Columbus’s sailors after their famous voyage of 1492."




http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/case-closed-columbus/


"There's no really good evidence of a syphilis case before 1492 in Europe,"



And, if we take into account that many of the European Monarchy became deranged homicidal maniacs (from general paresis of the insane caused by late-stage syphilis ) e.g. "Bloody Mary" Tudor, Then the casualty count inflicted by the Indians onto European Whites becomes even more impressive!

Rainmaker
03-06-2016, 08:45 PM
You know what I mean. The Korean War was completely different than WWII. In Korea we were in defensive/protective mode for S. Korea.

My point is that many of the traitors running our institutions are sympathetic to the Marxist world view. So we get the constant reminders of the fascist horror show, while glossing over the fact that the Leftists killed far more.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/10/17/obama-debate-advisor-anita-dunn-mao/

MikeKerriii
03-06-2016, 09:07 PM
Don't allow your Political Correctness to sell the Indians short......The widely accepted view is that venereal syphilis came to Europe with the return of Columbus from his first voyage of discovery of the New World.

You no longer have to listen to your Marxist professor at Berkley! With a simple google search, we can literally find about 344,000 links on the subject.

http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/contagion/syphilis.html

"Origins

Syphilis is generally believed to have come originally from the New World, imported into Europe by Christopher Columbus’s sailors after their famous voyage of 1492."




http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/case-closed-columbus/


"There's no really good evidence of a syphilis case before 1492 in Europe,"



And, if we take into account that many of the European Monarchy became deranged homicidal maniacs (from general paresis of the insane caused by late-stage syphilis ) e.g. "Bloody Mary" Tudor, Then the casualty count inflicted by the Indians onto European Whites becomes even more impressive! The Indians are somehow responsible for the murderous thugs who invaded them getting sick? You have who caused that harm reversed as usual

Rainmaker
03-07-2016, 01:23 PM
The Indians are somehow responsible for the murderous thugs who invaded them getting sick? You have who caused that harm reversed as usual

Seriously Mike. We're supposed to believe that the Mayans were advanced enough to know the precise date when the world was going to end. But, they didn't know they were giving Whitey the Clap?

What kind of creeps would knowingly inflict their guests with VD? Montezuma easily could've given the Spaniards a couple of the Virgins that they were planning to sacrifice to the Fertility God, Instead of offering up some diseased old bar flies from the Castle brothel. The Conquistadors had a right to be pissed off!

waveshaper2
03-13-2016, 01:35 AM
I believe if Trumps is elected President his first address to the Joint Session of Congress in Feb 2017 may look something like this (sarcasm, I think).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLUktJbp2Ug

garhkal
03-13-2016, 04:25 AM
So washington and Wyoming both voted. Cruz won one, Rubio won the other.. Trump came in third both spots..
Wonder how much of that backlash was from the riots in chicago.??

MikeKerriii
03-13-2016, 02:20 PM
Seriously Mike. We're supposed to believe that the Mayans were advanced enough to know the precise date when the world was going to end. But, they didn't know they were giving Whitey the Clap?

What kind of creeps would knowingly inflict their guests with VD? Montezuma easily could've given the Spaniards a couple of the Virgins that they were planning to sacrifice to the Fertility God, Instead of offering up some diseased old bar flies from the Castle brothel. The Conquistadors had a right to be pissed off!

Only you would call genocidal fanatical thugs sand thieves "guests"

MikeKerriii
03-13-2016, 02:24 PM
I believe if Trumps is elected President his first address to the Joint Session of Congress in Feb 2017 may look something like this (sarcasm, I think).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLUktJbp2Ug
Trump would likelu go that route, it is cheaper than "Burning the Reichstag " and his followers would cheer him on.

USN - Retired
03-13-2016, 04:02 PM
Trump would likelu go that route, it is cheaper than "Burning the Reichstag " and his followers would cheer him on.

And Hillary Clinton would certainly go that route. It is cheaper than making a murder look like a suicide.

USN - Retired
03-13-2016, 05:51 PM
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Give him a welfare check, a free cell phone, food stamps, and section eight housing and he will vote Democrat for the rest of his life.

waveshaper2
03-13-2016, 06:00 PM
Trump would likelu go that route, it is cheaper than "Burning the Reichstag " and his followers would cheer him on.

Trumps first Executive Order might be term limits for Congress and most American's would definitely support term limit for these crooks. Saddam's TTP's would fit Trump's style perfectly and I can't think of a better time for him to make his point then during his first address to the Joint Session of Congress.

Mjölnir
03-13-2016, 06:32 PM
Trumps first Executive Order might be term limits for Congress and most American's would definitely support term limit for these crooks. Saddam's TTP's would fit Trump's style perfectly and I can't think of a better time for him to make his point then during his first address to the Joint Session of Congress.

Probably not Constitutional for the head of the Executive Branch to limit the terms of members of the Legislative Branch without legislation.

sandsjames
03-13-2016, 07:17 PM
Probably not Constitutional for the head of the Executive Branch to limit the terms of members of the Legislative Branch without legislation.

Since when do Presidents worry about what is, and isn't, constitutional? Especially when it comes to decisions that deeply affect the country?

waveshaper2
03-13-2016, 09:16 PM
Probably not Constitutional for the head of the Executive Branch to limit the terms of members of the Legislative Branch without legislation.

I'm not serious/this is just a parody "deliberate exaggeration for comic effect" based on Trumps crowd pleasing antics "get out/get-em outta here security", etc. Did you watch the Saddam video? I don't think Trump is really going to pull a Saddam Hussein and have members of Congress "who he doesn't trust/like/served to many terms/etc" dragged out of a Joint Session of Congress "10 at a time" and have them executed/jailed/tortured/etc.

MikeKerriii
03-13-2016, 11:22 PM
Probably not Constitutional for the head of the Executive Branch to limit the terms of members of the Legislative Branch without legislation.

Do you think either Trump of his fanatics would care?

garhkal
03-14-2016, 03:57 AM
And how is that any different from what Obama and hillary have done?

Mjölnir
03-14-2016, 10:47 AM
I'm not serious/this is just a parody "deliberate exaggeration for comic effect" based on Trumps crowd pleasing antics "get out/get-em outta here security", etc. Did you watch the Saddam video? I don't think Trump is really going to pull a Saddam Hussein and have members of Congress "who he doesn't trust/like/served to many terms/etc" dragged out of a Joint Session of Congress "10 at a time" and have them executed/jailed/tortured/etc.

I figured, but also wanted to point out the unconstitutional aspect. Too many take that kind of statement and just run with it.


Do you think either Trump of his fanatics would care?

I think politicians (Republican and Democrat) have thought about or tried to do things that were unconstitutional -- 13 of President Obama's unilateral actions based on Executive Authority have been unanimously negated by the Supreme Court. I do have faith in the checks and balances of our system.

Rainmaker
03-14-2016, 02:08 PM
Trumps first Executive Order might be term limits for Congress and most American's would definitely support term limit for these crooks. Saddam's TTP's would fit Trump's style perfectly and I can't think of a better time for him to make his point then during his first address to the Joint Session of Congress.

From Your lips to God's ears!


Only you would call genocidal fanatical thugs sand thieves "guests

Don't you think that you're being a little harsh Mike? We probably should just call them 'undocumented immigrants' instead.

After all, Most of them were just serfs fleeing from the oppression of the Roman Catholic Monarchs and looking for a better life for themselves. Their coming to the new world was really just an act of Love.

And Why are you so biased against these ancestors of today's Hispanic people anyway?



So washington and Wyoming both voted. Cruz won one, Rubio won the other.. Trump came in third both spots..


Not surprising because Wyoming (like Iowa) is 90+% white,Hyper-conservative, mostly rural, So The state hasn't been ruined yet, so they're not pissed off enough to vote for Trump.

and the only Republicans living in Washington D.C. are lobbyists or .gov Bureaucrats or Fed Contractors dependent on the status quo (perpetual war) , so they vote for RINO puppets like Rubio/Kasich/Clinton.


Wonder how much of that backlash was from the riots in chicago.??

Most likely, The opposite of a "backlash" will happen from the Chiraq protests. All they did was turn Trump into the "Free Speech" candidate. Because, Other than the Media. Most people are sick and tired of the George Soros funded, BLM Bully Crybaby routine.

UncaRastus
03-14-2016, 02:13 PM
I likes pancakes!

Mjölnir
03-14-2016, 02:45 PM
Most likely, The opposite of a "backlash" will happen from the Chiraq protests. All they did was turn Trump into the "Free Speech" candidate. Because, Other than the Media. Most people are sick and tired of the George Soros funded, BLM Bully Crybaby routine.

I am not a huge fan of how Trump presents himself, nor the attitude of some of his more 'radical' supporters; I also have many friends who like him because he is the opposite of what anyone expected, says what he wants, and doesn't have to tow any lines for anyone.

At the same time, I am in no way a fan of 'professional protesters' who are impeding his rallies. Their protesting has gone from the silent, peaceful picketing etc. to rushing the stage and instigating fights.

Does Trump hold a part of the responsibility for the tone? Absolutely; that does not absolve someone of their own actions.

sandsjames
03-14-2016, 02:51 PM
I am not a huge fan of how Trump presents himself, nor the attitude of some of his more 'radical' supporters; I also have many friends who like him because he is the opposite of what anyone expected, says what he wants, and doesn't have to tow any lines for anyone.

At the same time, I am in no way a fan of 'professional protesters' who are impeding his rallies. Their protesting has gone from the silent, peaceful picketing etc. to rushing the stage and instigating fights.

Does Trump hold a part of the responsibility for the tone? Absolutely; that does not absolve someone of their own actions.

Agree about the protesters. I imagine what would be said about them if they were tea-partiers protesting a democrats speech...wait...don't have to imagine...when the tea-partiers did it they were labeled as violent and racist.

waveshaper2
03-14-2016, 03:13 PM
One more Trump parody. This ones kind of sick but sometimes I just can't control my impulse control disorder.

Here's a close-up photo of what the Trump wall will look like when it's finally completed and yes the Mexicans are definitely going to "PAY FOR IT".
http://beautifuldecay.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/skull-chapel-kaplica-czaszek-poland-wall-of-skulls-963.jpg__1072x0_q85_upscale.jpg

Rainmaker
03-14-2016, 03:42 PM
Rainmaker had the great pleasure of driving his 88 year old neighbor (veteran of the Army of Occupation in Berlin in 1946) to early voting on Saturday. Been trying to turn him away from Bush and then Cruz into the Trump camp for the last 6 months.

He started to see the light when Romney crawled out from under his rock last week, and then the Chicago shit-storm on Friday night was the straw that broke the camel's back for him.

UncaRastus
03-14-2016, 04:36 PM
I am sad to see that there is no one to really cotton to, tomorrow. I guess that I shall try to do a write in campaign, and have everybody vote for my little buddy, George, the rubber crab, who accompanies us, everywhere that we travel to.

Mjölnir
03-14-2016, 04:37 PM
Rainmaker had the great pleasure of driving his 88 year old neighbor (veteran of the Army of Occupation in Berlin in 1946) to early voting on Saturday. Been trying to turn him away from Bush and then Cruz into the Trump camp for the last 6 months.

He started to see the light when Romney crawled out from under his rock last week, and then the Chicago shit-storm on Friday night was the straw that broke the camel's back for him.

I am thinking Trump will take FL, he and Kasich seem to be tight in OH.

After Tues Rubio is out.

Kasich has said if he doesn't win in OH he is out.

After Tues Republicans will basically have 2 (maybeeeee) 3 choices. I am interested to see what the numbers look like after that. Trump is ahead in delegates, not as much as I thought he would be. FL & OH are winner take all states so he will have a huge lead on WED morning.

UncaRastus
03-14-2016, 04:47 PM
George Crab for President!

Rainmaker
03-14-2016, 06:06 PM
I am thinking Trump will take FL, he and Kasich seem to be tight in OH.

After Tues Rubio is out.

Kasich has said if he doesn't win in OH he is out.


After Tues Republicans will basically have 2 (maybeeeee) 3 choices. I am interested to see what the numbers look like after that. Trump is ahead in delegates, not as much as I thought he would be. FL & OH are winner take all states so he will have a huge lead on WED morning.

The only question that remains to be answered is who will be the VP for Mein Trumper?

sandsjames
03-14-2016, 06:56 PM
The only question that remains to be answered is who will be the VP for Mein Trumper?Christy or Carson? Both do a great job of looking like abused lap dogs as they escort him around.

USN - Retired
03-14-2016, 07:02 PM
The only question that remains to be answered is who will be the VP for Mein Trumper?

Monica Lewinsky

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Monica_Lewinsky_2014_IDA_Awards_%28cropped%29.jpg/220px-Monica_Lewinsky_2014_IDA_Awards_%28cropped%29.jpg

waveshaper2
03-14-2016, 10:26 PM
The only question that remains to be answered is who will be the VP for Mein Trumper?

I'm taking a completely different approach to who I vote for this election cycle. The way I see it; If Trump or Hillary is elected President I can foresee both of them facing impeachment within their first 100 days in office or shortly thereafter. Based on this "theory" I'm going to keep my powder dry and wait until they select their Vice President running mates before determining who I will vote for or if I will even vote. I will be casting my vote based on who will become President after Trump or Hillary gets impeached.

Note; I "highly doubt" I will be voting for the Democratic ticket but this is something for those of the Democratic persuasion to also think about.

MikeKerriii
03-15-2016, 03:30 AM
I figured, but also wanted to point out the unconstitutional aspect. Too many take that kind of statement and just run with it.



I think politicians (Republican and Democrat) have thought about or tried to do things that were unconstitutional -- 13 of President Obama's unilateral actions based on Executive Authority have been unanimously negated by the Supreme Court. I do have faith in the checks and balances of our system.

I just believe that Trump has less respect for laws and the courts than Andy Jackson did and fewer ethics than Richard Nixon. The balance of power can be unbalanced pretty quickly with guns to people heads,

garhkal
03-15-2016, 06:54 AM
George Crab for President!

Na.... The almighty Chuthulu for president!:cool:


I'm taking a completely different approach to who I vote for this election cycle. The way I see it; If Trump or Hillary is elected President I can foresee both of them facing impeachment within their first 100 days in office or shortly thereafter. Based on this "theory" I'm going to keep my powder dry and wait until they select their Vice President running mates before determining who I will vote for or if I will even vote. I will be casting my vote based on who will become President after Trump or Hillary gets impeached.

Note; I "highly doubt" I will be voting for the Democratic ticket but this is something for those of the Democratic persuasion to also think about.

Since obama has yet to get impeached with all he has done, why do you see trump being impeached within his first 100 days? Or hillary for that matter??

Mjölnir
03-15-2016, 10:48 AM
I just believe that Trump has less respect for laws and the courts than Andy Jackson did and fewer ethics than Richard Nixon. The balance of power can be unbalanced pretty quickly with guns to people heads,

I don't say this as a Trump supporter ... but I think he has as much respect for laws as President Obama or Secretary Clinton. President Obama has had more unilateral Executive Actions dismissed (unanimously) by the Supreme Court than any President; by that measure an argument can be made that he has little respect for (or possibly understanding of the law) than any President to date.

I don't think that is the case for President Obama, I think it is a basic matter of using those laws that can help get you what you want, ignore those that impede you. It is how he (and they) have gotten to where they are in life; depending on your model or measure of success -- you could argue they all have been successful.

Thus is the nature of politics.

waveshaper2
03-15-2016, 10:49 AM
Na.... The almighty Chuthulu for president!:cool:



Since obama has yet to get impeached with all he has done, why do you see trump being impeached within his first 100 days? Or hillary for that matter??

Well you're probably right and this is only a theory/wishful thinking on my part. I'm just disillusioned by the remaining crop of turds we have to select from but today is crunch time for me since I'm a Florida resident. In about an hour I will be heading down to my locale precinct to cast my vote and listen to the scuttlebutt while waiting in line. I will be voting for Kasich and I hope Trump eventually selects him as VP, then I think I have a "CHANCE" for my theory to pan out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCFB2akLh4s

Mjölnir
03-15-2016, 10:52 AM
Since obama has yet to get impeached with all he has done, why do you see trump being impeached within his first 100 days? Or hillary for that matter??

If Trump seriously waffled ironed himself in the first 100 days ... maybe.

I think there is a much bigger issue of the ongoing FBI investigation into Secretary Clinton's email server, mishandling of classified materials & potential cross pollination of her efforts with the DoS and her private foundation that could lead to her facing impeachment if elected.

Right or wrong, the political environment for it is there.

Mjölnir
03-15-2016, 10:58 AM
What are your predictions for tonight?

I think Trump takes Florida, Illinois and N. Carolina, Kasich takes Ohio & Cruz takes Missouri.

Clinton takes Florida, Illinois and North Carolina & Sanders takes Missouri and squeaks out Ohio.

Rainmaker
03-15-2016, 01:16 PM
What are your predictions for tonight?




America Wants a Trumperor.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2016/02/america-wants-a-trumperor.html?repeat=w3tc

The Roman Republic had grown vastly wealthy through military conquests, but the wealth was held by a few fabulously wealthy families. The poor were kept poor. Veterans of the wars returned not to glory and wealth, but to poverty and misery. For years the wealthy families killed off any politicians who tried to bring about reform which would help the poor and share the wealth from their military conquests.

As the wealth grew the decadence grew. In Rome, at the end of the republic, sexual immorality was rife. Political corruption was widespread. Violence and revolution, slavery and cruelty were commonplace.

Then along came Julius Caesar. Consider the remarkable similarities with Donald Trump:

Caesar was well connected from the start. He was from a moderately wealthy, establishment family. Julius Caesar was balding, but very vain. He was famous for guess what? Combing what hair he had over his bald head. He was married three times and was a prolific and boasting philanderer. Julius Caesar was an egotist. He was notorious for raging and taking revenge if anyone mocked his dignity. Most of all he was a winner. He was ruthless and would do anything to win. He was a bully and a sore loser.

He rose to become the commander in chief of the army, and he threatened the ruling establishment, riding a tide of populist support.

The revolution he led was a revolution supported by the soldiers, and the vast hordes of people who were poor or felt they were poor. He was a dictator, but a popular dictator. The people didn’t want a republic anymore because the republic had become corrupt. The republic was broken and the people didn’t care if Caesar was a conservative or a democrat. They didn’t care if he was pro life or pro death. They didn’t care if he was going to be a ruthless dictator. They were willing to risk that as long as he overthrew the super rich families who controlled the senate, the wealth and held all the power.

Was he powerful himself? They liked that because he was the kind of man who “got things done.” He “made the trains run on time.” In allowing the republic to fail were the people giving up their freedom? In their poverty they didn’t feel like they had much freedom anyway so it didn’t matter. From their point of view “freedom” was something the rich people had. Their lives were lives of drudgery, fear and hopelessness.

Mjölnir
03-15-2016, 01:22 PM
America Wants a Trumperor.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2016/02/america-wants-a-trumperor.html?repeat=w3tc

The Roman Republic had grown vastly wealthy through military conquests, but the wealth was held by a few fabulously wealthy families. The poor were kept poor. Veterans of the wars returned not to glory and wealth, but to poverty and misery. For years the wealthy families killed off any politicians who tried to bring about reform which would help the poor and share the wealth from their military conquests.

As the wealth grew the decadence grew. In Rome, at the end of the republic, sexual immorality was rife. Political corruption was widespread. Violence and revolution, slavery and cruelty were commonplace.

Then along came Julius Caesar. Consider the remarkable similarities with Donald Trump:

Caesar was well connected from the start. He was from a moderately wealthy, establishment family. Julius Caesar was balding, but very vain. He was famous for guess what? Combing what hair he had over his bald head. He was married three times and was a prolific and boasting philanderer. Julius Caesar was an egotist. He was notorious for raging and taking revenge if anyone mocked his dignity. Most of all he was a winner. He was ruthless and would do anything to win. He was a bully and a sore loser.

He rose to become the commander in chief of the army, and he threatened the ruling establishment, riding a tide of populist support.

The revolution he led was a revolution supported by the soldiers, and the vast hordes of people who were poor or felt they were poor. He was a dictator, but a popular dictator. The people didn’t want a republic anymore because the republic had become corrupt. The republic was broken and the people didn’t care if Caesar was a conservative or a democrat. They didn’t care if he was pro life or pro death. They didn’t care if he was going to be a ruthless dictator. They were willing to risk that as long as he overthrew the super rich families who controlled the senate, the wealth and held all the power.

Was he powerful himself? They liked that because he was the kind of man who “got things done.” He “made the trains run on time.” In allowing the republic to fail were the people giving up their freedom? In their poverty they didn’t feel like they had much freedom anyway so it didn’t matter. From their point of view “freedom” was something the rich people had. Their lives were lives of drudgery, fear and hopelessness.

Interesting.

Caesar did end the Republic and usher in the Empire, and that nasty incident with the Senate circa ... March 15th ... TODAY.

Rainmaker
03-15-2016, 01:26 PM
Interesting.

Caesar did end the Republic and usher in the Empire, and that nasty incident with the Senate circa ... March 15th ... TODAY.

Back in our day even the worst things were Great. Hail Trump!

UncaRastus
03-15-2016, 01:35 PM
I read the entrails of a raccoon that was run over.

Beware the ides of March!

waveshaper2
03-15-2016, 01:51 PM
Interesting.

Caesar did end the Republic and usher in the Empire, and that nasty incident with the Senate circa ... March 15th ... TODAY.

Rainmaker/Mjolnir; Good posts and I'm not sure that a President Trump will make it through his first term without meeting the modern day equivalent of the "Ides of March".

Rainmaker
03-15-2016, 01:54 PM
I read the entrails of a raccoon that was run over.

Beware the ides of March!

it's already started!

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/sanders-sends-vegan-thugs-to-attack-peace-loving-nazis

sandsjames
03-15-2016, 01:54 PM
What are your predictions for tonight?



My predictions are that we'll be going to "Taco Tuesday" then catching the Tuesday night $5 movie at the theater.

As far as the primaries go, my prediction is that all candidates will claim victory for themselves, no matter where they actually place in the voting.

Mjölnir
03-15-2016, 02:40 PM
My predictions are that we'll be going to "Taco Tuesday" then catching the Tuesday night $5 movie at the theater.

As far as the primaries go, my prediction is that all candidates will claim victory for themselves, no matter where they actually place in the voting.

Am at a large Navy facility; the cafeteria enjoys Taco Tuesday and Slider Wednesday.

garhkal
03-15-2016, 05:20 PM
What are your predictions for tonight?

I think Trump takes Florida, Illinois and N. Carolina, Kasich takes Ohio & Cruz takes Missouri.

Clinton takes Florida, Illinois and North Carolina & Sanders takes Missouri and squeaks out Ohio.

I think trump takes all 5.. over the past 2 weeks, polls have started showing trump creaping up to where he is even with Kasich in ohio, and cruz is not even with trump in Missouri.

Rainmaker
03-15-2016, 06:16 PM
I just believe that Trump has less respect for laws and the courts than Andy Jackson did and fewer ethics than Richard Nixon. The balance of power can be unbalanced pretty quickly with guns to people heads,

Andrew Jackson is without a doubt the Greatest President in American History.

He declared war with the Internationalist banksters (that wanted to make debt slaves out of the American people) and kicked their asses restoring national sovereignty for the next 80 years.

He was also a major badass that didn't take no shit! Which, is exactly why the money changers want to get Old Hickory off the $20 bill and replace him with some politically correct Mangina.

Rainmaker
03-15-2016, 06:50 PM
In a strange turn of synchronicitic events.....While researching Old Hickory's badassness... Rainmaker just realized that today would've been that Great man's 249th Birthday......

So, Happy Birthday Andrew Jackson! AMERICAN FUCKING HERO !!!!!!

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/jackson.html

Mjölnir
03-15-2016, 07:09 PM
In a strange turn of synchronicitic events.....While researching Old Hickory's badassness... Rainmaker just realized that today would've been that Great man's 249th Birthday......

So, Happy Birthday Andrew Jackson! AMERICAN FUCKING HERO !!!!!!

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/jackson.html

If he had universal health care, he may still be alive ...

Mjölnir
03-16-2016, 12:08 AM
What are your predictions for tonight?

I think Trump takes Florida, Illinois and N. Carolina, Kasich takes Ohio & Cruz takes Missouri.

Clinton takes Florida, Illinois and North Carolina & Sanders takes Missouri and squeaks out Ohio.

So far I gooned up the democrat side

Rainmaker
03-16-2016, 01:59 AM
So far I gooned up the democrat side

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CdeV41iW0AA5s1O.jpg:large

waveshaper2
03-16-2016, 02:38 AM
Rumor is Ted Cruz like Hookers;

On #Super Tuesday, Anonymous Drops A BOMBSHELL On Ted Cruz!
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/supertuesday-anonymous-drops-bombshell-ted-cruz/

garhkal
03-16-2016, 04:37 AM
Well, Trump took Florida, but surprisingly Kasich took Ohio. Though i was peeved to hell, that they ruined my watching of NCIS and Agents of shield, with constant interruptions for "breaking news' about who was getting what votes, when their damn ticker (on practically every broadcast channel such as abc, cbs, nbc, fox) was showing that ANYWAY....

And rubio is gone..
Another one bites the dust.

UncaRastus
03-16-2016, 02:19 PM
Really, Garhkal? Last night, I watched NCIS, and around here, they just put up the crawl, announcing the latest turns of events.

garhkal
03-16-2016, 04:10 PM
Really, Garhkal? Last night, I watched NCIS, and around here, they just put up the crawl, announcing the latest turns of events.

Maybe its different cable providers, but i had NCIS "Broken into" three times during the show and right after they cut to a break, and in the first 20 min of Agents of shield, they had another 3 "cut overs", giving me maybe 5 minutes of the show i was actually able to watch or so.

UncaRastus
03-16-2016, 04:34 PM
Cable? I use the Dish Network, Garhkal. I do enjoy the commercials for Direct TV, though, with the settlers just settling for cable, and their 'simpler way of living'. Not that I dislike cable, but the commercials are pretty funny!

sandsjames
03-16-2016, 04:36 PM
Cable? I use the Dish Network, Garhkal. I do enjoy the commercials for Direct TV, though, with the settlers just settling for cable, and their 'simpler way of living'. Not that I dislike cable, but the commercials are pretty funny!

Just switched to Dish from Directv 2 days ago and I really like it. Seems that the picture is better and I like the set-up a lot more.

UncaRastus
03-16-2016, 04:51 PM
Not to 'dish', SJ, but the commercials that I get are Dish, going on about how Direct costs more after the first year, and Direct making fun of the cable industry.

Since I got a rather large HD TV, a lot of my channels are provided with HD, which makes for pretty nice imaging.

On the other hand, my TV is saying a lot of something on the line of 'HD is not available, switching to SD'. That is for some of the channels, anyhow.

What I dislike also is if there is rain within 20 - 30 miles, my screen gets pixilated, on some channels. I would really hate it if Gibbs is making his killshot from a sniper's lair, and my screen goes into Pixilationland.

Even more, if Earl and Granny are trying to destroy each other on Squidbillies, and the Dish drops out for a bit of rain, well, I get all kinds of disappointed.

sandsjames
03-16-2016, 06:17 PM
Not to 'dish', SJ, but the commercials that I get are Dish, going on about how Direct costs more after the first year, and Direct making fun of the cable industry.

Since I got a rather large HD TV, a lot of my channels are provided with HD, which makes for pretty nice imaging.

On the other hand, my TV is saying a lot of something on the line of 'HD is not available, switching to SD'. That is for some of the channels, anyhow.

What I dislike also is if there is rain within 20 - 30 miles, my screen gets pixilated, on some channels. I would really hate it if Gibbs is making his killshot from a sniper's lair, and my screen goes into Pixilationland.

Even more, if Earl and Granny are trying to destroy each other on Squidbillies, and the Dish drops out for a bit of rain, well, I get all kinds of disappointed.

I would go with cable to avoid outages due to storms but that doesn't allow us to record 4 or 5 shows at once, and there are 1 or 2 nights a week where that is necessary.

The auto-switching to SD on Dish is nice because, when we get thunderstorms and the pixelating (or freezing up completely) you're talking about on HD, it will auto-switch to the SD where it comes in just fine.

Rainmaker
03-18-2016, 12:37 AM
Rumor is Ted Cruz like Hookers;

Not surprised. Holly Roller Televangelists always seem to eventually wind up being linked to prostitutes.


On #Super Tuesday, Anonymous Drops A BOMBSHELL

It'd be more impressive if "Anonymous" dropped a real BOMBSHELL and released the Kenyan's College transcripts or the name of the dead man from Connecticut whose Social Security Number he stole.

Maybe next they could hack into the Clinton Foundation's Foreign Donors or the Hillbillies email account.......Or expose the funding sources behind the Black Lies Matter thugs....
Oh yeah. ...almost forgot.....They can't because Anonymous is the "cough cough" anti-establishment.

garhkal
03-18-2016, 03:30 AM
It'd be more impressive if "Anonymous" dropped a real BOMBSHELL and released the Kenyan's College transcripts or the name of the dead man from Connecticut whose Social Security Number he stole.

Maybe next they could hack into the Clinton Foundation's Foreign Donors or the Hillbillies email account.......Or expose the funding sources behind the Black Lies Matter thugs....
Oh yeah. ...almost forgot.....They can't because Anonymous is the "cough cough" anti-establishment.

Agreed. To be honest, the only real time i have liked what anonymous did was when they hacked Ashley maddison..

UncaRastus
03-18-2016, 02:05 PM
Please, don't dis on Hillbillies. They dislike the Cult of Clintonites as much as anyone else. For some reason, the shoes and boots that the Clintons promised (if the HBs voted for them) to the Hillbillies never materialized.

MikeKerriii
03-21-2016, 11:33 PM
Liberals always ask for evidence of voting fraud. Here is an obvious case of attempt voting fraud in NC. A poll worker illegally tried to stop citizens from voting


http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/voter-id-horror-story-nc-poll-workers-forced-brown-skinned-couple-to-take-a-spelling-test/comments/

sandsjames
03-22-2016, 10:12 AM
Liberals always ask for evidence of voting fraud. Here is an obvious case of attempt voting fraud in NC. A poll worker illegally tried to stop citizens from voting


http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/voter-id-horror-story-nc-poll-workers-forced-brown-skinned-couple-to-take-a-spelling-test/comments/

What's your point?

sandsjames
03-22-2016, 10:14 AM
Liberals always ask for evidence of voting fraud. Here is an obvious case of attempt voting fraud in NC. A poll worker illegally tried to stop citizens from voting


http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/voter-id-horror-story-nc-poll-workers-forced-brown-skinned-couple-to-take-a-spelling-test/comments/

What's your point?

Mjölnir
03-22-2016, 11:18 AM
Liberals always ask for evidence of voting fraud. Here is an obvious case of attempt voting fraud in NC. A poll worker illegally tried to stop citizens from voting


http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/voter-id-horror-story-nc-poll-workers-forced-brown-skinned-couple-to-take-a-spelling-test/comments/

Actually reading the article, this isn't doesn't sound like voter fraud. The poll worker asked the voter to spell his name (not a requirement) while checking his registration (and typing it into a computer). It may have just been easier for the worker (poor typing skills?) to have the man spell the name while he typed it rather than glancing back and forth at the ID and the keyboard. I wasn't there but this isn't as the article describes the same as the literacy test that was (eventually determined to be illegally) administered in the past. I have had this done to me at a polling place as well, I happen to be white with a long 'unusual' last name.

When the poll worker said "you have to spell it" may ... MAY have just been for his convenience. Since charges were not filed, it seems to be more of a misunderstanding than 'voter fraud'.

Bottom line: Yes, discrimination exists. This doesn't sound like it, unless you really want it too ... but then you could find discrimination in everything if you have a big enough chip on your shoulder about it.

SomeRandomGuy
03-22-2016, 01:54 PM
Actually reading the article, this isn't doesn't sound like voter fraud. The poll worker asked the voter to spell his name (not a requirement) while checking his registration (and typing it into a computer). It may have just been easier for the worker (poor typing skills?) to have the man spell the name while he typed it rather than glancing back and forth at the ID and the keyboard. I wasn't there but this isn't as the article describes the same as the literacy test that was (eventually determined to be illegally) administered in the past. I have had this done to me at a polling place as well, I happen to be white with a long 'unusual' last name.

When the poll worker said "you have to spell it" may ... MAY have just been for his convenience. Since charges were not filed, it seems to be more of a misunderstanding than 'voter fraud'.

Bottom line: Yes, discrimination exists. This doesn't sound like it, unless you really want it too ... but then you could find discrimination in everything if you have a big enough chip on your shoulder about it.

I know the literacy test is not allowed, but if someone can't spell their own namehow in the world do they decide who to vote for? It's not like they asked the person to spell Mississippi. It's the person's own last name.

I've always wondered this for driving tests too. When I was 16 Missouri had the option to have someone read the driver's examination to you if you can't read. I get that a person who can't read could still recognize signs by their shape (octagon=stop) but what are people who can't read supposed to do about traffic advisory signs that are text only?

Mjölnir
03-22-2016, 02:57 PM
I know the literacy test is not allowed, but if someone can't spell their own namehow in the world do they decide who to vote for? It's not like they asked the person to spell Mississippi. It's the person's own last name.

I've always wondered this for driving tests too. When I was 16 Missouri had the option to have someone read the driver's examination to you if you can't read. I get that a person who can't read could still recognize signs by their shape (octagon=stop) but what are people who can't read supposed to do about traffic advisory signs that are text only?

Per the law, no test is allowed. Literacy tests were initiated with the intent of disenfranchising minority voters when (1860s-1960s) the majority of the minority (say that 3 times fast) could not read or write.

Now, on one level I would agree that today, someone who is not mentally capable enough to spell their own name is likely not someone I would go to for political advice ... but per the law, their right to vote cannot / shall not be infringed.

The incident from the story does not appear to be that (as was portrayed by the quotes at the top), I don't really know if it was any kind of effort to disenfranchise the voter or just a poll worker asking the voter to spell his name as he checked it against the computerized list of registered voters. Based on the couple of different versions of this story I have heard, it sounds like the voter (who is a PhD) had a bit if a chip on his shoulder and it may have been a misunderstanding.

sandsjames
03-22-2016, 03:12 PM
I know the literacy test is not allowed, but if someone can't spell their own namehow in the world do they decide who to vote for? It's not like they asked the person to spell Mississippi. It's the person's own last name.



This is a pretty elitist view. People who feel they're the only ones educated well enough to choose our leaders are usually the ones contributing the most to fucking it up. We're probably better off letting illiterate people be the only ones voting. Can't make things worse, that's for sure.

Rainmaker
03-22-2016, 03:23 PM
People who feel they're the only ones educated well enough to choose our leaders are usually the ones contributing the most to fucking it up.

^^^^^This.

Never let schooling interfere with your education.

garhkal
03-22-2016, 04:31 PM
Now, on one level I would agree that today, someone who is not mentally capable enough to spell their own name is likely not someone I would go to for political advice ... but per the law, their right to vote cannot / shall not be infringed.

SO too should the right to own guns not be infringed.. But we see laws all over infringing there, like making you takes tests to get qualified. Pass all sorts of checks for it etc.. So why is it ok to infringe on one right, but not another?

SomeRandomGuy
03-22-2016, 04:39 PM
SO too should the right to own guns not be infringed.. But we see laws all over infringing there, like making you takes tests to get qualified. Pass all sorts of checks for it etc.. So why is it ok to infringe on one right, but not another?

You do realize this argument probably won't get you anywhere don't you? Women didn't used to be able to vote, neither did slaves. Also, if you are a convicted felon your right to vote can be infringed. Really, just about any right we have comes with certain clauses so to speak.

What right do you have that is completely unimpeded? Freedom of Speech? Try yelling "fire" in a crowded room. Freedom of religion? You don't want to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple? Sorry, no can do.

UncaRastus
03-22-2016, 04:53 PM
Does having a sign put up that reads, 'We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone' no longer holds water?

Mjölnir
03-22-2016, 05:45 PM
SO too should the right to own guns not be infringed.. But we see laws all over infringing there, like making you takes tests to get qualified. Pass all sorts of checks for it etc.. So why is it ok to infringe on one right, but not another?

To vote, in most places you need some sort of ID. Some argue requiring an ID is infringement.

To own a weapon, you have to follow the licensing requirements. Some licensing requirements have been thrown out based on being interpreted by the judiciary as infringement.

On a level, I see your point ... but there are also basic requirements for tracking things (who is eligible to vote, who owns a weapon etc.) that require a minimal amount of effort from the polis to participate in a civilized society.

SomeRandomGuy
03-22-2016, 06:21 PM
Does having a sign put up that reads, 'We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone' no longer holds water?

Not really. It depends on why you are refusing that service. If you own an apartment complex, having a sign that "reserves the right to refuse service" doesn't allow you to tell black people they can't live there.

Business can only refuse service to people if the reason isn't because of a person's membership in a protected class.

UncaRastus
03-22-2016, 06:48 PM
Thanks for the explanation, SomeRandomGuy. I have wondered about the reason for having those signs. Awhile back, while I was living in Julian, California, Jim Belushi showed up with his father, in a shop. Jim was eating an ice cream cone, and his dad came up to him and said how it would be nice to have a pair of house slippers, holding a pair of them in his hand.

Jim told his father that he could wear his f****** socks, while in his house (his dad's house. He lived in Julian Ca.).

The manager had enough of Jim and over and over stated dislike of the store, the Julianites, and so on, and he told Jim that if he wanted to eat hie cream cone, that he'd have to do it elsewhere, pointing to sign that prohibited people from eating or drinking, while in his store.

Jim asked the owner if he knew who he was. The owner said yes, pointed to the sign again, then the sign below that, which stated, 'We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone'.

Jim left, in a huff, dragging his father behind him.

This was told to me by the owner of the store, some time later. I don't know if this is true or not, but seeing as to how Jim's father did live in Julian, Ca., until his death, I believe the story..

Rainmaker
03-22-2016, 07:49 PM
Business can only refuse service to people if the reason isn't because of a person's membership in a protected class.

Good point. And for practical purposes the Federal government defines "membership in a protected class" as meaning........PRETTY MUCH EVERYONE!!! (except for heterosexual, white, protestant, non-disabled males, under the age of 40)

Rainmaker
03-22-2016, 08:09 PM
What's your point?

Rainmaker takes Full double odds on Mike's point being: "Trump is Hitler".

garhkal
03-22-2016, 09:37 PM
You do realize this argument probably won't get you anywhere don't you? Women didn't used to be able to vote, neither did slaves. Also, if you are a convicted felon your right to vote can be infringed. Really, just about any right we have comes with certain clauses so to speak.

What right do you have that is completely unimpeded? Freedom of Speech? Try yelling "fire" in a crowded room. Freedom of religion? You don't want to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple? Sorry, no can do.

So then, what is the point in even having the Constitution say "Shall not be infringed" if we are just going to keep infringing anyway??

SomeRandomGuy
03-23-2016, 01:15 PM
So then, what is the point in even having the Constitution say "Shall not be infringed" if we are just going to keep infringing anyway??

The Constitution itself includes a process for modification. Why do people keep holding on to the belief that the views of our founders in the 1700s is still what is best for America over 300 years later? These are the same people who were fine with owning slaves and preventing some groups from voting. They obviously weren't right about everything.

Also, the "shall not be infringed" line isn't in the Constitution. It's in an amendment. If we wanted to reverse that amendment we certainly could.

P.S. You can't own an M1 Abrams tank so your right to maintain a "well-regulated militia" has already been infringed upon.

sandsjames
03-23-2016, 01:56 PM
P.S. You can't own an M1 Abrams tank so your right to maintain a "well-regulated militia" has already been infringed upon.Should be able to, though.

MikeKerriii
03-31-2016, 08:37 PM
Is trump realty an ignorant fool or just pretending to make his base think he is one of them?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-supreme-court-clinton-email-221377

He thinks that SC judges are investigators? that proves that not only does he not know what the POTUS does he doesn't know What the Supreme Court does.

He want more nations to have nukes, wants to leave NATO and thinks use or threatening the use of nuclear weapons is a valid negotiation tactic


http://www.businessinsider.com/john-kasich-donald-trump-president-2016-3
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/03/31/john-kasich-5-reasons-trump-not-fit-to-be-president-sot-nr.cnn

garhkal
04-01-2016, 04:19 AM
I am starting to agree MK.. He is making a little more nonsense.

Rainmaker
04-02-2016, 12:46 AM
Trump status: [ ] stumped [x] not stumped

MikeKerriii
04-02-2016, 03:36 AM
Trump status: [ ] stumped [x] not stumped

He is not stumped he is just a dangerously ignorant clown, with a posse comprised mostly of the mentally impaired and cowards scared of their own shadows.

Rainmaker
04-02-2016, 02:16 PM
He is not stumped he is just a dangerously ignorant clown, with a posse comprised mostly of the mentally impaired and cowards scared of their own shadows.

you forgot the obligatory reference to 'Hitler'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_9Faxz1s5g

USN - Retired
04-02-2016, 08:20 PM
https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/12920334_10156825260630515_1780862326843515105_n.j pg?oh=2e754283756bd9792901c72d12d6dafc&oe=5781EDA5

UncaRastus
04-02-2016, 11:28 PM
Oh ... my ... ^

garhkal
04-03-2016, 08:50 PM
I had a massive chuckle at that cartoon.. IMO it would be exactly Hillary's response.

Rainmaker
04-04-2016, 05:18 PM
https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/12920334_10156825260630515_1780862326843515105_n.j pg?oh=2e754283756bd9792901c72d12d6dafc&oe=5781EDA5

I'd hit it.

Rainmaker
04-20-2016, 04:01 AM
LIVE FROM NEW YORK!

http://dsbbsuploads.s3.amazonaws.com/original/3X/d/9/d9fcfac797cd5b3c54085fb41d8e4330eee39c52.gif

garhkal
04-21-2016, 04:12 AM
Wow.. Rep King from NY threatens to take cyanide tablets if Cruz wins.. What a crybaby.

http://ezkool.com/2016/04/republican-congressman-ill-get-cyanide-cruz-wins-nominee/

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/04/rep-peter-king-says-hell-take-cyanide-if

USN - Retired
04-23-2016, 06:54 AM
https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/12072783_1092293810837102_2303846045609106699_n.jp g?oh=30a4130e26d4b4fcaa234a243793cd44&oe=57B3A773

Mjölnir
05-01-2016, 12:30 PM
Looks like last night Trump failed to do well in Arizona.


I hear the talk that if he falls short of the number of delegates to secure the nomination outright he should be the de facto nominee regardless since he leads (absent of a majority) even though the rules allow for multiple ballots and for delegates to switch their pledged vote after a specific ballot if they wish.

Like him or not, he 'should' have had the nomination secured a few weeks ago but his campaign manager & staff seem to not understand how the delegate count is accumulated in the states he is competing in. With his resources, he could have hired the best of the best in a campaign manager & staff ... he seems to have not done well with who he picked.

sandsjames
05-01-2016, 02:41 PM
Looks like last night Trump failed to do well in Arizona.


I hear the talk that if he falls short of the number of delegates to secure the nomination outright he should be the de facto nominee regardless since he leads (absent of a majority) even though the rules allow for multiple ballots and for delegates to switch their pledged vote after a specific ballot if they wish.

Like him or not, he 'should' have had the nomination secured a few weeks ago but his campaign manager & staff seem to not understand how the delegate count is accumulated in the states he is competing in. With his resources, he could have hired the best of the best in a campaign manager & staff ... he seems to have not done well with who he picked.


He's going to win the nomination without wasting his resources. I think he's doing just fine. I don't support him but he's doing exactly what he wants to do and it's working. Right now, he's proving that illegal immigrants are criminals as they protest him by destroying police cars and waving Mexican flags.

He's proven that he's smarter than anyone else around him. I'm pretty sure that he'll probably hire a better staff for the general election but I could be wrong.

garhkal
05-01-2016, 05:57 PM
Looks like last night Trump failed to do well in Arizona.


Failed to do well in what? He already won the state's primary..

Mjölnir
05-01-2016, 10:12 PM
Failed to do well in what? He already won the state's primary..

He won the primary (handily), and got only 12 of the 58 delegates after the delegate assignments.

Similar thing in Colorado, did well in the polls, did poor in delegate count.

It seems that his campaign management does not understand how delegates are assigned ...

garhkal
05-02-2016, 07:43 AM
He won the primary (handily), and got only 12 of the 58 delegates after the delegate assignments.

Similar thing in Colorado, did well in the polls, did poor in delegate count.

It seems that his campaign management does not understand how delegates are assigned ...

Ahh.. Didn't realize that..

waveshaper2
05-02-2016, 12:24 PM
He won the primary (handily), and got only 12 of the 58 delegates after the delegate assignments.

Similar thing in Colorado, did well in the polls, did poor in delegate count.

It seems that his campaign management does not understand how delegates are assigned ...

This is the way I think this process works but I very well could be wrong (this crap makes my head hurt).

Trump won all 58 Arizona delegates. These 58 Arizona delegates are bound to Trump and they have no choice but to vote for Trump on the first ballot at the GOP Convention. If Trump hits the 1237 number on the first ballot then it's game over and Trump is the GOP nominee. It Trump doesn't get to 1237 then there most likely will be a contested convention and these Arizona (and most other state delegates) can change their vote on the second, third, forth etc ballots to Cruz or whoever else is still in the game.

Arizona GOP State/national Convention Rules;
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/AZ-R
Excerpt; each delegate to the national convention shall vote for the party's presidential nominee candidate who received the greatest number of votes in the presidential preference election ..., until the candidate releases the delegate from the delegate's obligation, until a candidate withdraws from the race or until one convention nominating ballot has been taken. After a candidate is nominated, withdraws from the race, delegates are released or one ballot is taken, each delegate is free to vote as the delegate chooses

Rainmaker
05-02-2016, 02:49 PM
It seems that his campaign management does not understand how delegates are assigned ...

I'm still very much on the fence about whether they "don't get it" or whether they understand exactly how the delegates are assigned. But have made a calculated decision not to engage in kissing the pissant politician's (Delegates) asses.

It's pretty simple. The Donald most likely will get to 1237 and if not, then he can call the RINO's bluff and see if they'll blow up the party (by ignoring the will of the people) and hand it to the Jr. Senator from Alberta or Kasich or Romney/Ryan or Rubbio or JEB or some other Necon turd that's already been deemed unsuitable by the voters.

And If that happens he'll just run as 3rd party on the basis that the whole system was rigged to begin with (and Hitlery is just the other side of the same coin) .

Trump already has won more votes than Romney and McCain received and is on pace to win the most ever in a GOP primary.

And let's not forget thatTrump is going to have an Army of supporters on the ground in Cleveland. So, here's hoping they try and steal it....... And then the Fun Really begins!

USN - Retired
05-03-2016, 05:08 AM
"I have a lot of experience dealing with men who sometimes get off the reservation in the way they behave and how they speak,"

1. Question for the men on this forum...

Who here is on Hillary Clinton's reservation for men?

Who here is off Hillary Clinton's reservation for men?

Who here is not sure?

2. Other questions: Where is Hillary Clinton's reservation for men? What are the living conditions for men on Hillary Clinton's reservation? Will the reservation for men be expanded when Hillary Clinton wins the election?

WILDJOKER5
05-03-2016, 11:27 AM
1. Question for the men on this forum...

Who here is on Hillary Clinton's reservation for men?

Who here is off Hillary Clinton's reservation for men?

Who here is not sure?

2. Other questions: Where is Hillary Clinton's reservation for men? What are the living conditions for men on Hillary Clinton's reservation? Will the reservation for men be expanded when Hillary Clinton wins the election?
She is going to be the closest to a dictator the US would ever have. I honestly don't see us not having another civil war with her as POTUS. We just went through 8 years of "you cant say that cause hes black and that makes you ray-cist". It will be the same for her and "female/sexist". But I also think she is more brazen than the limp wristed Obama and she would push us over the edge. She and her daughter already admitted they want to come for your guns.

SomeRandomGuy
05-03-2016, 03:18 PM
I came across this earlier today. Do we have any Cruz supporters in here? I don't know how anyone can back him when you actually dig into his record. For example, look up Dretzke v. Haley where Cruz represented Texas as the Solicitor General. Here are the Oral Arguments.

https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/rehnquist10/oral_argument_audio/23512

The issue in this case is that the defendant was arrested for shoplifting an item over $1500. The State improperly charged him under the "three strikes" law for habitual felons. He was given a 16 year sentence when the max for his crime should have been two years.

Cruz conceded the sentence was wrong but argued that it should stand anyways. According to Cruz, the defendant's lawyer should have raised the issue at trial.

To me this is just an early example that Cruz cares more about winning than he does about justice. You can see it bleed over into almost everything he stands for. He doesn't care who he hurts as long as it advances his cause.

How can anyone support this guy?

sandsjames
05-03-2016, 03:31 PM
To me this is just an early example that Cruz cares more about winning than he does about justice. You can see it bleed over into almost everything he stands for. He doesn't care who he hurts as long as it advances his cause.

How can anyone support this guy?I don't support him one bit, but this quote above describes almost every lawyer and politician out there.

sandsjames
05-03-2016, 03:34 PM
She is going to be the closest to a dictator the US would ever have. I honestly don't see us not having another civil war with her as POTUS. We just went through 8 years of "you cant say that cause hes black and that makes you ray-cist". It will be the same for her and "female/sexist". But I also think she is more brazen than the limp wristed Obama and she would push us over the edge. She and her daughter already admitted they want to come for your guns.

She's gonna be the same as everyone else we get in there. It just doesn't make a difference.

SomeRandomGuy
05-03-2016, 03:55 PM
I don't support him one bit, but this quote above describes almost every lawyer and politician out there.

I agree, but this is egregious. A man is going to spend 16 years in prison instead of 2 and he's good with that because the defendant "lost" at trial? I can't imagine He'd be willing to ever compromise on anything politically. It kind of explains a lot of his hard-line stances in Congress thus far. Like that fact that he would be willing to shut down the Government over Planned Parenthood funding. He doesn't care who gets hurt (government employees, women who need health services) he just wants to win.

WILDJOKER5
05-03-2016, 04:09 PM
I agree, but this is egregious. A man is going to spend 16 years in prison instead of 2 and he's good with that because the defendant "lost" at trial? I can't imagine He'd be willing to ever compromise on anything politically. It kind of explains a lot of his hard-line stances in Congress thus far. Like that fact that he would be willing to shut down the Government over Planned Parenthood funding. He doesn't care who gets hurt (government employees, women who need health services) he just wants to win.I don't support Cruz either, but putting these two groups over the population as a whole isn't wise either. "Women who need health services" have plenty of options. Getting an abortion on demand isn't a "health service", its murder. Having someone give you the pill when they can go buy condoms isn't life threatening either. As for the Government employees, they were fully reimbursed for their time off.

Rainmaker
05-03-2016, 04:11 PM
I came across this earlier today. Do we have any Cruz supporters in here? I don't know how anyone can back him when you actually dig into his record. For example, look up Dretzke v. Haley where Cruz represented Texas as the Solicitor General. Here are the Oral Arguments.

https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/rehnquist10/oral_argument_audio/23512

The issue in this case is that the defendant was arrested for shoplifting an item over $1500. The State improperly charged him under the "three strikes" law for habitual felons. He was given a 16 year sentence when the max for his crime should have been two years.

Cruz conceded the sentence was wrong but argued that it should stand anyways. According to Cruz, the defendant's lawyer should have raised the issue at trial.

To me this is just an early example that Cruz cares more about winning than he does about justice. You can see it bleed over into almost everything he stands for. He doesn't care who he hurts as long as it advances his cause.

How can anyone support this guy?

"And he's going to spend 16 years in jail, is that right?"
"Yes, Justice Stevens" R. Ted Cruz-
"Now, is that just, do you think?" -John Paul Stevens
"Maintaining the procedural default rule is"- R. Ted Cruz


What that whole disgusting exchange between Rafael "Ted" Cruz and the SCOTUS demonstrates is that Cruz places 'the letter of the law' above 'the spirit of the law'.


He's more or less a Modern Day Pharisee. So, given that is it any wonder that he finds it just to subvert the spirit of the electorate and engage in delegate poaching?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woes_of_the_Pharisees

The eight woes of hypocrisy are:
1.They taught about God but did not love God — they did not enter the kingdom of heaven themselves, nor did they let others enter. (Matt 23:13)
2.They devoured widows' houses and for a pretence made a long prayer, for which they would receive a greater damnation. (Matt 23:14)
3.They preached God but converted people to dead religion, thus making those converts twice as much sons of hell as they themselves were. (Matt 23:15)
4.They taught that an oath sworn by the temple or altar was not binding, but that if sworn by the gold ornamentation of the temple, or by a sacrificial gift on the altar, it was binding. The gold and gifts, however, were not sacred in themselves as the temple and altar were, but derived a measure of lesser sacredness by being connected to the temple or altar. The teachers and Pharisees worshiped at the temple and offered sacrifices at the altar because they knew that the temple and altar were sacred. How then could they deny oath-binding value to what was truly sacred and accord it to objects of trivial and derived sacredness? (Matt 23:16-22)
5.They taught the law but did not practice some of the most important parts of the law — justice, mercy, faithfulness to God. They obeyed the minutiae of the law such as tithing spices but not the weightier matters of the law. (Matt 23:23-24)
6.They presented an appearance of being 'clean' (self-restrained, not involved in carnal matters), yet they were dirty inside: they seethed with hidden worldly desires, carnality. They were full of greed and self-indulgence. (Matt 23:25-26)
7.They exhibited themselves as righteous on account of being scrupulous keepers of the law, but were in fact not righteous: their mask of righteousness hid a secret inner world of ungodly thoughts and feelings. They were full of wickedness. They were like whitewashed tombs, beautiful on the outside, but full of dead men's bones. (Matt 23:27-28)
8.They professed a high regard for the dead prophets of old, and claimed that they would never have persecuted and murdered prophets, when in fact they were cut from the same cloth as the persecutors and murderers: they too had murderous blood in their veins. (Matt 23:29-36)

sandsjames
05-03-2016, 04:16 PM
I agree, but this is egregious. A man is going to spend 16 years in prison instead of 2 and he's good with that because the defendant "lost" at trial? I can't imagine He'd be willing to ever compromise on anything politically. It kind of explains a lot of his hard-line stances in Congress thus far. Like that fact that he would be willing to shut down the Government over Planned Parenthood funding. He doesn't care who gets hurt (government employees, women who need health services) he just wants to win.

These are all talking points for opponents of Cruz. They can be easily compared to talking points for opponents of all the candidates...it just so happens that you find this one more egregious because it's a guy you don't like.

It's like watching sports. Your team always gets penalties/fouls called against them while the opposing team gets away with everything.

SomeRandomGuy
05-03-2016, 04:18 PM
"And he's going to spend 16 years in jail, is that right?"
"Yes, Justice Stevens" R. Ted Cruz-
"Now, is that just, do you think?" -John Paul Stevens
"Maintaining the procedural default rule is"- R. Ted Cruz


What that whole disgusting exchange between Rafael "Ted" Cruz and the SCOTUS demonstrates is that Cruz places the letter of the law above the spirit of the law.


Basically, He's a Modern Day Pharisee.

Saw this Cruz quote yesterday:

“When Heidi Cruz is first lady, French fries are coming back to the lunch room!”

First off, I thought we were calling them "freedom fries" now. Second, I thought that quote was hilarious. I don't personally think the government should be making decisions on what is served in the cafeteria. That said, kids could probably use some healthier meal options.

If Obama is for it Cruz is coming out against it. I guarantee that if Obama announced plans for people to continue to breath oxygen Cruz would come out against people breathing oxygen.

Rainmaker
05-04-2016, 03:56 PM
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/election/2016/05/03/ted-cruz-ends-his-bid-republican-presidential-nomination/83902394/

So, In Today's News..... Rafael Cruz applies for US Citizenship & Carly Fiorina files for Unemployment (again)....

Rainmaker
05-04-2016, 03:59 PM
Looks Like Kasich is all done eating pancakes too....Man, That was easy... Now, Bring on the Hellbeast!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-04/kasich-make-5pm-statement-ohio-after-canceling-press-conference

Rusty Jones
05-04-2016, 04:00 PM
Well, looks like Kasich is finished too. Trump is it.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/278602-kasich-quits-presidential-race

Rusty Jones
05-04-2016, 04:09 PM
This may actually work out for Bernie Sanders. Too many conservatives hate Donald Trump... and that's a STRONG hatred for Hillary Clinton among conservatives.

So, for those who won't be voting for Trump... in the remaining primaries... I don't see them voting for Clinton. Either they're going to stay home, or they're going to vote for Bernie Sanders to keep Clinton out. I'm hoping for the latter.

sandsjames
05-04-2016, 04:16 PM
This may actually work out for Bernie Sanders. Too many conservatives hate Donald Trump... and that's a STRONG hatred for Hillary Clinton among conservatives.

So, for those who won't be voting for Trump... in the remaining primaries... I don't see them voting for Clinton. Either they're going to stay home, or they're going to vote for Bernie Sanders to keep Clinton out. I'm hoping for the latter.

The problem with Trump, among other things, is that he's more liberal than most democrats.

Rainmaker
05-04-2016, 04:31 PM
This may actually work out for Bernie Sanders. Too many conservatives hate Donald Trump... and that's a STRONG hatred for Hillary Clinton among conservatives.

So, for those who won't be voting for Trump... in the remaining primaries... I don't see them voting for Clinton. Either they're going to stay home, or they're going to vote for Bernie Sanders to keep Clinton out. I'm hoping for the latter.

I'm hoping for a Bernie Nomination too...... But, The Democratic Nomination process is even more rigged than the Republican one. Queen Hillary's already been 'chosen' at the 2008 Bilderberg meeting (when she dropped out 2 days later).

In spite of the fact that this wicked witch has hardly given any one-on-one press interviews for over a year and was given a virtual pass by Bernie on the rampant corruption in the Clinton Foundation being a pay to play front organization to gain access to the State Department, she's so unlikable that she's still running neck and neck with the socialist kook.

Bernie voters are the ones going to be locked out and staying home.

Rainmaker's been telling you mugs from the beginning. The Trump Train Can't be Stopped.

USN - Retired
05-04-2016, 04:42 PM
......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yN8kUkiP0o

Rainmaker
05-04-2016, 04:56 PM
https://c3.staticflickr.com/8/7683/16506786274_9a9334a265_n.jpg

Mjölnir
05-04-2016, 05:06 PM
https://gifsoup.com/view/2301774/lets-get-ready-to-rumble.html

garhkal
05-04-2016, 06:19 PM
On today's outnumbered they were laughing at how the GOP has gone from 17 down to 1 already, when the Dems started with 4 and are still at 2...

WILDJOKER5
05-05-2016, 12:52 PM
I found it funny that the GOP was telling Trump in the beginning that when he doesn't get the nom, that he shouldn't run 3rd party and ruin the GOP chances of getting elected like Ross Perot did to Bush. Now, yesterday, Google gathered a massive spike in "Libertarian party" and "Gary Johnson" searches. So now its the GOP that's going to go 3rd party and ruin Trump's chance of being elected. Bernie is not being favored by the GOP over Trump btw, that's silly.

Mjölnir
08-04-2016, 11:44 AM
So, out of 300+ million people, Hillary Clinton & Donald Trump are the best the two major parties can do.

I will likely be voting Johnson. In very large part because I can't on principle vote for either of them, even though I know that Johnson stands such a small chance of winning that I might as well write in my name.

In small part, any candidate who has a tagline of Feel the Johnson ... can't be all that bad ...

Rainmaker
08-04-2016, 04:06 PM
So, out of 300+ million people, Hillary Clinton & Donald Trump are the best the two major parties can do.

It's no worse than in 2004. When the Establishment Garbage, gave the American people the option of "choosing" between two C-average Fraternity brothers from Yale.

Now Statistically Commander, what would you say the odds are, that In a nation of 300+ Million, our only two candidates would've come from a fraternity that only had 15 people in it? How could that happen?

The Main-stream media (our supposed watchdogs of liberty) are basically a 24-7 Clinton advertisement.

Social Media is the same. Twitter. Face-Fuck. Google. All Manipulated.

Rainmaker can't open up an email in Yahoo on his idiot phone without 4 negative Trump Hit piece articles popping up.

Mjölnir
08-04-2016, 06:53 PM
It's no worse than in 2004. When the Establishment Garbage, gave the American people the option of "choosing" between two C-average Fraternity brothers from Yale. Now Statistically Commander, what would you say the odds are, that In a nation of 300+ Million, our only two candidates would've come from a fraternity that only had 15 people in it? How could that happen?

When I look at the money, connections, networking, and career success rates of the Skull & Bones, I am not overly surprised that two members went on to be prominent politicians. No more than I am not surprised that over 25% of the players in the NFL are from the SEC, and 20% from the ACC.

Rainmaker
08-04-2016, 07:10 PM
I am not overly surprised that two members went on to be prominent politicians. No more than I am not surprised that over 25% of the players in the NFL are from the SEC, and 20% from the ACC.

Not even close to the same odds. The NFL drafts from a pool of around 3500 players a year. & 7% get drafted.

There have only been 44 presidents in 240 years. Now, 2 classmates from a frat of 15 people became candidates for POTUS in the Same year??@! and basically no one questioned that this wasn't above board????!!..unfuckingbeleivable!!! It's a statistical impossibility, that it couldn't haven't been rigged. We're doomed.

Bos Mutus
08-04-2016, 08:59 PM
When I look at the money, connections, networking, and career success rates of the Skull & Bones, I am not overly surprised that two members went on to be prominent politicians. No more than I am not surprised that over 25% of the players in the NFL are from the SEC, and 20% from the ACC.

Two is a coincidence...need three to make a trend.

The most popular name of the last century has been Michael. But, there has never been a Michael, Mike, Mick, etc. as a President or even Vice-President.

It's anti-Mike bigotry.

Rusty Jones
08-04-2016, 09:13 PM
Two is a coincidence...need three to make a trend.

The most popular name of the last century has been Michael. But, there has never been a Michael, Mike, Mick, etc. as a President or even Vice-President.

It's anti-Mike bigotry.

Come to think of it, we've never had a President Smith either. We had two Adamses, two Bushes, two Johnsons (might get three); but not a single Smith. Something's going on here.

Mjölnir
08-04-2016, 09:25 PM
Not even close to the same odds. The NFL drafts from a pool of around 3500 players a year. & 7% get drafted.

There have only been 44 presidents in 240 years. Now, 2 classmates from a frat of 15 people became candidates for POTUS in the Same year??@! and basically no one questioned that this wasn't above board????!!..unfuckingbeleivable!!! It's a statistical impossibility, that it couldn't haven't been rigged. We're doomed.

Am not saying the odds are out there. I am saying I am not at all surprised that a very small, private club at an Ivy League school that caters to the rich and influential, whose members have a history of rising to the pinnacles of thier professions would end up having two of their members (who went into politics) being nominated for president in the same year.

Mjölnir
08-04-2016, 09:26 PM
Come to think of it, we've never had a President Smith either. We had two Adamses, two Bushes, two Johnsons (might get three); but not a single Smith. Something's going on here.

Two Johnsons ...

garhkal
08-05-2016, 04:33 PM
It's no worse than in 2004. When the Establishment Garbage, gave the American people the option of "choosing" between two C-average Fraternity brothers from Yale.

Now Statistically Commander, what would you say the odds are, that In a nation of 300+ Million, our only two candidates would've come from a fraternity that only had 15 people in it? How could that happen?

The Main-stream media (our supposed watchdogs of liberty) are basically a 24-7 Clinton advertisement.

Social Media is the same. Twitter. Face-Fuck. Google. All Manipulated.

Rainmaker can't open up an email in Yahoo on his idiot phone without 4 negative Trump Hit piece articles popping up.

Nor is it any wonder why so many GOP are STILL showing they are against Trump, even to the point of smacking on him for daring to not endorse ryan and mccaian when both of THEM didn't endorse him...

Mjölnir
08-05-2016, 04:59 PM
Nor is it any wonder why so many GOP are STILL showing they are against Trump, even to the point of smacking on him for daring to not endorse ryan and mccaian when both of THEM didn't endorse him...

Both did endorse him and have left those endorsements in place:

Ryan endorsement: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/paul-ryan-endorses-donald-trump/

McCain criticized Trump's statements to the Khan family but still endorsed him: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/01/john_mccain_criticizes_trump_over_khan_attacks_but _is_still_endorsing_him.html

Rainmaker
08-05-2016, 05:59 PM
Both did endorse him and have left those endorsements in place:

Ryan endorsement: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/paul-ryan-endorses-donald-trump/

McCain criticized Trump's statements to the Khan family but still endorsed him: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/01/john_mccain_criticizes_trump_over_khan_attacks_but _is_still_endorsing_him.html

Does anyone really still give a shit what either of those two think? McStain would be better off to just STFU and stick to supporting his Moderate Terrorists in Syria.

And Paul Rino's on the verge of getting Cantor'ed in Wisconsin.....That, reminds me.... it's Time to send off another campaign donation to Nehlen!

Bos Mutus
08-05-2016, 06:25 PM
Does anyone really still give a shit what either of those two think?

No.

I don't get the whole business of endorsements...who cares about any of them. Is there one person in America who will vote or not vote for Trump based on Cruz's endorsement...or Hillary based on Sanders' endorsement?


You're either gonna vote for them or not vote for them...I guess I can see how some people might be swayed from voting third party, because just like every election in my lifetime "This is the most important election in the history of the world and we can't afford to let XX win"

garhkal
08-08-2016, 06:24 PM
Both did endorse him and have left those endorsements in place:

Ryan endorsement: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/paul-ryan-endorses-donald-trump/

McCain criticized Trump's statements to the Khan family but still endorsed him: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/01/john_mccain_criticizes_trump_over_khan_attacks_but _is_still_endorsing_him.html

I could have sworn Ryan didn't endorse him. He kept saying "I am not there yet"..
Must have missed his big endorsement, while spending time prepping for last weeks big Gencon convention..