Yukon4Runner
New member
I know, I know....you bumped into her a while back and now you're in LOVE with her.
America this week, what the hell?
- Thread starter amalik
- Start date
- Status
hikenbike
New member
Not quite......actually liked Rubio, Kasich, or Cruz much better. But the GOP had no spine.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Gunslinger-13
New member
Actually the GOP did ALL it could to oust Trump, along with the media.
It was the primary voters that gave us Trump.
The GOP tried everything to keep Trump from getting the nomination. He struck a chord with a big portion of America- there is no denying that based primary voting counts.
Honest question- How do you get from liking Cruz, Kasich and Rubio to Voting Hilary?
Hillary is the antithesis of all of those folks you liked other than they are all establishment politician folks- Cruz not so much, but I think you understand the point I'm making and why I would be confused at the jump from those candidates to Hillary.
I get not liking trump, just trying to understand. Is it purely Hillary is not Truml and that is all that matters for you?
hikenbike
New member
I'm only given 2 choices. I'm not voting for Hillary. Voting against Trump. IMO he is a truly disgusting and vile person.....not candidate or business man.......person. I can't get over the fact that so many Americans are flat out dumb enough to make him a candidate.
I hear that so many Americans are "angry" and thus the rise of this pig.......but I also believe in personal responsibility and perhaps many Americans are "angry" because they are pitifully lazy or afraid to take bold steps to change, learn, take action, and make themselves better.
It's really that simple.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Thefishguy77
New member
I agree that they both lie. That's how they see their job description. It's funny that NYT didn't publish the link or give examples of the difference between a "fib" or "pants on fire lie". The cherry tree obviously didn't happen so that is not the example I was hoping for. I also didn't see mentioned where she said she landed in the Middle East under sniper fire. Or where she said Chelsea was jogging around the WTC on 9/11. In fact she wasn't anywhere near there. Or where she said the embassy situation was all because of a video. Or where she face to face told the family's of the embassy situation that this was because of a video and then later lied about it in a press interview. Or lied about national security and classified documents to the senate and the FBI then when asked about it in an interview she denied it all. So I get trump tells lies. But does he tell lies that get people/Americans/American volunteer soldiers killed? That is what is important to me. Not if trump said he was buddies with someone and then said they weren't.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-JD-
New member
Re-read the article. Several of the things you mentioned are in there.
Thefishguy77
New member
I went back and redhead it and I see a few things I asked for. One thing I did not see was a source for the murder statistic. But that is something both side lie about so I will accept that. As to the Muslims celebrating it took just a small search to find a link for breitbart. I know it's super conservative but they actually have the news broadcast reporting on the celebrating. Worth a watch. It was not the only source just the first one I check
Edit: help if I include the link[emoji35]
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journa...-cbs-reports-swarms-on-roofs-celebrating-911/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Edit: help if I include the link[emoji35]
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journa...-cbs-reports-swarms-on-roofs-celebrating-911/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thefishguy77
New member
On a different note. Can we say nanny state
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-ban-motorists-drinking-coffee-road/88380406/
I know the bill said its not directly targeting coffee. But man you would think they already had a law that they could pull you over if it was obvious you weren't paying attention.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-ban-motorists-drinking-coffee-road/88380406/
I know the bill said its not directly targeting coffee. But man you would think they already had a law that they could pull you over if it was obvious you weren't paying attention.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hepar
New member
We do it to ourselves. It absolutely blows me away how many people are on the roads who are not paying attention. Phones specific. I recently had a guy swerve halfway into my lane and almost hit me. When I pulled up next to him at the next signal light, I saw that he was busy texting away. His window was down so I yelled over to him (and very politely given the situation) to put his phone down and pay attention to driving. He told me to mind my own business. I was dumfounded.
The general rule of the bill is to probably avoid something like we're going through. We were one of the first States to have a law against texting and driving, but the way and the time it was write makes it outdated now. Technically as it stands now, it is illegal to talk (without a headset) or text while driving, but not to use the internet. We had a proposed bill to broaden it, but voters shot it down. I'm all for it. And STIFF penalties too. If you don't know that texting while driving on the freeway is not a good idea, you should get your license yanked for 6 months minimum (maybe after one documented warning).
Last edited:
RunninInGA
New member
Are laws like this being enforced anywhere? We have a no texting and driving law in GA too. A local county PD set up a sting at a traffic light one day several months ago - the poo hit the fan when people were ticketed due to accusations of entrapment.
nevada
Senior Member
those types of laws are very similar to anti-gun laws. the only people it will affect is those who choose to obey the law.
also, "hands free" is really not any better. the issue is lack of attention. which happens whether you are holding a phone to your ear, or just talking. your attention is focused on the call, and not the road. but, how is that any different from having a conversation with someone sitting next to you in the car? I don't think it is.
texting, yeah that something else entirely, and requires both your hands, and eyes.
we need to reinforce training, perhaps a more rigorous and involved driving test. with all the safety features cars are coming with anymore, we have become complacent.
Hepar
New member
I'm not seeing how a law preventing using your phone while driving would effect me being that I know not to do so.
But I agree that stronger training and testing is needed. And since you're comparing the two, would you also say that stronger training and testing would benefit gun laws?
nevada
Senior Member
uh, huh? the people who will disregard the law will STILL do it. the only people affected are those that will choose to follow the law.
the only comparison im doing, is the fact that it wont affect "criminals" which are the problem. though, these types of laws create criminals, just by there very existence.
Hepar
New member
Um, huh? Please explain to me how a bill against the use of your phone while driving would effect me or anyone else who are choosing to not use their phone while driving.
nevada
Senior Member
the thing is it WONT affect those that are unwilling to follow that law. they will still do it, and still cause accidents. basically, its a pointless law. those that are going to be safe and not use their phones, ALREADY aren't using it. just like you said.
Hepar
New member
OK, fair enough. That I get. But you do see how that is different from what you said above, right?
To me, I don't believe that people are going to text and drive no matter what despite any changes. I feel one way you could prevent some of it is to have a probation period to get a license and have a list of infractions to where if you get caught by any of them, you don't get to even test for your license until you're 18. Yes, no matter what you do people are still going to do it to a degree. I get that. But there are ways to try and cut that number down.
And I do get the thought behind not wanting more regulation. I think it's complete BS too. But like so many things, it's a necessary evil because far too many people lack personal responsibility. I live in the PNW and see places get shut down to access all the time because people lack the respect for themselves, which turns into a lack of respect for others or their surroundings. But while I hate that these places get shut down, I understand it.
Thefishguy77
New member
Well in Washington state we actually don't need that law or any other new one. The is a law on the books that is inattentiveness to driving. It covers everything. It's just that it doesn't get used much. My mom actually got a toilet for it when we were kids. She was busy shopping and when backing up thought she had room than she did and hit a UPS truck. The cop wrote her that ticket. She went to court and said its BS. The judge replied that if you were paying any attention you would have seen a big brown truck behind you.
This is kind of like gun laws. If the people choose not to follow the law. Let's just make more. Won't really make any difference until they actually get enforced.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is kind of like gun laws. If the people choose not to follow the law. Let's just make more. Won't really make any difference until they actually get enforced.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hepar
New member
The difference is that law is a reactionary one where we need a proactive one. As it stands, you are only going to get a ticket for that if you are involved with an incident or accident.
So as it stands now, if you are surfing the web while driving you have to have a separate infraction in order to add on an inattentive driver infraction.
- Status
Similar threads
