Who's ready for President Trump!

[pjbrownva]

When it's good natured ribbing or a slight jab at the opposition then that's one thing. When it becomes personal is when it becomes a problem

Question: Why do so many of you become offended (read: hurt feelings) when someone states an opposing viewpoint?

...

Just my thoughts on this.

:loco: :withstupid:


You're wrong!

... and that means you're a doo-doo head too !!!


:brushteeth:


:worthless


So... here we go! .......






:blah: :blah:






:moon: :moon: :moon:








:zoom:







ound: ound:






:flamewar:






op2:op2:



J.K.

ound: ound: :rofl:






:hiding:

-Phil

 

[pjbrownva]

At the same time, the First Lady should be a role model not a nude model.

Firstly, Ladies, at some time I wouldn't mind rolling nude with that model !!!

:wow: :wow: :boxing:

 

[pjbrownva]

Now, back to our regular slug fest!!

J.K.

ound: ound: :rofl:




:hiding:

-Phil

Now... back to our regular slug fest !!!

Here's the danger when we go too far in our attempt to vilify some groups...

... a lesson from 1991 that lead to massive, destructive riots in LA & divided the country...







(For those who were very young or not born in 1991... video cameras were rare. Most things WEREN'T caught on video... and there was no internet, or youtube... so this footage was ground breaking and very controversial... ultimately five Police officers where charged with crimes for this beating of Rodney King. The trial was moved from "the hood" in LA, to a mostly white suburb in order to give the Police officers a fair trial, and an all white jury returned the following unanimous verdict for all charges against each of the five officers, who were also all white... Not guilty! At least they got a trial by a jury of their peers! Isn't that what the law calls for? Hint: the idea stems from English common law where the intention was that accused nobility would have a jury composed of other nobility, rather than being judged solely by the King. U.S. courts have eventually interpreted this to mean that the jury should be drawn from the population of citizens at large from the community where the alleged crime occurred.)


Photo of Rodney King after the whoopin' he got... (and a link to a more modern blog entry about it by some schmuck! -- JK, I don't know the guy.)



and

the now infamous (and often misquoted) "I just wanna say, you know...
Can we... Can we all get along?" comment...



During the trial, the defense likened Mr. King to a Bull, and made other animal references.

How is this on-topic?

The point is, in our civil and political discourse, we should be careful not to let our rhetoric rise to the level of dehumanizing each other.

A big part of why the RK incident happened, and why the jury returned a not guilty verdict against the police for the beating they gave RK, was because of a mentality that dehumanized RK, and others like him.

We can disagree on policies, and we can disagree about who's a dirt bag, and who's going to save the country from the evils of the other side, but let's remember that everyone is still human. I just wanna say, you know...
Can we... Can we all get along?

(And now I feel like Jerry Springer... making one of his self-righteous and condescending comments at the end of his show after he's paraded and encouraged the biggest freak show circus he could possibly create !
:biggrin1: )

The Easter Bunny's coming... one of the holiest of Christian holidays, where we celebrate a miraculous rebirth and the possible redemption of man kind by taking eggs from residents of large commercial chicken coops, boiling their unborn chicks while still in their shell, decorating them with pretty colors and hiding them from our children, all while blaming a rabbit for doing it! It's all in the name of fun, you know! :naughty:

(P.C. Note... if you don't celebrate Easter... be happy that Spring is almost here.

... double P.C. Note... or if you live south of the equator... be happy that Fall is almost here,

.. tripple P.C. Note... or if you're not from this planet, just be happy that you're probably not an illegal alien !!!



--- this PC stuff is getting exhausting! )

Ahh, @#%& it!!!

Happy Easter, and peace to all !!!

 

[ThorInc]

The point is, in our civil and political discourse, we should be careful not to let our rhetoric rise to the level of dehumanizing each other.

This assumes that your opinion matters............a vast assumption in the liberal vs. conservative divide and also along the racial & sexual divide. I actually thing you are spot on and your comment should be pondered by all but, alas, I may just be "pissin' in the wind". :naughty:

United we stand divided we fall.......but hey, isn't that Communism? :infidel: :boom:

 

[gunseller]

I would vote for a dead horse, Hitler, or Stalin, in that order, before I would vote for Hillary. Lying, murdering, sack of bovine excrement.

I wish you would just tell us what you really think- why hold back?

I love it. You can probably tell from my name here, what party I lean toward.
Looks like Trump is going to be our republican candidate.

 

[Lester Lugnut]

It's a sad day when the front runners in a U. S. POTUS race are the likes of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

I'm not an atheist, but have no use for the evangelical side of the republican party or the persistent promise of free stuff and pandering by the democrats.

Unless someone can dig up and resurrect Ronald Reagan, I'll more than likely be pushing the Libertarian button. Reagan was human and certainly not w/o fault, but as a nation I believe we felt stronger and were held in higher esteem by much of the world.

It's time to recapture pride and respect. I doubt that any of the major party candidates are capable of doing that.

My 3rd party choice won't get off the launching pad, but the habit of voting for the lesser of 2 evils just doesn't work this time around.

 

[SupaSupra]

My 3rd party choice won't get off the launching pad, but the habit of voting for the lesser of 2 evils just doesn't work this time around.

That's the problem. People vote for the lesser of two evils, not who they think is actually right for the country.

 

[Wingsuit]

That's the problem. People vote for the lesser of two evils, not who they think is actually right for the country.

I am not sure what this means. It sounds like it's saying something is wrong with the voter, not the candidates. Sad, any centrist from either party has no chance of winning the nomination, although a centrist would have the best chance of winning the general election. So for the majority of people who are in that spectrum if somewhere near the middle, not a socialist and not an arch conservative, they will never have a moderate candidate from which to choose. Because the extreme left wingers control the Democrat party and the right wingers control the Republican Party. These two factions get to shove their candidates down our throats. And I expect to hear from these factions in reply, because they all think they are right. Those bewildered moderates tend not to be vocal.

 

[nevada]

I am not sure what this means. It sounds like it's saying something is wrong with the voter, not the candidates. Sad, any centrist from either party has no chance of winning the nomination, although a centrist would have the best chance of winning the general election. So for the majority of people who are in that spectrum if somewhere near the middle, not a socialist and not an arch conservative, they will never have a moderate candidate from which to choose. Because the extreme left wingers control the Democrat party and the right wingers control the Republican Party. These two factions get to shove their candidates down our throats. And I expect to hear from these factions in reply, because they all think they are right. Those bewildered moderates tend not to be vocal.

yes. im surprised that is even in question.

 

[Brique]

Well, with a two party system like we have by default, you run into what i call The Puppycrusher Conundrum when you have more than two candidates. Two of the candidates are inevitably closer to each other in terms of policy and will end up splitting voters while the other candidate can win with less than a majority: most people voted against him/her and get stuck with the worst candidate.

For example, if people who like dogs split 60% of the vote between the Large Breed party and the Small Breed party, the Puppycrusher candidate can win with only 40% of the vote. Unfortunately as the system stands now, you have to vote for one of the two major candidates or you risk enabling the Puppycrusher.

The solution would be a runoff election: a second election between the two top vote getters in the first election. That way everyone could vote for who they like in the first round and against who they hate in the second round. Even though I'm a large breed guy I'd rather see a pug in the white house than a Puppycrusher. Between that and term limits for Congress we could go a long way toward breaking the logjam we have now.

If this had been in place, there would have been no Bill Clinton and no George W. Bush in the white house. That of course would have changed the timing and other contenders. No Hillary, because no spousal coattails to ride.

 

[ndcent]

That's the problem. People vote for the lesser of two evils, not who they think is actually right for the country.

It's a catch-22. Voting the lesser or two evils just simply paves the way for a greater evil.

 

[Jimstr8]

I am very tired of the ass kissing career politicians who talk a good game but produce little except gridlock in DC. My hope is that with a business background, Trump might me different.

 

[CXS]

I am very tired of the ass kissing career politicians who talk a good game but produce little except gridlock in DC. My hope is that with a business background, Trump might me different.

He'd be different. He'll run the country like his businesses, build on debt, file bankruptsy, stiff his suppliers and do it all over again. Oh wait, he won't be able to do thst will he? Alternatively he can fire anybody that doesn't agree with him. Damn, can't do that either!

layball:

 

[Yukon4Runner]

It's a sad day when the front runners in a U. S. POTUS race are the likes of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

There are POTUS election races in countries other than the U.S.? Well, that's just typical meddling by other countries...trying to elect the President of the United States as their own leader!

 

[Wingsuit]

Well, with a two party system like we have by default, you run into what i call The Puppycrusher Conundrum when you have more than two candidates. Two of the candidates are inevitably closer to each other in terms of policy and will end up splitting voters while the other candidate can win with less than a majority: most people voted against him/her and get stuck with the worst candidate.

For example, if people who like dogs split 60% of the vote between the Large Breed party and the Small Breed party, the Puppycrusher candidate can win with only 40% of the vote. Unfortunately as the system stands now, you have to vote for one of the two major candidates or you risk enabling the Puppycrusher.

The solution would be a runoff election: a second election between the two top vote getters in the first election. That way everyone could vote for who they like in the first round and against who they hate in the second round. Even though I'm a large breed guy I'd rather see a pug in the white house than a Puppycrusher. Between that and term limits for Congress we could go a long way toward breaking the logjam we have now.

If this had been in place, there would have been no Bill Clinton and no George W. Bush in the white house. That of course would have changed the timing and other contenders. No Hillary, because no spousal coattails to ride.

It is true that Bill Clinton won with 40% of the vote, but he did manage a majority of the electoral votes. That whole electoral college concept has outlived its usefulness. The big swing states like Florida and Ohio get to pick the president, in many cases. My vote here in Washington means nothing, because it's going Dem every time thanks to three highly populated counties. I wish we just counted the popular vote, nationwide.

 

[Lester Lugnut]

There are POTUS election races in countries other than the U.S.? Well, that's just typical meddling by other countries...trying to elect the President of the United States as their own leader!

Hillary Clinton

 

[jhuerta22]

I find this year's election race tantamount to voting for which STD you're willing to live with for the next 4 years...

 

[Brique]

It is true that Bill Clinton won with 40% of the vote, but he did manage a majority of the electoral votes. That whole electoral college concept has outlived its usefulness. The big swing states like Florida and Ohio get to pick the president, in many cases. My vote here in Washington means nothing, because it's going Dem every time thanks to three highly populated counties. I wish we just counted the popular vote, nationwide.

Yeah i get the frustration with the electoral college, but the more i understand it, the more i see the wisdom it and why a straight popular vote would be a bad idea.

That said i would Love to see electoral votes rewarded proportionally rather than winner take all as it is now.

https://youtu.be/V6s7jB6-GoU


https://youtu.be/LXnjGD7j2B0

 

[nevada]

Yeah i get the frustration with the electoral college, but the more i understand it, the more i see the wisdom it and why a straight popular vote would be a bad idea.

That said i would Love to see electoral votes rewarded proportionally rather than winner take all as it is now.

https://youtu.be/V6s7jB6-GoU


https://youtu.be/LXnjGD7j2B0

the only way for it to be truly fair and just, is to count actual votes.

add to that, I think absolutely an ID should be required. I also think a qualifying w2 should be required to get your voter ID.

if you are not contributing via taxes, you should have NO say in who gets elected.

 

[wallytoo]

the only way for it to be truly fair and just, is to count actual votes.

add to that, I think absolutely an ID should be required. I also think a qualifying w2 should be required to get your voter ID.

if you are not contributing via taxes, you should have NO say in who gets elected.

that would likely be a slippery slope.

i'm socially moderate, and fiscally conservative. i believe strongly in landowner rights, and the right to choose. i would like to see the scotus rule that citizens have a right to uninfringed constitutional carry. i wish we as a society would hold individuals more accountable for their actions, and i am a proponent of the death penalty.

because my income is what it is, i rarely end up paying federal income tax. yet, i have never applied for, nor wanted, assistance in any way. i bought, and have paid for, my house. i own outright all of my vehicles and belongings. no loans period. i pay all utilities on time, don't have a cell phone, basically have zero debt.

and by your standard, i'd be unable to vote. i have never missed voting in any state or federal election.

wally