PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Jaybird180 on September 18, 2016, 09:46:55 PM
-
http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=32072
I want to put it out that about a year ago Minister Farrakhan made it known that she was directly responsible for the Libyan insurgency and also he mentioned her role in Syria and ISIS. Now comes the paper trail to back it up!
-
Assange can claim whatever he likes. Lets see the proof.
-
It's easy enough. Just observe the things she never talks about yet was clearly involved in. Libya, for example.
That is one reason why she is so unappealing. Take away the dirt and the foul ups and there isn't anything left for her to hold up as a real accomplishment.
-
Assange can claim whatever he likes. Lets see the proof.
Yet you never need proof when you are attacking republicans, gun owners and MMGW skeptics, just to name a few...
-
Yet you never need proof when you are attacking republicans, gun owners and MMGW skeptics, just to name a few...
I don't need proof to attack Republicans because they do a really good job of that all by themselves.
I don't attack gun owners and never have. I'm probably the staunchest gun rights advocate on this board. If you had the IQ of a lightbulb you'd have figured that out by now.
MMGW skeptics for the most part haven't any proof of anything. The closest I've seen were a couple who published their climate model under pseudonyms. The fact that the model couldn't accurately predict the temperature of exoplanets didn't help its case any. Other than that it's lots of gainsaying mixed with a bit of pseudoscience.
-
I'm probably the staunchest gun rights advocate on this board.
My, you have such a wonderful opinion of yourself.
Since you undoubtably vote democrate your claim of being a gun rights advocate is quite, um, interesting.
And with respect to being the "staunchest"... who here thinks that Steingar had more credibility as a gun rights advocate than anyone else on this board?
-
Who are you going to believe - Hillary or her lying emails?
That the US was running arms through Libya to Syria is not a big secret. It's old news. Hillary needs to decide if she was part of it or so out of touch that she didn't know it was happening.
-
My, you have such a wonderful opinion of yourself.
Since you undoubtably vote democrate your claim of being a gun rights advocate is quite, um, interesting.
And with respect to being the "staunchest"... who here thinks that Steingar had more credibility as a gun rights advocate than anyone else on this board?
Find where I've advocated gun control. Good luck with that.
-
Find where I've advocated gun control. Good luck with that.
As far as I know, you have never advocated gun control. I have been pleasantly surprised in the past at your pro 2nd A stance.
But to say you are staunchest of supporters of 2A may be going a little too far. For some on this board, an anti 2A stance is a showstopper. For you, it isn't. It isn't a show stopper for me either. It is just one factor.
-
Find where I've advocated gun control. Good luck with that.
Any time you vote for a democrat.
Are you backing away from claiming you are the "staunchest gun rights advocate on this board"?
-
I'm probably the staunchest gun rights advocate on this board.
Find where I've advocated gun control. Good luck with that.
Any time you vote for a democrat.
Exactly. You can't convince anyone that you are a "staunch gun rights" person when you vote for and support the very people that are willing to take away those rights when given the opportunity.
-
Any time you vote for a democrat.
Are you suggesting that voting for a candidate means advocating for everything they stand for or have proposed? Sucks for those Conservatives voting for Trump. Fucking Liberals!
-
Are you suggesting that voting for a candidate means advocating for everything they stand for or have proposed? Sucks for those Conservatives voting for Trump. Fucking Liberals!
Only a partisan fool, looking for a way to avoid the simple truth of the statement would respond with such idiocy.
Advocating for Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton is supporting draconian gun control because that is one of their shared passions, disarming the citizens. Trying to pain that as the same as supporting everything any republican supports simply stupid but typical.
-
Only a partisan fool, looking for a way to avoid the simple truth of the statement would respond with such idiocy.
Advocating for Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton is supporting draconian gun control because that is one of their shared passions, disarming the citizens. Trying to pain that as the same as supporting everything any republican supports simply stupid but typical.
You're wrong, of course. Unless you're a single issue voter, voting is a process of understanding what a candidate's issues and proposals are, and determining whether enough good or potential good outweighs the bad or potential bad (and there is always some bad). You see it happening all over this board vis a vis Trump.
So, for example, you see Conservatives on this board opting to support Trump even though he has previously espoused, and is currently espousing, Liberal positions, including support of gun control. Are they advocating gun control by supporting Trump? How about his Liberal, unfunded tax break? You tell me!
-
You're wrong, of course. Unless you're a single issue voter, voting is a process of understanding what a candidate's issues and proposals are, and determining whether enough good or potential good outweighs the bad or potential bad (and there is always some bad). You see it happening all over this board vis a vis Trump.
So, for example, you see Conservatives on this board opting to support Trump even though he has previously espoused, and is currently espousing, Liberal positions, including support of gun control. Are they advocating gun control by supporting Trump? How about his Liberal, unfunded tax break? You tell me!
I am a single issue voter with the 2A because that protects all the others. Yes, Trump has flip flopped in the past on gun control. However, he is at least saying all the right things.
Hillary has PROMISED Australian style bans, and confiscations, and promised she will pack the SCOTUS with far left, radical, anti Constitution justices. Lesser of to weevils. I know what I will get with Hillary, and that is Oppressive, Communist, Racist, anti American policies like Obama, only worse. She will take away legally owned firearms so we don't even have that to resist. Well bring it on!
-
Are you backing away from claiming you are the "staunchest gun rights advocate on this board"?
Yes, I am. I not only do not own firearms, but I actively despise them. I think the presence of the majority in a household is for the most part a mistake (all that said, I fully believe that there are lots and lots of very good reasons to own a firearm, but that's beside the point). Even though I hate firearms I would sooner die than prevent another from owning one. I don't believe in a law that, absent a documented threat, prevents you from owning something to make me feel safer.
-
Are you suggesting that voting for a candidate means advocating for everything they stand for or have proposed?
Nope.
But the Democrats are the ones trying to infringe my rights, especially the national platform.
-
I am a single issue voter with the 2A because that protects all the others. Yes, Trump has flip flopped in the past on gun control. However, he is at least saying all the right things.
Hillary has PROMISED Australian style bans, and confiscations, and promised she will pack the SCOTUS with far left, radical, anti Constitution justices. Lesser of to weevils. I know what I will get with Hillary, and that is Oppressive, Communist, Racist, anti American policies like Obama, only worse. She will take away legally owned firearms so we don't even have that to resist. Well bring it on!
Then what about Gary Johnson? He looks like a staunch gun rights advocate (http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/14/theres-just-no-evidence-whatsoever-to-su). And as far as I can tell, he's waffled less than Trump over the years.
-
Yes, I am. I not only do not own firearms, but I actively despise them. I think the presence of the majority in a household is for the most part a mistake (all that said, I fully believe that there are lots and lots of very good reasons to own a firearm, but that's beside the point). Even though I hate firearms I would sooner die than prevent another from owning one. I don't believe in a law that, absent a documented threat, prevents you from owning something to make me feel safer.
Imagine how this hypothetical statement would be viewed:
I claim that I'm the staunchest support of gay rights on Pilot Spin. Not only am I straight, but I actively despise gays. I think the presence of gays in our society is a travesty. Even though I recognize homosexuality as immoral deviant behavior, I will defend the rights of people to be gay.
-
Imagine how this hypothetical statement would be viewed:
I claim that I'm the staunchest support of gay rights on Pilot Spin. Not only am I straight, but I actively despise gays. I think the presence of gays in our society is a travesty. Even though I recognize homosexuality as immoral deviant behavior, I will defend the rights of people to be gay.
Pretzel Logic at it's best.
-
Are you suggesting that voting for a candidate means advocating for everything they stand for or have proposed? Sucks for those Conservatives voting for Trump. Fucking Liberals!
Voting for an anti-gun politician is not exactly staunchly advocating for gun rights. It doesn't mean you are anti-gun, but it does mean your pro-gun stance is not all that strong.
-
Imagine how this hypothetical statement would be viewed:
I claim that I'm the staunchest support of gay rights on Pilot Spin. Not only am I straight, but I actively despise gays. I think the presence of gays in our society is a travesty. Even though I recognize homosexuality as immoral deviant behavior, I will defend the rights of people to be gay.
If someone who opposes homosexuality for religious reasons or based on the ick factor defends their rights due to the higher calling of liberty and inclusivity they'd have my respect. Easier to support something because you like it. Harder to support something because, even though you don't like it, there are higher principles involved. Sorry you don't see it that way.
-
If someone who opposes homosexuality for religious reasons or based on the ick factor defends their rights due to the higher calling of liberty and inclusivity they'd have my respect. Easier to support something because you like it. Harder to support something because, even though you don't like it, there are higher principles involved. Sorry you don't see it that way.
wow - did you miss the point...
-
If someone who opposes homosexuality for religious reasons or based on the ick factor defends their rights due to the higher calling of liberty and inclusivity they'd have my respect. Easier to support something because you like it. Harder to support something because, even though you don't like it, there are higher principles involved. Sorry you don't see it that way.
Yes, you missed, actually, several points.
"Opposing homosexuality" is silly. There are homosexuals. Most thinking people would simply conclude that to live together happily we need to exhibit tolerance. Thus, when the baker or florist politely decline, the couple goes elsewhere, thus exhibiting the tolerance they wish to receive. The "higher principle," as you say!
Unfortunately, you and others who think like you see the higher principle to be not true tolerance, but slamming laws down on everyone that justify the few. Not a recipe for the success of civilization. Witness the fallout rampant from the recent bathroom laws. And so much more.
You'd like to believe that anyone who is troubled by these laws is stupid or hateful, or unaware of the larger, principled view. That's just not true, and I would hope you have paid enough attention during this election cycle to notice that when the Democratic candidate spews this misguided venom, you would see for yourself what is really going on.
-
The Homosexual, Lesbian, and Transgender community represents 1% - 3% of our population. Why is it such a huge, divisive issue? It is frickin MEANINGLESS. I will tell you why. Government, the media and education is using it to divide, and distract us from the real issues. Just like they use race, gender, religion, economic strata etc. It is to keep us weak and at each others throats!
-
I guess the point was too subtle (and the fact that it referenced a subject is so highly charged didn't help)
oh well.
-
Yes, I am. I not only do not own firearms, but I actively despise them. I think the presence of the majority in a household is for the most part a mistake (all that said, I fully believe that there are lots and lots of very good reasons to own a firearm, but that's beside the point). Even though I hate firearms I would sooner die than prevent another from owning one. I don't believe in a law that, absent a documented threat, prevents you from owning something to make me feel safer.
How can you hate an inanimate object? It can not do anything until the person uses it for good or evil. Do you hate swimming pools, bath tubs, stairs, tall buildings, ropes, screw drivers, hammers, cars, buses, trucks, because they all result in deaths. How can one "HATE" a thing that has no will of its own?
Do you hate airplanes? They are used to kill, and in fact kill on a mass scale.
-
Do you hate airplanes? They are used to kill, and in fact kill on a mass scale.
Only once. Put it this way, who is more likely to convince someone to support firearm rights? A die-hard firearm owner to whom the 2nd amendment is the only one that counts, or someone like me, who doesn't really like them but who thinks personal freedom trumps perceived security. Sorry, I have lots of facts lined up in my corner to support my position. Most of what I hear from firearm enthusiasts is both shrill and partizan. Closed-minded little me.
-
Only once. Put it this way, who is more likely to convince someone to support firearm rights? A die-hard firearm owner to whom the 2nd amendment is the only one that counts, or someone like me, who doesn't really like them but who thinks personal freedom trumps perceived security. Sorry, I have lots of facts lined up in my corner to support my position. Most of what I hear from firearm enthusiasts is both shrill and partizan. Closed-minded little me.
Only once??? How about all the bombing sorties in WWI, WWII, KOREA, Vietnam, and every other war since airplanes were invented. THEY KILL. RIGHT? We should hate them. Humans had nothing to do with it.
The first atomic bomb was delivered, how?
-
Only once???
Yes, terrorists crashed jets into the Twin Towers and other assorted landmarks. I did (temporarily) forget the Kamikaze campaign in the Pacific, which was also attack by airplane. I should point out that the vast, vast majority of attacks by airplanes were actually attacks by bullets fired out of guns carried by airplanes, or bombs dropped by airplanes, and not the airplanes themselves. I should also point out that airplanes have lots of other functions besides killing people, while the number of uses for a firearm is considerably less.
-
By that reasoning, guns don't kill people, bullets do. A gun is just a delivery method.
-
By that reasoning, guns don't kill people, bullets do. A gun is just a delivery method.
But he has so many facts in his corner.... how can you question him?
::)
-
By that reasoning, guns don't kill people, bullets do. A gun is just a delivery method.
Firearms make assault and homicide far more facile than just about any other method. Outside of launching small projectiles at high velocity, they have little or no function beyond collectibility. Perhaps you gentlemen cut your steaks with them or use them to turn bolts, it wouldn't put it past some of you to try. But truly, other than launching diminutive projectiles at sub/supersonic speeds, forearms have little practical value.
There are other objects in our everyday life that can be used for mayhem and murder. A soduko knife can be used to stab someone, but it has ancillary uses in the preparation and consumption of food. You can run over someone with your car, but it allows you to live at great distance from where you work or procure necessaries, without it you would need a form of human or animal powered transport that would be too time consuming for you to live in your chosen environment.
By the way, this is now page three of this thread and there has been no proof posted of the original charges beyond Assange's original charges. Even for the court of public opinion there is a paucity of evidence. Of course, according to you guys an accusation is all it takes to convict Hillary.
-
Are you suggesting that voting for a candidate means advocating for everything they stand for or have proposed? Sucks for those Conservatives voting for Trump. Fucking Liberals!
Bob has a point. Show me one major democratic candidate who wouldn't nominate a Supreme Court Justice that is in the mode of Kagan, Sotamyor, and the other two who voted to have the Second Amendment constitute a collective and not individual right.
Supporting any democrat candidate means you will be complicit in the eventual holding that the RKBA is a collective and therefore nonexistent individual right.
-
You're wrong, of course. Unless you're a single issue voter, voting is a process of understanding what a candidate's issues and proposals are, and determining whether enough good or potential good outweighs the bad or potential bad (and there is always some bad). You see it happening all over this board vis a vis Trump.
So, for example, you see Conservatives on this board opting to support Trump even though he has previously espoused, and is currently espousing, Liberal positions, including support of gun control. Are they advocating gun control by supporting Trump? How about his Liberal, unfunded tax break? You tell me!
Liberal tax break? That hasn't existed since 1962 or so.
-
Then what about Gary Johnson? He looks like a staunch gun rights advocate (http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/14/theres-just-no-evidence-whatsoever-to-su). And as far as I can tell, he's waffled less than Trump over the years.
His running mate called AR-15s "weapons of mass destruction." No thanks.
-
His running mate called AR-15s "weapons of mass destruction." No thanks.
And Trump supported the assault weapons ban, among other dumbass gun control positions in his past. So if your one unwavering condition is support for 2A, who do you choose, a guy who consistently advocated for gun control right up until he needed votes from the folks in his new political party, or a guy who consistently advocated for gun rights, and still does? Hmmm.
-
Liberal tax break? That hasn't existed since 1962 or so.
I'll rephrase: a liberal, unfunded welfare program.
-
Yes, terrorists crashed jets into the Twin Towers and other assorted landmarks. I did (temporarily) forget the Kamikaze campaign in the Pacific, which was also attack by airplane. I should point out that the vast, vast majority of attacks by airplanes were actually attacks by bullets fired out of guns carried by airplanes, or bombs dropped by airplanes, and not the airplanes themselves. I should also point out that airplanes have lots of other functions besides killing people, while the number of uses for a firearm is considerably less.
How about the time the pilot purposely crashed his airliner in the ocean killing hundreds of people. A plane that shoots bullets, missiles or drops bombs in the same as a gun. It is a weapon, period. Again, you are delusional, or worse.
-
Some people Major in minor things. Some will understand what I mean and others will simply argue.
-
And Trump supported the assault weapons ban, among other dumbass gun control positions in his past. So if your one unwavering condition is support for 2A, who do you choose, a guy who consistently advocated for gun control right up until he needed votes from the folks in his new political party, or a guy who consistently advocated for gun rights, and still does? Hmmm.
Since the latter has precisely zero chance of winning a single electoral vote, I guess my only choice is the former.
-
Since the latter has precisely zero chance of winning a single electoral vote, I guess my only choice is the former.
I think the ability to send our parties a message is understated. I'll be sending mine a message, and if enough people join me, perhaps the party elites will get the message that the anointed one was a shitty choice.
-
I think the ability to send our parties a message is understated. I'll be sending mine a message, and if enough people join me, perhaps the party elites will get the message that the anointed one was a shitty choice.
There's nothing but shitty choices in this election. I'm looking for the least bad one I can and hope for the best.
-
I think the ability to send our parties a message is understated. I'll be sending mine a message, and if enough people join me, perhaps the party elites will get the message that the anointed one was a shitty choice.
I nominate this for your best post of the year!
I sincerely hope all liberals take the same attitude. If they do that, then so can a bunch of conservatives and we will send a real message.
-
I think the ability to send our parties a message is understated. I'll be sending mine a message, and if enough people join me, perhaps the party elites will get the message that the anointed one was a shitty choice.
What's your plan?
-
What's your plan?
Not Clinton, not Trump, probably Johnson. I'm not much for voting for one terrible candidate to keep another possibly more terrible candidate out of the white house. I'd rather vote my conscience and let the chips fall where they may.
-
Not Clinton, not Trump, probably Johnson. I'm not much for voting for one terrible candidate to keep another possibly more terrible candidate out of the white house. I'd rather vote my conscience and let the chips fall where they may.
I'm with you on the "not much for voting for one terrible candidate...." thing.
But since I'm in Taxachusetts, it's quite likely that the corrupt CAB doormat will get the 11 electoral votes.
-
Yes, terrorists crashed jets into the Twin Towers and other assorted landmarks. I did (temporarily) forget the Kamikaze campaign in the Pacific, which was also attack by airplane. I should point out that the vast, vast majority of attacks by airplanes were actually attacks by bullets fired out of guns carried by airplanes, or bombs dropped by airplanes, and not the airplanes themselves. I should also point out that airplanes have lots of other functions besides killing people, while the number of uses for a firearm is considerably less.
Ok - That is truly delusional.
Do you really think you can toss those lies past intelligent people?
Your devotion to the agenda blinds you to anything reasonable.
GUNS don't have the power to kill anyone. Unless you hit someone with the gun it is pretty much useless as a killing implement.
Did you really mean to say BULLETS???
Maybe you did but you are truly too indoctrinated to see the lack of intelligence in your blather.
-
Not Clinton, not Trump, probably Johnson. I'm not much for voting for one terrible candidate to keep another possibly more terrible candidate out of the white house. I'd rather vote my conscience and let the chips fall where they may.
I respect your choice but not your decision, if that makes any sense.
Johnson is a third choice just not mine but I know lots of people who think the same way you say you do.
I hope we all don't lose because of it.
-
Not Clinton, not Trump, probably Johnson. I'm not much for voting for one terrible candidate to keep another possibly more terrible candidate out of the white house. I'd rather vote my conscience and let the chips fall where they may.
I'm starting to warm to that idea.
Personally, I don't believe electing either Hillary or Trump will be the major disaster some claim it will be. The House will remain under Republican control, the Senate will remain somewhat equally divided. Gridlock will continue on major policy items, but the basic necessities of government will continue. Yes, we have quite a few major problems out there that should be addressed, but my feeling is that neither candidate is the one that will truly fix them.
The reason that most people won't vote third party is the historical fact that none have ever garnered significant support, so people tend to write them off as un-electible - whether they are qualified or not. Maybe it is time that we voters show the two major parties that a third party is viable and they (the Democrats & Republicans) ought to consider that fact and start thinking about the problems that us "common folk" see everyday. Both parties need to get past the "not invented here - therefore I'm against it" and move on to actually solve problems.
-
I think the ability to send our parties a message is understated. I'll be sending mine a message, and if enough people join me, perhaps the party elites will get the message that the anointed one was a shitty choice.
"Elections belong to the people. It's their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters."
Abraham Lincoln
-
I'm starting to warm to that idea.
Personally, I don't believe electing either Hillary or Trump will be the major disaster some claim it will be. The House will remain under Republican control, the Senate will remain somewhat equally divided. Gridlock will continue on major policy items, but the basic necessities of government will continue. Yes, we have quite a few major problems out there that should be addressed, but my feeling is that neither candidate is the one that will truly fix them.
The reason that most people won't vote third party is the historical fact that none have ever garnered significant support, so people tend to write them off as un-electible - whether they are qualified or not. Maybe it is time that we voters show the two major parties that a third party is viable and they (the Democrats & Republicans) ought to consider that fact and start thinking about the problems that us "common folk" see everyday. Both parties need to get past the "not invented here - therefore I'm against it" and move on to actually solve problems.
Tried, and failed. Twice.
1992: Ross Perot: 19.7 million votes, 18.9% of the popular vote, zero electoral votes.
1996: Ross Perot: 8.1 million votes, 8.4% of the popular vote, zero electoral votes.
There is no quantity of votes that would go to Johnson that would "send a message" to either party.
For a successful third party to exist, the groundwork needs to be start being laid today for 2020 or 2024. Throwing a flyer 50 some days out from the general election will do nothing but elect Hillary.
-
Personally, I don't believe electing either Hillary or Trump will be the major disaster some claim it will be. The House will remain under Republican control, the Senate will remain somewhat equally divided. Gridlock will continue on major policy items, but the basic necessities of government will continue. Yes, we have quite a few major problems out there that should be addressed, but my feeling is that neither candidate is the one that will truly fix them.
I respectfully disagree. The next President will get to appoint three to four Supreme Court justices. Hillary will appoint far left, radical, anti Constitution (including anti 2A) judges. This will further fundamentally transform our rights as citizens especially when they redefine the 2A as a government only right. Trump has vowed to appoint those in the Scalia mold. Big difference, and a critical issue for the future of our country.
-
Tried, and failed. Twice.
True, 20 years ago, and Mr. Perots' opponents were nowhere as disliked as today.
For a successful third party to exist, the groundwork needs to be start being laid today for 2020 or 2024. Throwing a flyer 50 some days out from the general election will do nothing but elect Hillary.
Wholehearted agree that the best method is starting at the grass roots level, and I believe I'm seeing that with some first-timer candidates that are far less ideological and less wedded to a political party. Just this past weekend, had a visit from a candidate running for our local state presentative. Bright, engaging young woman, well versed and knowledgeable. Interesting part was that none of her campaign literature, nor our conversation, did it specify if she was running as a Democrat or Republican.
But all that being said, my vote will be for who I believe is best qualified for the position.
-
But all that being said, my vote will be for who I believe is best qualified for the position.
Who will promptly follow their Party's platform or be ostracized, not get any appointments to commitees, nor receive campaign funding, and support. They are lock step with the Party, especially the Democrats.
-
True, 20 years ago, and Mr. Perots' opponents were nowhere as disliked as today.
Wholehearted agree that the best method is starting at the grass roots level, and I believe I'm seeing that with some first-timer candidates that are far less ideological and less wedded to a political party. Just this past weekend, had a visit from a candidate running for our local state presentative. Bright, engaging young woman, well versed and knowledgeable. Interesting part was that none of her campaign literature, nor our conversation, did it specify if she was running as a Democrat or Republican.
But all that being said, my vote will be for who I believe is best qualified for the position.
Real question:
What do you mean by "best qualified"?
Would that be best qualified to accomplish his/her goals?
Or would it mean someone who's goals and ideals align with your own?
But I suspect you will have a different idea of what you mean by "best qualified" an I'd like to hear that.
I'd like to hear other's ideas too. It is a good question.
-
I respectfully disagree. The next President will get to appoint three to four Supreme Court justices. Hillary will appoint far left, radical, anti Constitution (including anti 2A) judges. This will further fundamentally transform our rights as citizens especially when they redefine the 2A as a government only right. Trump has vowed to appoint those in the Scalia mold. Big difference, and a critical issue for the future of our country.
That is possible, and if the appointment of Supreme Court justices is the only issue that sways your vote, by all means vote for who you wish.
As far as justices, the Republican leadership has a fair amount of responsibility in how that plays out over time. The Republican leadership was very quick to proclaim that "the next President should fill the vacancy". So, OK, they have that ability and may get their wish, decisions have consequesnces. President Obama threw them a bit of a curve with his nomination of Judge Garland, who is, by any measure an eminently qualified centrist candidate. In just about any other circumstance Judge Garland would have sailed through the nomination process. Clearly, the Republican leaderships issue isn't with Judge Garland, it is the fact he is President Obama's nominee. To me, that is bad governance.
-
Who will promptly follow their Party's platform or be ostracized, not get any appointments to commitees, nor receive campaign funding, and support. They are lock step with the Party, especially the Democrats.
To be fair, McConnell and Boehner did the exact same thing with upstart Tea Party candidates who had the balls to upset the gravy train.
They're all fuckers, and should be removed, or at least term limited.
We desperately need an Article V Convention of the States.
-
They're all fuckers, and should be removed, or at least term limited.
;) Well... I think with proper training we might be able to salvage maybe 1/3 to 1/2. We also have a term limit expiration date coming up soon, don't like them, don't vote for them.
-
;) Well... I think with proper training we might be able to salvage maybe 1/3 to 1/2. We also have a term limit expiration date coming up soon, don't like them, don't vote for them.
I used to think that, but with the growing power of government over my life, I have no power to get rid of McConnell, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, or any of the other Congressional lifers who hold the ultimate power over us citizens.
It's insufficient to me to rely on the voters of New York or California to do the right thing. No one should be a career politician.
-
But I suspect you will have a different idea of what you mean by "best qualified" an I'd like to hear that.
I'd like to hear other's ideas too. It is a good question.
Was a good question, turned out to be a more difficult to put into words than I thought it would. But anyway, here’s a stream of consciousness type thing in no particular order. So.... put on my Nomex suit....
Makes measured decisions based on facts rather than ideology.
Honestly says what he/she believes.
Can admit a mistake and tries to fix it.
Shows respect for others, even if “those others” are idiots.
Has a clear idea of what they want to do, tempered with some pragmatism and sense of what can actually be done.
Can communicate an idea.
Government experience is a plus, but not a necessity.
Willing to compromise to attain a goal important to everyone.
Be a bit of a cheerleader for America and don’t play on fear.
I realize this is pretty idealistic, and there isn’t a politician or a person (including me) that meets all of those characteristics, but I figure the more the better. Comparing my list against the two major party candidates, you can see why neither are likely to get my vote.