2016 Election

[Vol8188]

That's the liberal way, judge us on our intentions, not our actions. 😜

That's not what I said. Democrats do stuff, you can argue that the things they do aren't good for society, but to claim they do nothing is absurd.

 

[Vol8188]

How can I claim they just don't?

Because they don't. Both parties are real good at whipping up the base around election times and then ignoring the platform they were elected on until the next go round.

They try plenty. Democrats have passed a lot of legislation designed to help their base (war on poverty, obamacare, etc). To claim they do nothing is absurd. You may not agree with what they do, but their entire premise is that government can solve problems and they are always attempting to U.S. government to do so.

 

[FLVOL69]

That's not what I said. Democrats do stuff, you can argue that the things they do aren't good for society, but to claim they do nothing is absurd.

They've done plenty, that's the problem.

 

[McDad]

That's not what I said. Democrats do stuff, you can argue that the things they do aren't good for society, but to claim they do nothing is absurd.

Hey 8188. Glad to see you around. I think you have really good analysis of football.

Have you posted your thots about the Titans and MM?

 

[Vol8188]

Hey 8188. Glad to see you around. I think you have really good analysis of football.

Have you posted your thots about the Titans and MM?

Thank you. I don't really have much to say. I love the game, but I've not had much time to watch NFL preseason games or anything else because my own season is starting up.

 

[Vol8188]

For that same reason the DNC claims to be the party of the people and does little more than use them for votes before ignoring their concerns until the next election.

You may disagree with the way the democrats try to address concerns, but I don't know how you can claim that they simply don't try. That's what most people dislike about the democrats, they try to solve everything through government.

They've done plenty, that's the problem.

Reread the two posts above. That's what I'm saying. You can disagree with what they do, but I wouldn't claim they do nothing.

 

[Grand Vol]

They try plenty. Democrats have passed a lot of legislation designed to help their base (war on poverty, obamacare, etc). To claim they do nothing is absurd. You may not agree with what they do, but their entire premise is that government can solve problems and they are always attempting to U.S. government to do so.

I'm not disagreeing that they have done some things in the past to "help" with their base. But they also are pretty guilty of making a whole lot of promises that never pan out. And often just in time for election seasons.

Both parties do just enough to placate their base. Yet how often have we heard "we're going to repeal Obamacare" from the GOP? Again, it's just enough to get voters in the booth and little else.

 

[lawgator1]

Is anyone else alarmed that when asked about foreign policy Trump said he gets his information from watching the news and thinks that John Bolton would be a good place to go for advice?

Bolton is probably the biggest neocon out there. He'd have us back in Iraq, Afghanistan, and probably a few other places, if given half a chance. He's deranged, imo.

 

[AirVol]

Is anyone else alarmed that when asked about foreign policy Trump said he gets his information from watching the news and thinks that John Bolton would be a good place to go for advice?

Bolton is probably the biggest neocon out there. He'd have us back in Iraq, Afghanistan, and probably a few other places, if given half a chance. He's deranged, imo.

Bolton has balls, Oballess does not.

 

[Ernest T. Vol]

Is anyone else alarmed that when asked about foreign policy Trump said he gets his information from watching the news and thinks that John Bolton would be a good place to go for advice?

Bolton is probably the biggest neocon out there. He'd have us back in Iraq, Afghanistan, and probably a few other places, if given half a chance. He's deranged, imo.

That's how Obama said he learned of all his scandals.

 

[BearCat204]

Bolton has balls, Oballess does not.

He did have balls, but they are currently on Khamenei's mantle.

 

[lawgator1]

Bolton has balls, Oballess does not.

Its easy to snipe from the comfort of a chair on the Fox News desk. But, sheesz, when he actually had a position of power, he mucked it up pretty badly. And it seems as he has gotten older he's become just more insane.

But hey, Trump's solution to ISIS is to go in and "knock the hell out of them," whatever that means. I imagine that if he were president, he'd probably sign an order to the joint chiefs that said exactly that. "You are ordered to knock the hell out of them"

And then when it wasn't that simple, he'd blow a gasket.

 

[theFallGuy]

Is anyone else alarmed that when asked about foreign policy Trump said he gets his information from watching the news and thinks that John Bolton would be a good place to go for advice?

Bolton is probably the biggest neocon out there. He'd have us back in Iraq, Afghanistan, and probably a few other places, if given half a chance. He's deranged, imo.

yet we have John Kerry right now. LOL

 

[FLVOL69]

Is anyone else alarmed that when asked about foreign policy Trump said he gets his information from watching the news and thinks that John Bolton would be a good place to go for advice?

Bolton is probably the biggest neocon out there. He'd have us back in Iraq, Afghanistan, and probably a few other places, if given half a chance. He's deranged, imo.

That's where Obama gets his info, at least in regards to all his scandals.

 

[FLVOL69]

That's how Obama said he learned of all his scandals.

Did not see, I concur.

 

[McDad]

Is anyone else alarmed that when asked about foreign policy Trump said he gets his information from watching the news and thinks that John Bolton would be a good place to go for advice?

Bolton is probably the biggest neocon out there. He'd have us back in Iraq, Afghanistan, and probably a few other places, if given half a chance. He's deranged, imo.

Why should we be alarmed? Is the news not trustworthy? Is it inaccurate? Should Trump pay for a team of foreign policy advisors right now to keep him abreast of policy he cannot control?

 

[Gramps]

Ross Perot was the most successful third party candidate on a national stage. Gramps, what gave him the ability the circumvent the system?

My take of Perot was he was a little rich guy with charts. He loved charts.

He was there because he had the money to get himself there. Their are several parties on the US political stage, they lack the money to be a player which is a shame.

 

[Grand Vol]

But hey, Trump's solution to ISIS is to go in and "knock the hell out of them," whatever that means. I imagine that if he were president, he'd probably sign an order to the joint chiefs that said exactly that. "You are ordered to knock the hell out of them"

I think most military members would love such an ambiguous order.

Well, used to be that way. Not the career politicians we have with stars on their shoulder these days.

 

[McDad]

My take of Perot was he was a little rich guy with charts. He loved charts.

He was there because he had the money to get himself there. Their are several parties on the US political stage, they lack the money to be a player which is a shame.

Forbes is Rich (I think) but he didn't manage to reasonate with people like Perot. I wonder how Perot parlayed his wealth into initial exposure and publicity?

 

[n_huffhines]

Either a 3rd party or cut the money out of politics. (Which would be very hard but progress could be made.) And that's not a partisan issue, either. Both sides abuse their duties in order to line their wallets.

Even if you cut the money, free publicity gains the upperhand, so big name politicians that big networks talk about get an even bigger advantage. Prior recognizability becomes paramount.

Look at what we have already with McCain-Feingold in practice. We got Bush, Trump, and Clinton. It's a damn joke.

 

[n_huffhines]

Forbes is Rich (I think) but he didn't manage to reasonate with people like Perot. I wonder how Perot parlayed his wealth into initial exposure and publicity?

Yeah, Perot had enough personality and new ideas to take some votes to the 3rd party, but Forbes was boring and never went 3rd party, right? He tried to bring his new ideas to the Republican party...good luck with that.

 

[Gramps]

Forbes is Rich (I think) but he didn't manage to reasonate with people like Perot. I wonder how Perot parlayed his wealth into initial exposure and publicity?

People bought into to his message.

 

[McDad]

Yeah, Perot had enough personality and new ideas to take some votes to the 3rd party, but Forbes was boring and never went 3rd party, right? He tried to bring his new ideas to the Republican party...good luck with that.

You're absolutely correct. Forbes ran on the R ticket. Thanks for the correction.

And i agree. He had all the charisma of a manilla envelope but none of the charm.

 

[McDad]

People bought into to his message.

I was wondering if you recall how he managed to get his message out, though. People don't buy in without exposure. I don't recall him spending his own money to advertise (initially). The only recollection i have is Perot became Larry King's pet project.

 

[FLVOL69]

People bought into to his ears.

Fify