Republicans & Democrats

Babagounj

Strength through joy
Carr: Liz Warren vs. Liveshot? Race ends at glue factory

Could it really be true — John Kerry vs. Elizabeth Warren for the Democrat presidential nomination in 2020?
Warren vs. Kerry — it would be one for the ages, or should I say, the aged.
In 2020, the nattering nabob of Naushon will be 77, and the Fake Indian will be 70.
Of course, other candidates may emerge. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, for one. He’ll be 78. Then there’s Gov. Brown of California, who at the age of 81 could put the “Jerry” back into this geriatric field of candidates.
Chief Spreading Bull has never run for national office before, but even at this early date, she’s beginning to have loser written all over her.
In a poll this week, she trailed President Trump 42-36, while “Generic Democrat” defeated the incumbent, 43-35.
 

rickyb

Well-Known Member
Carr: Liz Warren vs. Liveshot? Race ends at glue factory

Could it really be true — John Kerry vs. Elizabeth Warren for the Democrat presidential nomination in 2020?
Warren vs. Kerry — it would be one for the ages, or should I say, the aged.
In 2020, the nattering nabob of Naushon will be 77, and the Fake Indian will be 70.
Of course, other candidates may emerge. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, for one. He’ll be 78. Then there’s Gov. Brown of California, who at the age of 81 could put the “Jerry” back into this geriatric field of candidates.
Chief Spreading Bull has never run for national office before, but even at this early date, she’s beginning to have loser written all over her.
In a poll this week, she trailed President Trump 42-36, while “Generic Democrat” defeated the incumbent, 43-35.
i find it hard to believe warren would lose to trump.

i was listening to a ralph nader interview the other day and he said trump only beat clinton by 70,000 votes which translated into the electoral votes needed to win. clinton actually is ahead of trump in terms of the popular vote by 3,000,000 but i believe america is the only developed country to have a system where you can win the popular vote and not win.

which democrats do you like?

warren and bernie are questionable in the sense that they supported hillary, but they would probably be one of the better things to happen to your country if were not talking about a citizens movement for political change.
 

rickyb

Well-Known Member
Carr: Liz Warren vs. Liveshot? Race ends at glue factory

Could it really be true — John Kerry vs. Elizabeth Warren for the Democrat presidential nomination in 2020?
Warren vs. Kerry — it would be one for the ages, or should I say, the aged.
In 2020, the nattering nabob of Naushon will be 77, and the Fake Indian will be 70.
Of course, other candidates may emerge. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, for one. He’ll be 78. Then there’s Gov. Brown of California, who at the age of 81 could put the “Jerry” back into this geriatric field of candidates.
Chief Spreading Bull has never run for national office before, but even at this early date, she’s beginning to have loser written all over her.
In a poll this week, she trailed President Trump 42-36, while “Generic Democrat” defeated the incumbent, 43-35.
i should say that bernie "revolution" has really fizzled out.

democrats are mostly frauds and republicans are mostly marginally bigger frauds.

pick your poison.
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
i find it hard to believe warren would lose to trump.

i was listening to a ralph nader interview the other day and he said trump only beat clinton by 70,000 votes which translated into the electoral votes needed to win. clinton actually is ahead of trump in terms of the popular vote by 3,000,000 but i believe america is the only developed country to have a system where you can win the popular vote and not win.

The electoral college worked exactly as it was intended.
The Founders set up the system specifically to prevent a few population centers from ruling the entire country .
Half of Clinton's popular votes came from the 5 counties that make up NYC .
The rest of her popular votes came from affluent urban areas on the West and East coasts .
She carried only 487 counties nation wide as compared to Trump's 2,626 .
 

rickyb

Well-Known Member
The electoral college worked exactly as it was intended.
The Founders set up the system specifically to prevent a few population centers from ruling the entire country .
Half of Clinton's popular votes came from the 5 counties that make up NYC .
The rest of her popular votes came from affluent urban areas on the West and East coasts .
She carried only 487 counties nation wide as compared to Trump's 2,626 .
i just read this but ive heard alot of bad things about the founding fathers. we should be skeptical of them not worship.



"HOWARD ZINN: Well, you know, the Electoral College came into being, of course, with the Constitution. The Constitution was adopted in Philadelphia, you know, our founding fathers — a lot of paternalism there — and they met in through the summer and early fall of 1787 and adopted the Constitution and debated all of the provisions of the Constitution.

And when they came to the question of how to elect a president, there was a rather lively debate over how the president should be elected and how many years should a president serve and should there be a vice president, and so on. And there were several proposals made that the president should be simply elected by popular vote. And those proposals were immediately knocked down, which was not surprising because the founding fathers were really not inclined to have real popular choice of the people who would run our government. And they decided that they would — in fear, really, of having a popular vote for president — you know, they kept talking about, no, we must have, you know, people who are intelligent, people who are educated, people who — which usually is a shorthand for people of means and people of power and people who are, you know, important people in the community — they’re the ones who should make the decision.

So they finally decided that — actually they gave the job to a committee, and the committee came back and made the suggestion, and they immediately adopted the committee’s report. And the report was that, well, we should let each state legislature choose a group of electors and that these electors will then decide who is the president. There was no thought of popular selection of the president. The idea was that a select group of men — now, you might say doubly select, since the state legislatures themselves, which would select the electors, were at that time not elected by popular vote. There was only one state, Pennsylvania, where the state legislature was elected by popular vote, that is by, you know, universal — well, even male suffrage. In all the other states, the popular vote was, well, severely circumscribed by the fact that you — well, you had to be a white male and you had to own property. That was the case in twelve of the thirteen states.

So you had, right from the start, with the election of the state legislators, you had an undemocratic process, no popular election, and then the state legislators themselves would, without referring to any popular vote, choose the electors. So keep in mind that the same Constitutional Convention decided that the United States Senate would not be elected by popular vote, that the Senate also would be selected by — two senators would be selected by state legislatures.

So if you look at the three branches of government as a whole, here’s what you find. You find that the president is not going to be elected by popular vote. You find the Senate is not going to be elected by popular vote. The House of Representatives will be elected by, well, whatever means the state legislatures decide they will be elected, because voting requirements were left up to the states. And the Supreme Court, of course, will be selected by the president. So you did not have coming from the founding fathers the idea that the people who would run the country would be elected by popular vote.

I mean, what’s astonishing, or maybe not so astonishing, is here over 200 years later, we are still operating with an undemocratic system of electing the president of the United States, a system which not only was flawed from the beginning by the requirements of the founding fathers, but had become more and more flawed as the election process has become dominated by two major parties, which monopolize the political arena, and dominated more and more by the fact that money decides who can reach the American people.
 

oldngray

nowhere special
i just read this but ive heard alot of bad things about the founding fathers. we should be skeptical of them not worship.



"HOWARD ZINN: Well, you know, the Electoral College came into being, of course, with the Constitution. The Constitution was adopted in Philadelphia, you know, our founding fathers — a lot of paternalism there — and they met in through the summer and early fall of 1787 and adopted the Constitution and debated all of the provisions of the Constitution.

And when they came to the question of how to elect a president, there was a rather lively debate over how the president should be elected and how many years should a president serve and should there be a vice president, and so on. And there were several proposals made that the president should be simply elected by popular vote. And those proposals were immediately knocked down, which was not surprising because the founding fathers were really not inclined to have real popular choice of the people who would run our government. And they decided that they would — in fear, really, of having a popular vote for president — you know, they kept talking about, no, we must have, you know, people who are intelligent, people who are educated, people who — which usually is a shorthand for people of means and people of power and people who are, you know, important people in the community — they’re the ones who should make the decision.

So they finally decided that — actually they gave the job to a committee, and the committee came back and made the suggestion, and they immediately adopted the committee’s report. And the report was that, well, we should let each state legislature choose a group of electors and that these electors will then decide who is the president. There was no thought of popular selection of the president. The idea was that a select group of men — now, you might say doubly select, since the state legislatures themselves, which would select the electors, were at that time not elected by popular vote. There was only one state, Pennsylvania, where the state legislature was elected by popular vote, that is by, you know, universal — well, even male suffrage. In all the other states, the popular vote was, well, severely circumscribed by the fact that you — well, you had to be a white male and you had to own property. That was the case in twelve of the thirteen states.

So you had, right from the start, with the election of the state legislators, you had an undemocratic process, no popular election, and then the state legislators themselves would, without referring to any popular vote, choose the electors. So keep in mind that the same Constitutional Convention decided that the United States Senate would not be elected by popular vote, that the Senate also would be selected by — two senators would be selected by state legislatures.

So if you look at the three branches of government as a whole, here’s what you find. You find that the president is not going to be elected by popular vote. You find the Senate is not going to be elected by popular vote. The House of Representatives will be elected by, well, whatever means the state legislatures decide they will be elected, because voting requirements were left up to the states. And the Supreme Court, of course, will be selected by the president. So you did not have coming from the founding fathers the idea that the people who would run the country would be elected by popular vote.

I mean, what’s astonishing, or maybe not so astonishing, is here over 200 years later, we are still operating with an undemocratic system of electing the president of the United States, a system which not only was flawed from the beginning by the requirements of the founding fathers, but had become more and more flawed as the election process has become dominated by two major parties, which monopolize the political arena, and dominated more and more by the fact that money decides who can reach the American people.

The US is not and never was a democracy. Nor was it intended to be.

What do you men "we" anyway? Or did you move out of your parents basement in Canada?
 

rickyb

Well-Known Member
The US is not and never was a democracy. Nor was it intended to be.

What do you men "we" anyway? Or did you move out of your parents basement in Canada?
yea its an oligrachy, and you vote for politicians who are supposed to represent you in theory, and you vote on other things... oldngray nowhere special ;)

your best friend on fox news seems to be confused:
C5Eo1gnW8AAW5_D.jpg
 
Last edited:

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Hooray for these real liberals who are calling out the RINO's running the DNC. I don't have to agree with them on specifics to appreciate their efforts in calling out the worthless a$$holes that run their party. Now if the real conservatives on the other side of the isle will do the same with their rotten party and man could things get interesting in a good way.

 

It will be fine

Well-Known Member
Glenn Greenwald‏Verified account @ggreenwald 43m43 minutes ago



This is what Senators were doing in 2002: begging Bush to allow them to vote for his war: "Please let us vote to invade Iraq." So he did.


Adam H. JohnsonVerified account @adamjohnsonNYC
Bernie does the chicken :censored2: "Trump needs to ask Congress before launching a war but I have no opposition to the airstrikes" routine.
23 replies 90 retweets 181 likes
Congress doesn't actually want to exercise their authority in declaring war anymore. Then they'd have to stand by an actual vote when everything goes wrong.
 
Top