politics thread

[Sharkinva]

any state is like that and proving where you live and who you are is basic

Come on man.... the commissioner of elections is running for governor in an election he is supervising.

That alone would be like Jerry Jones putting on a Refs jersey and being the head Ref in a Washington/Dallas NFC Championship game.

IM all for free and FAIR elections. Its neither free or fair if you have the men leading the election making decisions designed to disenfranchise targeted groups of voters.

 

[skinsdad62]

Come on man.... the commissioner of elections is running for governor in an election he is supervising.

That alone would be like Jerry Jones putting on a Refs jersey and being the head Ref in a Washington/Dallas NFC Championship game.

IM all for free and FAIR elections. Its neither free or fair if you have the men leading the election making decisions designed to disenfranchise targeted groups of voters.

ok then lets go to the trump investigation where you have anti trumpers in charge of investigating a guy they hate but question that and what do you get?

prove who you are and prove where you live are basic , now the guy should recuse himself if he was smart , but recusing yourself when having conflicts of interest , like say investigations just doesnt seem to happen even if required by law

now is it fair that muellar reports to rosenstein when rosenstein is a witness? and his boss ?

 

[ehb5]

Democrats 5 minutes ago: How dare Trump malign the noble, spotless, thorough FBI?

Democrats now: The FBI is incompetent and biased.

Is it possible that the FBI is a law enforcement agency, with all of the attendant qualities and drawbacks?

....................

 

[Sharkinva]

ok then lets go to the trump investigation where you have anti trumpers in charge of investigating a guy they hate but question that and what do you get?

prove who you are and prove where you live are basic , now the guy should recuse himself if he was smart , but recusing yourself when having conflicts of interest , like say investigations just doesnt seem to happen even if required by law

now is it fair that muellar reports to rosenstein when rosenstein is a witness? and his boss ?

The proper answer would be, gee I never looked at it in that light, and yea that would be kinda fucked up.

In stead you go with the tried and true whataboutism. NOt shocked mind you.

Reality check, Rosenstein is ONLY a witness if the President did anything wrong. Otherwise it wouldnt matter.

Rod is only in charge because Sessions had to recuse himself.

The Russia probe started because Trump always has some shady shit going on.

And at the end of the day, all this excuse making is because the possibility of change seems to be something alot of people dont want to face and are railing against the possibility.

 

[Sportster 72]

Just wondering, would the country have been better off with HRC?

 

[Sharkinva]

Just wondering, would the country have been better off with HRC?

Honestly... I think the country would be just as divided. The Senate would be hell bent on finding verifiable proof that she needs to be impeached if not incarcerated.

So probably not

 

[Sharkinva]

Just wondering, would the country have been better off with HRC?

NOw my question would be.. aside from a money stand point.... is the Country improving under Trump? And mind you Im assuming the money aspect is affecting every one in a positive manor.

 

[Sportster 72]

NOw my question would be.. aside from a money stand point.... is the Country improving under Trump? And mind you Im assuming the money aspect is affecting every one in a positive manor.

Ohh, I keep my opinions largely to myself when it comes to politics or religion. You guys already have 304 pages and probably one or two more to go. I think we think we live in different or historical times. We don't, the issues change everything else stays the same except that I believe we are as you said "divide" as people and as a government.

If I was going to be pigeon holed you could call me a fiscal conservative, I believe in less government and not more but at the same time I am a social liberal. I don't care what color you are, I don't care who wants to do what to whomever behind closed doors and you can pray to any god or worship anything from some outer space being to that cute little thing your are chasing that girl …. or guy around for.

My point on the previous post was I don't think it mattered which one of the two became president. Half the country was going to be pissed. Not unlike candidate Smith or candidate Cousin's. Unless you are Sty and supported candidate McCarron.

 

[Sharkinva]

Ohh, I keep my opinions largely to myself when it comes to politics or religion. You guys already have 304 pages and probably one or two more to go. I think we think we live in different or historical times. We don't, the issues change everything else stays the same except that I believe we are as you said "divide" as people and as a government.

If I was going to be pigeon holed you could call me a fiscal conservative, I believe in less government and not more but at the same time I am a social liberal. I don't care what color you are, I don't care who wants to do what to whomever behind closed doors and you can pray to any god or worship anything from some outer space being to that cute little thing your are chasing that girl …. or guy around for.

My point on the previous post was I don't think it mattered which one of the two became president. Half the country was going to be pissed. Not unlike candidate Smith or candidate Cousin's. Unless you are Sty and supported candidate McCarron.

Awesome...

And now my post that I know will give some folks the willies.

Here is my take. Im a fiscal conservative, a social liberal to a point. As a true fiscal conservative, I think WHERE the government is spending money is just as important as how much money we spend. As a vet, I believe in defense spending, but I also think our government has gone over board with it. Its no longer about actual defense, and more about ensuring that we are the biggest bully on the block. To me having the biggest guns does not show strength, it shows fear. I think we need to spend more on education and possibly less on War planes that we will likely never actually use.

As for things like borders and walls (ok here come the willies), I think the reality is.. its 2018 not 1787. The technology we all love, has made the world a smaller place. And the only real way to "protect our borders" is through violence. And the reality is, the whole idea isnt about protect our borders, its about preventing change as much as possible, by what ever means.

 

[skinsdad62]

The proper answer would be, gee I never looked at it in that light, and yea that would be kinda fucked up.

In stead you go with the tried and true whataboutism. NOt shocked mind you.

Reality check, Rosenstein is ONLY a witness if the President did anything wrong. Otherwise it wouldnt matter.

Rod is only in charge because Sessions had to recuse himself.

The Russia probe started because Trump always has some shady shit going on.

And at the end of the day, all this excuse making is because the possibility of change seems to be something alot of people dont want to face and are railing against the possibility.

negative he is a witness in the HRC investigation as well as the fisa warrants by law rod should be recusing himself as well

 

[Sharkinva]

negative he is a witness in the HRC investigation as well as the fisa warrants by law rod should be recusing himself as well

Then I guess its too bad HIllary is no longer under investigation.

 

[gkekoa]

Well, I'm not a no welfare crowd member, but I am a concerned citizen about the abuse of welfare, which was never intended to be a permanent benefit for able bodied (both physically and mentally) people. And this is abuse of the welfare system. They both should be called out, not just Grassley. Wouldn't you agree.

In fact, I'm not sure I have seen anyone on this board suggest that we have no welfare system. IF I am wrong, let me know. But I'm curious if anyone thinks the current system is effective? What should welfare be intended to accomplish?

I am against the welfare system. I do not believe it is the government’s role to take money to give to another.

The current system is horrendous. Welfare should sustain people people...not comfort them.

 

[gkekoa]

You're kidding right? We've been exchanging texts for some time now and among those exchanges you've clearly outlined your position on these things. It seems now you're attempting to change earlier statements to include known adverbs such as "never" ("government should never") when you know that is not the case.

It's not difficult to determine what your religious opinion is when you've clearly stated that "life begins at conception" that IS a religious opinion. To then attempt to infer that your anti-abortion position is merely rooted in law is laughable. You're talking about conception, which in In legal medical jurisprudence, is defined as the beginning of pregnancy. (note the term "pregnancy" and not life) So where does your "life" stance come from? (rhetorical) There's only one other place.

I am not changing my statements. Government should not be involved in our lives but there should be laws that prevent us from killing each other. Government should defend our rights...end of story.

We all know my religious opinion but I don’t use it to argue. Again, the idea of beginning at conception is rooted in the Declaration, this country’s founding document.

1. Then it would and is not used to benefit everyone.

2. illogical

3. What exactly do you think would be done with raising of said taxes? Our infrastructure is decaying badly, there have already been deaths associated with either poorly maintained bridges or the need to totally replace them. BTW: taxes should be fairly applied, the problem is "fairly" as in one person's fair is another person's unfair. See the problem?

4. This is a dumb idea, I didn't want to say it as directly as I now have, but sometimes the direct route is best in such "conversations." This is an old conservative notion where paying monies to the IRS will


What have I done? Hmmmm Let's see I am a Vietnam veteran who has taken lives for this country. After, actually during my time in service I determined that my repentance for taking those lives would be a lifelong dedication to healing and saving as many lives as possible. A few year back I put my name on a ballot in an attempt to take a county seat. I am a member of several organizations including the AMA, CHEST (ACCP) and NAACP. I'm extremely active in my community and once served as president of my citizens Associations. As a concerned parent and now grandparent, you might appreciate my continued involvement in local politics, the education system here and fund raising events.

What have I done? Nothing...yet!

1- Nope. It has benefitted those with blonde hair and blue eyes too. Think WWII and communist Asia of the 60s to present.

2- Illogical that jobs should be created by the market place?

3- There would be more money for infrastructure if we didn’t give money to foreign nations, give money to people who do not earn it, and have corruption at every level of spending.

4- Why is it dumb? If these people are wanting to pay more in taxes, the IRS will not turn down the money. These people do not want to pay more in taxes, they want me to pay more.

Thank you. If only more people were like you, the world would be a better place.

Hatred is in supporting this tyrant. Here's something that Trump has yet to do...govern!

Governing requires that you serve all of the people, not selected groups or sections of a given population. He's not done that yet, and people for their own selfish interests support that foolishness! The title is "President of the United States" not "President of those places that support me."

Really? Supporting Teump’s policies while openly stating I can’t stand this man is hatred for this country? Tax cuts don’t help all the people? Strengthening the military doesn’t help all the people? So serious question...what did Obama do that helped all the people?

 

[j_y19]

I am against the welfare system. I do not believe it is the government’s role to take money to give to another.

The current system is horrendous. Welfare should sustain people people...not comfort them.

So you don't believe that we have a moral and ethical responsibility to assist those that truly cannot take care of themselves? I'm talking about the physically or mentally handicapped that cannot provide for themselves and have no other means. And what about short term assistance for those that have fallen on hard times? By this, I mean true job training and living assistance for a very limited period to get them back on their feet. And I am OK with specifics like drug testing, etc to qualify for benefits. IF I am going to invest my money in someone, I want to make sure the money is going toward its intended purpose. And this is for anyone applying for benefits. I don't understand how anyone could have an issue with that. But I am sure I will find out from some on this forum why it is an issue to them and how I am being discriminatory.

Unless you want to see homeless on every street corner and associated crime rates increase on all facets of society, we do need some sort of safety net. Its just the program we have in place now is both expensive, inefficient, and ineffective.......just as all government programs are. Maybe the right solution is to get government out of the welfare business and encourage the private sector, via tax treatments, to provide. In fact, as a general rule, the less the federal government takes on directly the more efficient the programs will be run in the private sector or by local governments. At a minimum, we need to get back to the States an Local governments providing services for their constituents. The more responsibilities local governments have on providing services, the more influence and control we have as citizens over those services.

 

[j_y19]

Awesome...

And now my post that I know will give some folks the willies.

Here is my take. Im a fiscal conservative, a social liberal to a point. As a true fiscal conservative, I think WHERE the government is spending money is just as important as how much money we spend. As a vet, I believe in defense spending, but I also think our government has gone over board with it. Its no longer about actual defense, and more about ensuring that we are the biggest bully on the block. To me having the biggest guns does not show strength, it shows fear. I think we need to spend more on education and possibly less on War planes that we will likely never actually use.

As for things like borders and walls (ok here come the willies), I think the reality is.. its 2018 not 1787. The technology we all love, has made the world a smaller place. And the only real way to "protect our borders" is through violence. And the reality is, the whole idea isnt about protect our borders, its about preventing change as much as possible, by what ever means.

OK, I'm calling Bullshit (sorry buddy). This is one of these talking points that just doesn't make sense by the Left.

Sorry shark, but I want my borders protected for security reasons, it has nothing to do with preventing change. Change is constant and inevitable. After 9/11, everything changed. As a citizen, the first thing I want my government to do is protect its citizens. It is not unreasonable to demand to know who is entering our country (think your home), why they are here, where they are going, and how long they are staying. If a stranger was coming to stay at your house, you would want to know this, right? While knowing this doesn't guarantee our protection, it does go a long way toward that goal then just having open borders.

And while we are on the topic of immigration, the Right's stance of rounding up 12-15M people here illegally and sending them back is just as an inane stance by the Right. First, take 13M people out of our economy and see what happens........it won't be good. Second, the cost of implementation would be huge. It will never happen and is one of those talking points the Right uses to pander to its base.

 

[Sharkinva]

OK, I'm calling Bullshit (sorry buddy). This is one of these talking points that just doesn't make sense by the Left.

Sorry shark, but I want my borders protected for security reasons, it has nothing to do with preventing change. Change is constant and inevitable. After 9/11, everything changed. As a citizen, the first thing I want my government to do is protect its citizens. It is not unreasonable to demand to know who is entering our country (think your home), why they are here, where they are going, and how long they are staying. If a stranger was coming to stay at your house, you would want to know this, right? While knowing this doesn't guarantee our protection, it does go a long way toward that goal then just having open borders.

And while we are on the topic of immigration, the Right's stance of rounding up 12-15M people here illegally and sending them back is just as an inane stance by the Right. First, take 13M people out of our economy and see what happens........it won't be good. Second, the cost of implementation would be huge. It will never happen and is one of those talking points the Right uses to pander to its base.

Call Bullshit all you want dude, but here is a reality check, if people didnt have to fear being turned away, the cases of people sneaking in would drop to miniscule numbers. The idea of putting billions of dollars into a wall is asinine and the only real purpose it serves is as a physical representation of a feel good symbol. And again whats the next step?? Machine gun pits? Drone strikes and armed men with attack dogs?? Not even going into the fact that apparently we only want to secure ONE border. And ignoring the fact that more illegals from the south are actually coming in from our northern border these days, because a flight from Mexico to Canada is only $300 or so US and does NOT require a passport.

I agree with you that change is inevitable, but that fact wont stop people from trying to slow the process as much as possible by what ever means they can. And one of the main talking points of the so called right is, they dont in fact want all these people coming in and changing what America is. The latest scare tactic is we will some how become Venezuela.

I say take a look at what some of the champions of the "right" are saying these days, look at what they are doing to curtail even legal immigration, then tell me its not more about preventing change than any bogus excuse about security. The minute you start painting the picture that anyone that doesnt fit a certain criteria could become the enemy, you basically make everyone that doesnt fit into your box into the enemy.

 

[j_y19]

Call Bullshit all you want dude, but here is a reality check, if people didnt have to fear being turned away, the cases of people sneaking in would drop to miniscule numbers. The idea of putting billions of dollars into a wall is asinine and the only real purpose it serves is as a physical representation of a feel good symbol. And again whats the next step?? Machine gun pits? Drone strikes and armed men with attack dogs?? Not even going into the fact that apparently we only want to secure ONE border. And ignoring the fact that more illegals from the south are actually coming in from our northern border these days, because a flight from Mexico to Canada is only $300 or so US and does NOT require a passport.

I agree with you that change is inevitable, but that fact wont stop people from trying to slow the process as much as possible by what ever means they can. And one of the main talking points of the so called right is, they dont in fact want all these people coming in and changing what America is. The latest scare tactic is we will some how become Venezuela.

I say take a look at what some of the champions of the "right" are saying these days, look at what they are doing to curtail even legal immigration, then tell me its not more about preventing change than any bogus excuse about security. The minute you start painting the picture that anyone that doesnt fit a certain criteria could become the enemy, you basically make everyone that doesnt fit into your box into the enemy.

Sorry friend, but it is about security. I never once mentioned the wall or its effectiveness, only the motivation. I want a effective immigration policy that protects my family and this country. And that entails the identification and purpose of every visitor coming here. Could the wall be a colossal waste of money? Quite possibly. But that doesn't negate the motivation that I (and many others, I'll bet) have for border security. Has the Right turned the immigration issue into a political hot button? Yup. Just as the Left has with some of their outlandish claims.

Are there idiots on the right that are motivated by trying to keep things from changing. Most likely, but they are not mainstream but they are who the MSM points out to representing those conservatives who believe we need more effective border security. Just as those on the Left claim that border security is just another discriminatory practice when, in reality, they see future votes upon citizenship for many of those coming into the country. Of course these, too, are not mainstream nor representative of the majority of citizens who identify with the Left.

 

[Sharkinva]

Sorry friend, but it is about security. I never once mentioned the wall or its effectiveness, only the motivation. I want a effective immigration policy that protects my family and this country. And that entails the identification and purpose of every visitor coming here. Could the wall be a colossal waste of money? Quite possibly. But that doesn't negate the motivation that I (and many others, I'll bet) have for border security. Has the Right turned the immigration issue into a political hot button? Yup. Just as the Left has with some of their outlandish claims.

Are there idiots on the right that are motivated by trying to keep things from changing. Most likely, but they are not mainstream but they are who the MSM points out to representing those conservatives who believe we need more effective border security. Just as those on the Left claim that border security is just another discriminatory practice when, in reality, they see future votes upon citizenship for many of those coming into the country. Of course these, too, are not mainstream nor representative of the majority of citizens who identify with the Left.

I will say it like this.. the idoits who are not in power dont really bother me. The problem is, I think too many of those that do have power and control currently are also in the position of not wanting things to change, and in some cases wanting to reverse changes that have already taken place. Entirely too many suspect policies have been green lighted under the guise of security and law and order as far as Im concerned. Hell you got the President calling for Stop and Frisk again at a national police convention recently here in Orlando. This wasnt hearsay, these were words that came out of his mouth. I constantly hear people say we are a nation of laws, and those laws need to be respected. But far too many times I see those LAWs interpreted to favor some groups and persecute other groups. So its no wonder some hold the LAWS in higher esteem than others.

 

[gkekoa]

So you don't believe that we have a moral and ethical responsibility to assist those that truly cannot take care of themselves? I'm talking about the physically or mentally handicapped that cannot provide for themselves and have no other means. And what about short term assistance for those that have fallen on hard times? By this, I mean true job training and living assistance for a very limited period to get them back on their feet. And I am OK with specifics like drug testing, etc to qualify for benefits. IF I am going to invest my money in someone, I want to make sure the money is going toward its intended purpose. And this is for anyone applying for benefits. I don't understand how anyone could have an issue with that. But I am sure I will find out from some on this forum why it is an issue to them and how I am being discriminatory.

Unless you want to see homeless on every street corner and associated crime rates increase on all facets of society, we do need some sort of safety net. Its just the program we have in place now is both expensive, inefficient, and ineffective.......just as all government programs are. Maybe the right solution is to get government out of the welfare business and encourage the private sector, via tax treatments, to provide. In fact, as a general rule, the less the federal government takes on directly the more efficient the programs will be run in the private sector or by local governments. At a minimum, we need to get back to the States an Local governments providing services for their constituents. The more responsibilities local governments have on providing services, the more influence and control we have as citizens over those services.

No, I do not believe the government has a moral and ethical responsibility to assist individuals. An entity that doesn’t not make money or create anything cannot be charitable. Individuals can be charitable, and historically are.

You use the words “take care of,” but what does that mean or entail? To what extent? As an individual, I believe in being charitable to those who cannot take care of themselves, but I also feel this should be done at a much lower level so we don’t have the fraud, waste, and abuse of the system.

As for short term assistance, shouldn’t people be a little more responsible prior to falling on hard times? Also, unemployment insurance is not the same thing as welfare. Unemployment is paid by the employer to assist worker if they are laid off and is part of the employees compensation package.

I understand some of the short term ramifications, but if you support liberty, then you can’t caveat everything. Poor choices equal poor outcomes, and it starts early in life.

I completely agree that welfare should be handled at the lowest level, because then voters can control the politicians and implement the change needed or desired in their area. Because honestly, does the federal government really know what is best for Podunk, Mississippi? Hell, does the state of Mississippi know what is best for Podunk? Only those in Podunk know what they want and what they are willing to pay for.

 

[kbso83432]

Instagram Share
See this Instagram video by @tsn_official
This never gets old.