• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Wikileaks DNC leak proves primary was rigged /DNC planned to use Sanders' religion ag

BobTheCoward said:
What I like about representative democracy is I am wrong a lot. I put my ideas out there, and representative go through a gauntlet sharpening our ideas. Then I and millions of others cast a vote. Often, the person I voted for doesn't win. And I am grateful. I am grateful because as best we know how, the people have a representative as best we could hope for in this election we all have a stake in.

If Hillary wins , good. If Trump wins, good. That means we head down the path not that want, but what the people as a whole want.
Click to expand...
If a bunch of stupid crazy bigots want a stupid crazy bigot, that's good? No, screw that. **** Donald Trump and **** everyone who votes for him.
 
BobTheCoward said:
What I like about representative democracy is I am wrong a lot. I put my ideas out there, and representative go through a gauntlet sharpening our ideas. Then I and millions of others cast a vote. Often, the person I voted for doesn't win. And I am grateful. I am grateful because as best we know how, the people have a representative as best we could hope for in this election we all have a stake in.

If Hillary wins , good. If Trump wins, good. That means we head down the path not that want, but what the people as a whole want.
Click to expand...

We don't live in a direct democracy. If 51% of people decided that killing black people and harvesting their organs was good policy, that doesn't mean it would become policy. We have protections against tyranny of the majority.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
The Chairman of the DNC is not going to speak at their convention because of a scandal, and many Dems laugh it off like it is no big deal. It's a big deal, but most Dems may not even hear about it because the "mainstream" media will cover it up. Trump knows about it, though, and he can't be covered up.
Click to expand...

You mean like CNN, CSNBC, etc. who have all wasted lots of valuable news time talking about it over and over all day long today???????????????

Get over it, it was Hillary's time, Hillary wins. It will probably never be Bernie's
- though likely as more and more republicker fogies shuffle off this mortal coil and toil, more progressivity may get more popular. Note that when I say Bernie could not have won I mean it literally -even absent Hillary- unless he was the only Democrat running.. By the by, I like Bernie and everything he stands for but I am nasty realistic and want to see republickers (and even moreso Drumpf, who is really a RINO) not a problem any longer..
 
Last edited:
Tony Stark said:
If a bunch of stupid crazy bigots want a stupid crazy bigot, that's good? No, screw that. **** Donald Trump and **** everyone who votes for him.
Click to expand...

Ss, if you had your ideal form of representative democracy (Instant runoff with mail in or whatever) and Trump won that, and you had a chance to alter the results, would you?
 
BobTheCoward said:
Ss, if you had your ideal form of representative democracy (Instant runoff with mail in or whatever) and Trump won that, and you had a chance to alter the results, would you?
Click to expand...
Yes. He is easily the biggest threat that exists to the American people.

If he wins, I hope someone kills him (definitely won't be me, to be clear).
 
Fudbucker said:
We don't live in a direct democracy. If 51% of people decided that killing black people and harvesting their organs was good policy, that doesn't mean it would become policy. We have protections against tyranny of the majority.
Click to expand...

Which makes either candidate winning even less of a threat.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Which makes either candidate winning even less of a threat.
Click to expand...

I would agree, except for two things: Each candidate has a chance to reshape SCOTUS for decades, and I'd much rather see Clinton do it, and we live in the nuclear age, which means a President with the nuclear codes who's incompetent, mentally unbalanced, and notoriously thin-skinned is an unacceptably dangerous risk.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Why? Simply a coward?

I mean why not do it yourself?
Click to expand...

It's not cowardly to suggest a course of action and simultaneously recuse oneself from doing that action. I would have supported WW2, had I been alive. I also would have made a very poor soldier.
 
Fudbucker said:
It's not cowardly to suggest a course of action and simultaneously recuse oneself from doing that action. I would have supported WW2, had I been alive. I also would have made a very poor soldier.
Click to expand...

Thank all depends. If the answer is, "I would be very poor at it" that would make sense. But Tony could give an answer that isn't consistent with that reason.
 
Many questions about Julian Assange. Is he trying to destroy Hillary Clinton or the U.S.? From a February New York Times op-ed piece by German journalist Jochen Bittner:
There’s no doubt that WikiLeaks, which Mr. Assange founded in 2006, has been a boon for global civil liberties. The problem is that the project is inseparable from the man. Mr. Assange has made little secret about his skepticism toward Western democracy and his willingness to work with autocratic governments like Vladimir V. Putin’s Russia. His personal politics undermines WikiLeaks’ neutrality — and the noble cause for which WikiLeaks used to stand. What we need is a WikiLeaks without the founder of WikiLeaks.

Whether there is any sort of quid pro quo between Mr. Assange and Mr. Putin, it’s curious that one of the world’s most secretive governments has gotten a pass from WikiLeaks. Why, in all its time online, has WikiLeaks never revealed any Russian intelligence scandal? Because there is none? Or because Mr. Assange doesn’t want to embarrass Mr. Putin? Link
Click to expand...

In 2010, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, one of Assange's closest Wikileaks partners, bailed out on WikiLeaks. He said in part it was because of Julian Assange's "one-dimensional confrontation with the U.S.A."
 
BobTheCoward said:
Thank all depends. If the answer is, "I would be very poor at it" that would make sense. But Tony could give an answer that isn't consistent with that reason.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing Tony thinks he probably wouldn't make a very good assassin.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Seriously. Why wouldn't you be the one to do it? What separates you from gavrilo principle?
Click to expand...

I'm not going to get into a further discussion on it. I probably shouldn't have even said what I did. I have no desire to have to explain to the Secret Service why I am not a threat to him.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom