• 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

Dog Town said:
Yes, different entities. We could get another, or more...

One can only hope!
Click to expand...
It is slightly possible that one or both of the major parties can be replace by a new party or an existing small one. There will never be more than two major parties.
 
Tony Stark said:
The last change was a 160 years ago when the Whigs fell apart over slavery. A new party (the Republicans) quickly took their place. Though there has been changes to how the parties are aligned (the Democrats used to be the racist party).
Click to expand...

That's a bit of an oversimplification. The first two parties were the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans. The alliances and ideologies and alliances morphed and on some issues even swapped positions as well as changed names. You can easily make the argument that they are derivatives of those two original parties and not the result of some third party influence.
 
Darat said:
Yet someone who is saying that he will do many things that are in conflict with that very constitution is one election away from becoming president.....
Click to expand...

This applies to Hillary too. Can't deny that.
 
Arg9 said:
This applies to Hillary too. Can't deny that.
Click to expand...
The most you can argue is she has a different interpretation of the Constitution on some issues than the status quo. I doubt that Donald Trump has ever even read it or cares about what any of it says.
 
Dog Town said:
Yes, different entities. We could get another, or more...

One can only hope!
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Not with this form of government. Thomas Jefferson spoke against political parties and yet he worked very hard at party building. In ways, I wish we would abolish them entirely. Although I think that would be considered unconstitutional. I also don't know what that would look like.
 
Tony Stark said:
The most you can argue is she has a different interpretation of the Constitution on some issues than the status quo. I doubt that Donald Trump has ever even read it or cares about what any of it says.
Click to expand...

I'd bet a lot of money he couldn't recite 3 of the amendments. Let alone give us an idea about each Article.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
It exposes the left's callousness, the indifference to the millions of dead, refugees, the starving & sick - not that republicans have been any better...

Hillary met with the same people McCain met with in financing/arming/vetting the nice, moderate Syrian rebels.

I'm confident McCain has some kind of bank account the Saudis and others put money in. The first thing McCain did once elected was get wrapped up in the Keating 5 banking scandal.

But Hillary's take is in the Clinton Foundation, a record of tens of millions in $ not just for weapons purchase approval, but for the bipartisan acts of war in both Syria and Libya.

Our foreign policy makes absolutely no sense in the absence of understanding how Saudi Arabia in particular has used their wealth to influence US policy. I am not cool with saying it is legal, so long as there is no quid pro quo in writing, ie "Here is $25 million for arming and training foreign mercinaries to attack Assad in Syria". I am cool with just watching it happen and using common sense. There isn't any such thing as "moderate" Syrian rebels. The money has bought influence that is contrary to US interests and world peace.

Saudi Arabia is at risk from internal revolt, and it is the Wahhabis doing the revolting. The ISIS bombs in the two Holy cities are a real blow to the credibility of the Kingdom because their primary virtue is protector of the two holy mosques. We've done all of this foreign policy on their behalf, on behalf of the Sunni Wahhabi head-choppers, and in strengthening them we could be looking at ISIS taking Saudi Arabia.

Originally, our involvement with them was in Pakistan and Afghanistan, funding Madrassas and the jihadis in order to bleed the Soviet Union. One shoulder-mounted missile could take out a Soviet fighter bomber.

So now we're in there droning the people we were allies with before. And they have taken over large portions of the middle east where we have destroyed existing, far more reasonable governments.

Boy, won't it be a surprise when Assad is overthrown that a violent, repressive wave of beheadings occurs and ISIS declares it a part of the Caliphate?

The refugee crisis has allowed immigration of untold numbers of people having nothing to do with Syria. It is destabilizing Europe. Trump is being called insane, racist, etc. for calling attention to it. Instead of reasoned arguments, the left isn't even acknowledging the problem and just calling people racists.

I was naiive about it. I learned the multicultural value system. I gave my wife some grief about it when she told me about the Muslim problem in her city. Namely, the beheadings, bombings, etc. Seeing it first hand has certainly changed my opinion. I do not like living under imminent threat of assassination.

This recent history and my own personal experience with the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao has forced me to do some real assessment about history and the values I was taught in the comfy security of the richest country on the planet.

I see that this blind multiculturalism combined with corruption of our foreign policy from outside interests has produced a growing calamity that is so huge it is perhaps a point of inflection for Europe.

Listening to Hillary cackle about "We came, we saw...he died" my God what narcissistic glee. Now the whole country is in chaos, with ISIS or Al Qaeda in charge of large swathes. As if we didn't learn a thing from Iraq. Syria is now home to ISIS.

So I want to hear "no nation building". I want to hear no taking sides in civil wars on the other side of the planet. I most especially do not want to hear my government funding/arming/financing radical Islamic mercinaries under the theory that it helps us overthrow a bad guy.

Even the Kurds. They're always portrayed in the media as these noble freedom fighters. I never see it mentioned they are communists. They span several countries and their objective is unifying as their own independent country. There are always unintended consequences but recently any old excuse will do for taking sides in wars in places where we have no compelling interest. Like namely, they donated to your campaign or foundation.

Trump is free of that, I recognize so. He won the republican nomination and he owes nobody a thing for it. First time in modern history.

Likewise in assuming the presidency. He will be the first in modern history not bought off by the Saudis.
Click to expand...

For someone who is not a Trump supporter, you are sure doing a great imitation of one.
 
acbytesla said:
I'd bet a lot of money he couldn't recite 3 of the amendments. Let alone give us an idea about each Article.
Click to expand...
He has already proved he doesn't know how many articles there are. I knew that, and I guarantee Hillary does (she graduated from Yale Law).
 
Tony Stark said:
The most you can argue is she has a different interpretation of the Constitution on some issues than the status quo. I doubt that Donald Trump has ever even read it or cares about what any of it says.
Click to expand...

You could say the same thing about her. It goes both ways. They both may know it by heart and disregard it.
 
Arg9 said:
You could say the same thing about her. It goes both ways. They both may know it by heart and disregard it.
Click to expand...
Donald is a complete *********** moron who has proven he has no idea what the Constitution says (he said there are 12 articles), not that he would care if he did. Hillary is a Yale Law grad that disagrees with a couple of 5-4 decisions.
 
Arg9 said:
You could say the same thing about her. It goes both ways. They both may know it by heart and disregard it.
Click to expand...
:eek::eye-poppi
Total ignorant nonsense. I'd bet you that Hillary might know most of it very well I don't know by heart. But I bet Donald couldn't tell you how many amendments there are let alone the content of more than 2 or 3 tops. We already know he doesn't know the number of articles.

Hillary takes it very seriously. Hillary is not only a lawyer graduating from Yale Law along with her fellow law school classmate Rhodes Scholar Bill Clinton. She also taught Constitutional Law as well at the University of Arkansas. She has written respected articles about specific cases Hillary was required on at least 3 occasions to swear a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic.

Donald took real estate courses at Fordham. Yeah they both know it well. :rolleyes: Your post makes me angry. It's willful head in the sand ignorance and intellectually dishonest.

Please give these issues the consideration they deserve.
 
Last edited:
Arg9 said:
You could say the same thing about her. It goes both ways. They both may know it by heart and disregard it.
Click to expand...
Please do enlighten us to all the times Hillary disregarded it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom