Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Thu Sep 29, 2016 2:28 am

WarRI1 wrote:
That doesn't surprise me. Your "friends" are racist, women hating, asshats. I hope you realize that now, right?

We have about 15 people in the group, men and wives mostly. Besides my wife, myself and one woman who Is a Widow, the other women and men support Trump. I do not understand it. It is a worrisome trait which I believe is mostly fueled by the immigration policy of the Obama years. Probably also the jobs promise of Trump, which I do not believe will change anything under a Republican Administration and congress. Special interests will not allow it.


Thank you for being honest. :)
 
Ken777
Posts: 10203
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:58 am

Hillis wrote:
The latest "strategy" for the Trump team: attack Hillary over something that happened years ago, which was, in effect, his little tryst with Monica Lewinsky.

What delicious irony: a man who has been married 4 times, cheated on at least one of them with one of the others, bringing up marriage issues about her opponent's husband? And the irony of Rudy Giuliani, who had an affair while married, used a press conference to announce his divorce, also saying how bad Hillary is because she didn't leave her Husband when he was President.

You just can't make shit like this up, can you?


Clinton's Prep Team will have that one well taken care of - the first debate showed that she was well prepared for hits. She hits him back on Bill and he will go off base. And then Clinton will have a few more hits up her sleeve - just like the Alicia Machado hit.

As for Rudy - has that guy lost it or what? His rants and raves in hopes of getting a big job in a Trump Administration. What a joke and, unfortunately, a lost reputation.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Thu Sep 29, 2016 6:59 am

One wonders how Trump would work with Angela Merkel, Theresa May or Beata Szydło.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20321
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:42 am

seahawk wrote:
One wonders how Trump would work with Angela Merkel, Theresa May or Beata Szydło.


He wouldn't be able to work with any politician, let alone a World leader. The man can't string an intelligent, coherent sentence together. He's so full of shit, he had to keep sniffing to keep it all in during the debate!
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:12 pm

Ken777 wrote:
As for Rudy - has that guy lost it or what? His rants and raves in hopes of getting a big job in a Trump Administration. What a joke and, unfortunately, a lost reputation.


I used to respect Rudy, back before he ran for President. Now his teeth sicken me. WTF is wrong with him? Cancer? Yuck.

Image
 
Hillis
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:01 pm

Rudy has just become an angry Fascists, it's sad to say.

And he's also trying to have his voice heard about Bill Clinton's extramarital flings, but coming from a man who did the same then, then he left his wife, how much cred does he really have?
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6374
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:01 pm

PacificBeach88 wrote:
Now his teeth sicken me. WTF is wrong with him? Cancer? Yuck


Yes, Giuliani had prostate cancer and has permanently implanted 'radiation seeds' in his prostate, along with chemo, beam radiation and hormonal therapy.

Also to me it looks like Rudy was once a smoker. Some of his teeth look nicotine stained, or possibly caffeine stains from coffee and tea.

Some might say he should get dentures. I've recently gone through that - no way I'd recommend anyone do it for cosmetic reasons.

As a cancer survivor, doctors would likely recommend against extensive dental work like a lot of root canals, implants, etc.

Just enjoy and take good care of your teeth - avoid smoking (anything), avoid caffeine - especially energy drinks and sodas, but also coffee and tea. Otherwise you are looking at something very similar when you are 65 or so.
 
LMP737
Posts: 6284
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Thu Sep 29, 2016 6:11 pm

 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Thu Sep 29, 2016 6:57 pm

rfields5421 wrote:
As a cancer survivor, doctors would likely recommend against extensive dental work like a lot of root canals, implants, etc.

Just enjoy and take good care of your teeth - avoid smoking (anything), avoid caffeine - especially energy drinks and sodas, but also coffee and tea. Otherwise you are looking at something very similar when you are 65 or so.



Thank you for your heartfelt response. I wasn't trying to denigrate cancer survivor's teeth. It's just that I honestly, truly, looked up to Rudy G. for his work in reducing crime. It now appears he had no part in that effort. I spent 1989 to 1990 in Manhattan watching NY burn. Your advice is very important though.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6374
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:25 pm

Getting old absolutely totally sucks. The changes to ones body are unpleasant. Unfortunately, the only option is much worse.
 
User avatar
pvjin
Posts: 3586
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:52 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Thu Sep 29, 2016 9:45 pm

I used to respect Rudy, back before he ran for President. Now his teeth sicken me. WTF is wrong with him? Cancer? Yuck.


There's certainly much less wrong with him than in the head of those people who really give a damn about politicians looks. They aren't elected to look good, but to do their job properly.
 
Hillis
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Thu Sep 29, 2016 9:56 pm

pvjin wrote:
I used to respect Rudy, back before he ran for President. Now his teeth sicken me. WTF is wrong with him? Cancer? Yuck.


There's certainly much less wrong with him than in the head of those people who really give a damn about politicians looks. They aren't elected to look good, but to do their job properly.


His health isn't the issue with me, it's how far out into space he's gone, along with most of the GOP in the march to Fascism.
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Thu Sep 29, 2016 10:07 pm

I used to respect Rudy G. Now, he's just yet another Republican asshat. Look at this jerkoff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjufaQLrTy8

I voted for HW Bush, I mock voted in high school for Reagan. Republicans nominated the moron GW Bush, a coke addicted, moron! And they reelected him for a 2nd term. That proved to me once and for all that Republicans don't give a shyte about spending, they just want to spend it on war, and run deficits. Bill Clinton was the only one to run surpluses.
 
agill
Posts: 1102
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:49 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:32 pm

So now Google too is biased against Trump. That poor man, everyone is against him...
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2990
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Fri Sep 30, 2016 1:22 pm

Anyone remember 3rd debate in 2004 between Senator John Kerry and President George W Bush?

Kerry was doing very well until he mentioned Mary Cheney VP Cheney's daughter as lesbian. Not only did it anger Bush and Cheney; it cost critical votes needed for Kerry to win.

Bringing up Bill Clinton's now ancient history with Lewinsky and Flowers will likely have same effect for Trump.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24174
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:12 pm

pvjin wrote:
I used to respect Rudy, back before he ran for President. Now his teeth sicken me. WTF is wrong with him? Cancer? Yuck.


There's certainly much less wrong with him than in the head of those people who really give a damn about politicians looks. They aren't elected to look good, but to do their job properly.


Does this sound like the leader of the free world?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump ... 18710.html
 
apodino
Posts: 4098
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:33 pm

PacificBeach88 wrote:
I used to respect Rudy G. Now, he's just yet another Republican asshat. Look at this jerkoff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjufaQLrTy8

I voted for HW Bush, I mock voted in high school for Reagan. Republicans nominated the moron GW Bush, a coke addicted, moron! And they reelected him for a 2nd term. That proved to me once and for all that Republicans don't give a shyte about spending, they just want to spend it on war, and run deficits. Bill Clinton was the only one to run surpluses.


This is actually an urban myth. Contrary to popular belief, Clinton never actually had a surplus. Straight from the US Treasurys own web site, you can see that the national debt increased every year during Clintons presidency. Last time I checked, if the debt goes up, that means the government spent more than it took in and had to borrow to pay the rest.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

That aside, as the election approaches 1 month to go, keep an eye on the Deutsche Bank Situation. The stock is collapsing, and the bank seems to have worlds of issues. If there is a failure here, this would be lehman brothers like, and we could have a repeat of 2008 just before the election. I don't see how Hillary would win in such a situation.
 
Hillis
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Fri Sep 30, 2016 6:52 pm

apodino wrote:
PacificBeach88 wrote:
I used to respect Rudy G. Now, he's just yet another Republican asshat. Look at this jerkoff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjufaQLrTy8

I voted for HW Bush, I mock voted in high school for Reagan. Republicans nominated the moron GW Bush, a coke addicted, moron! And they reelected him for a 2nd term. That proved to me once and for all that Republicans don't give a shyte about spending, they just want to spend it on war, and run deficits. Bill Clinton was the only one to run surpluses.


This is actually an urban myth. Contrary to popular belief, Clinton never actually had a surplus. Straight from the US Treasurys own web site, you can see that the national debt increased every year during Clintons presidency. Last time I checked, if the debt goes up, that means the government spent more than it took in and had to borrow to pay the rest.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

That aside, as the election approaches 1 month to go, keep an eye on the Deutsche Bank Situation. The stock is collapsing, and the bank seems to have worlds of issues. If there is a failure here, this would be lehman brothers like, and we could have a repeat of 2008 just before the election. I don't see how Hillary would win in such a situation.


The surplus was in the DEFECIT, not the Debt. The two are not the same.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22287
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Fri Sep 30, 2016 7:14 pm

WarRI1 wrote:
It is a worrisome trait which I believe is mostly fueled by the immigration policy of the Obama years.


No, I don't think it's that. The Obama administration deported more illegal immigrants than any other administration in history by just about any measure.

The reason is GOP outrage at a President of color. It's really that simple. It's systemic and structural racism. And with the next President it will be systemic and structural misogyny.
 
Hillis
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Fri Sep 30, 2016 7:45 pm

DocLightning wrote:
WarRI1 wrote:
It is a worrisome trait which I believe is mostly fueled by the immigration policy of the Obama years.


No, I don't think it's that. The Obama administration deported more illegal immigrants than any other administration in history by just about any measure.

The reason is GOP outrage at a President of color. It's really that simple. It's systemic and structural racism. And with the next President it will be systemic and structural misogyny.


Color AND Religion, let's not forget. For many conservatives, unless they're lily-white, Christian, straight, and with an "acceptable" American-sounding name, they're seen as, at the very least, suspect, and, at the most, an avowed enemy.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22287
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Fri Sep 30, 2016 8:33 pm

Hillis wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
WarRI1 wrote:
It is a worrisome trait which I believe is mostly fueled by the immigration policy of the Obama years.


No, I don't think it's that. The Obama administration deported more illegal immigrants than any other administration in history by just about any measure.

The reason is GOP outrage at a President of color. It's really that simple. It's systemic and structural racism. And with the next President it will be systemic and structural misogyny.


Color AND Religion, let's not forget. For many conservatives, unless they're lily-white, Christian, straight, and with an "acceptable" American-sounding name, they're seen as, at the very least, suspect, and, at the most, an avowed enemy.


Mr. Obama's name, not his color, was probably responsible for the "Muslim" accusations. And why is it an "accusation"? The Constitution explicitly states that no religious test is required to assume any public trust or office. It even says so in the main body; not even an amendment.

When I was a little boy in 3rd or 4th grade of religious school, I remember out teacher predicting that "We will have a Black President and a female President before we ever have a Jewish President." Turns out...she was right.
 
stratosphere
Posts: 2062
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Fri Sep 30, 2016 10:22 pm

DocLightning wrote:
WarRI1 wrote:
It is a worrisome trait which I believe is mostly fueled by the immigration policy of the Obama years.


No, I don't think it's that. The Obama administration deported more illegal immigrants than any other administration in history by just about any measure.

The reason is GOP outrage at a President of color. It's really that simple. It's systemic and structural racism. And with the next President it will be systemic and structural misogyny.


Yours is a typical liberal response. A man of such education too. The fallback is ALWAYS if they don't like Obama it must be racism. Let me ask you something Doc how do you feel the affordable care act is working? All my doctors have nothing good to say about it. While a noble cause our health care system is nuts and needs fixing the affordable care act is anything but affordable. Our government has never been good at solving complex problems. The big pharma industry is criminal just turn on your TV cant get 5 mins into it without a drug commercial where else in the world do you see that?. We subsidize the rest of the world when it comes to drugs. As for Obama I voted against him the second time not because of him but because I despised Eric Holder and although he is black it had nothing to do with race. I did not like Romney for sure much like I don't like Trump but I hate Hillary more (oh and shes white BTW). This is the precise reason I didn't vote for 25 years we as a nation cannot seem to put anyone up worth a damn. Our political process is WAY too long I am tired of money and influence driving this process. It's always the lesser of two evils none of them are on the side of the working man. Had to laugh at the meme the democrats only care for blacks and latinos every 4 years. Repubs are no better. I am an independent but lean slightly right. But looks like I am back to sitting out this election. If I do vote it will be to keep Killary out.
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Fri Sep 30, 2016 11:16 pm

stratosphere wrote:
Yours is a typical liberal response. A man of such education too. The fallback is ALWAYS if they don't like Obama it must be racism. Let me ask you something Doc how do you feel the affordable care act is working? All my doctors have nothing good to say about it. While a noble cause our health care system is nuts and needs fixing the affordable care act is anything but affordable. Our government has never been good at solving complex problems. The big pharma industry is criminal just turn on your TV cant get 5 mins into it without a drug commercial where else in the world do you see that?. We subsidize the rest of the world when it comes to drugs. As for Obama I voted against him the second time not because of him but because I despised Eric Holder and although he is black it had nothing to do with race. I did not like Romney for sure much like I don't like Trump but I hate Hillary more (oh and shes white BTW). This is the precise reason I didn't vote for 25 years we as a nation cannot seem to put anyone up worth a damn. Our political process is WAY too long I am tired of money and influence driving this process. It's always the lesser of two evils none of them are on the side of the working man. Had to laugh at the meme the democrats only care for blacks and latinos every 4 years. Repubs are no better. I am an independent but lean slightly right. But looks like I am back to sitting out this election. If I do vote it will be to keep Killary out.


Which faux scandal had you hating on Eric Holder?

If Trump is elected the stock market will likely drop by 25% on Nov. 10th. Do you honestly think having Trump having Twitter tantrums with other world leaders will go over well? Or how Trump has blustered he'd blow Iranian boats out of the water because deckhands were flipping the bird to the American Navy? Think that will end well?

How do you think a President Trump would react to Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte calling him a "son of a bitch" like he called Obama? Fortune 500 CEOs who usually vote Republican by around an 85%, will instead, this election, 58% will vote for Hillary.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/econo ... hite-house
 
sierrakilo44
Posts: 680
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:38 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Fri Sep 30, 2016 11:38 pm

DocLightning wrote:
When I was a little boy in 3rd or 4th grade of religious school, I remember out teacher predicting that "We will have a Black President and a female President before we ever have a Jewish President." Turns out...she was right.


With women comprising about 50% of the US population, African Americans comprising 15% and Jewish people only 1.7%, yes you would be far more likely to have a female or Black president before a Jewish one.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24174
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 01, 2016 12:28 am

stratosphere wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
WarRI1 wrote:
It is a worrisome trait which I believe is mostly fueled by the immigration policy of the Obama years.


No, I don't think it's that. The Obama administration deported more illegal immigrants than any other administration in history by just about any measure.

The reason is GOP outrage at a President of color. It's really that simple. It's systemic and structural racism. And with the next President it will be systemic and structural misogyny.


Yours is a typical liberal response. A man of such education too. The fallback is ALWAYS if they don't like Obama it must be racism. Let me ask you something Doc how do you feel the affordable care act is working? All my doctors have nothing good to say about it. While a noble cause our health care system is nuts and needs fixing the affordable care act is anything but affordable. Our government has never been good at solving complex problems. The big pharma industry is criminal just turn on your TV cant get 5 mins into it without a drug commercial where else in the world do you see that?. We subsidize the rest of the world when it comes to drugs. As for Obama I voted against him the second time not because of him but because I despised Eric Holder and although he is black it had nothing to do with race. I did not like Romney for sure much like I don't like Trump but I hate Hillary more (oh and shes white BTW). This is the precise reason I didn't vote for 25 years we as a nation cannot seem to put anyone up worth a damn. Our political process is WAY too long I am tired of money and influence driving this process. It's always the lesser of two evils none of them are on the side of the working man. Had to laugh at the meme the democrats only care for blacks and latinos every 4 years. Repubs are no better. I am an independent but lean slightly right. But looks like I am back to sitting out this election. If I do vote it will be to keep Killary out.


Typical conservative. Devolve into name calling and playing the victim.

There are legitimate reasons people disagree with Obama's policies. Nothing wrong with that. But, when people say "he's Muslim" or "he was born in Kenya" or "he went to school in Indonesia" as reasons they hate him, that is racism. Or the politician in Texas who ran on the idea that Obama was a gay prostitute. Or any politician or pundit who claims to be a patriot and real American when talking about Obama. Those are code words. Think about it. There are ways to disagree with his policies without calling him names or bringing his race or religion into it. Unfortunately, that is all righties (not all Republicans) want to talk about as the only thing to hate him for. Then, righties start whining that "but you're calling me racist!" and "you just hate other people's opinions!" and "why do you 'liberals' want to stop free speech?"

I just caught a glimpse of how you disagree with Obamacare because of the commercials. One of the biggest reasons we have all of those damn pharmaceutical commercials was the passage of Medicare A, B, C, D which was passed well before Obama was in office. Don't believe me? Google is your friend.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24174
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 01, 2016 12:30 am

From out in the interwebs:

Hillary's email scandal just gets bigger. She ignored hundreds of emails asking for help from several Nigerian princes.....
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6374
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 01, 2016 12:31 am

No the ACA isn't an overwhelming success. It was tweaked, modified and adjusted by the Democrats and Republicans in Congress to where it is unrecognizable compared to the original proposal.

The big drug companies, the big hospital companies and the big insurance companies wrote the bill to maximize their profits, and their 'friends' in Congress, on both sides of the aisle gave them what the wanted.

Does anyone else remember the Republicans in Congress promising to work with the Democrats to fix some of the issues in the ACA?

The one positive thing I see in Trump's plans is to replace ACA with a similar nationwide health care plan. It will be optional, not required. It would also allow the insurance companies to exclude prior existing conditions again. It also isn't perfect. But Trump is right that the nation cannot afford to repeal ACA without having a replacement.

I also have to ask - what have the Republicans proposed to replace ACA?

Yes Doctors are unhappy. They do not want anyone questioning how much they charge, how many test they want run by a lab they own, they don't want you or your insurance company saying you should have a generic/ cheaper drug.
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 01, 2016 12:54 am

seb146 wrote:
From out in the interwebs:

Hillary's email scandal just gets bigger. She ignored hundreds of emails asking for help from several Nigerian princes.....



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: And Bill Clinton was found to reply to 384 emails on the server to increase 2" to his manhood.
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 01, 2016 1:06 am

seb146 wrote:
I just caught a glimpse of how you disagree with Obamacare because of the commercials. One of the biggest reasons we have all of those damn pharmaceutical commercials was the passage of Medicare A, B, C, D which was passed well before Obama was in office. Don't believe me? Google is your friend.


There are only 3 countries that I'm aware of where pharmaceuticals can advertise directly to consumers (aka, DTC). USA, Brazil, and New Zealand, that's it.

This blew up when Reagan started rolling back all sorts of decades old rulings and executive rule making. Much like scrapping the Fairness Doctrine which has dramatically increased polarization and turned AM radio into hate radio. In 1980, DTC spending was $12 million. By 1993 when Clinton stepped into office it had increased to over $300 million per annum. A 2,500%+ increase. It's continued unabated since.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3278148/

Likewise with the Medicare plans which all were only supposed to be temporary as Republicans promised the "free market" would be cheaper than govt run Medicare. This of course is wrong. Private Medicare providers still demand they get a 15% premium to the government run Medicare. Someone's gotta pay for those ad dollars after all. :roll: :roll:
 
coolian2
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:34 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 01, 2016 7:52 pm

stratosphere wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
WarRI1 wrote:
It is a worrisome trait which I believe is mostly fueled by the immigration policy of the Obama years.


No, I don't think it's that. The Obama administration deported more illegal immigrants than any other administration in history by just about any measure.

The reason is GOP outrage at a President of color. It's really that simple. It's systemic and structural racism. And with the next President it will be systemic and structural misogyny.


Yours is a typical liberal response. A man of such education too. The fallback is ALWAYS if they don't like Obama it must be racism. Let me ask you something Doc how do you feel the affordable care act is working? All my doctors have nothing good to say about it. While a noble cause our health care system is nuts and needs fixing the affordable care act is anything but affordable. Our government has never been good at solving complex problems. The big pharma industry is criminal just turn on your TV cant get 5 mins into it without a drug commercial where else in the world do you see that?. We subsidize the rest of the world when it comes to drugs. As for Obama I voted against him the second time not because of him but because I despised Eric Holder and although he is black it had nothing to do with race. I did not like Romney for sure much like I don't like Trump but I hate Hillary more (oh and shes white BTW). This is the precise reason I didn't vote for 25 years we as a nation cannot seem to put anyone up worth a damn. Our political process is WAY too long I am tired of money and influence driving this process. It's always the lesser of two evils none of them are on the side of the working man. Had to laugh at the meme the democrats only care for blacks and latinos every 4 years. Repubs are no better. I am an independent but lean slightly right. But looks like I am back to sitting out this election. If I do vote it will be to keep Killary out.


I tried to read this, but since it started insane and you clearly don't understand paragraphs.....
 
coolian2
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:34 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 01, 2016 7:57 pm

PacificBeach88 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
I just caught a glimpse of how you disagree with Obamacare because of the commercials. One of the biggest reasons we have all of those damn pharmaceutical commercials was the passage of Medicare A, B, C, D which was passed well before Obama was in office. Don't believe me? Google is your friend.


There are only 3 countries that I'm aware of where pharmaceuticals can advertise directly to consumers (aka, DTC). USA, Brazil, and New Zealand, that's it.

This blew up when Reagan started rolling back all sorts of decades old rulings and executive rule making. Much like scrapping the Fairness Doctrine which has dramatically increased polarization and turned AM radio into hate radio. In 1980, DTC spending was $12 million. By 1993 when Clinton stepped into office it had increased to over $300 million per annum. A 2,500%+ increase. It's continued unabated since.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3278148/

Likewise with the Medicare plans which all were only supposed to be temporary as Republicans promised the "free market" would be cheaper than govt run Medicare. This of course is wrong. Private Medicare providers still demand they get a 15% premium to the government run Medicare. Someone's gotta pay for those ad dollars after all. :roll: :roll:


New Zealand? Do you mean over the counter? Or like...what? No offence because as a poster, you rock, I'm just wondering about what you mean?
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:07 pm

What blows my mind is a fellow 40-something, LGBT guy, that I've known for 10 years has snapped. He continues to post nonsense about Benghazi. I had to literally embarrass him in front of EVERYONE with his ignorance by challenging him with this:

Image
 
afcjets
Posts: 3887
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 01, 2016 9:15 pm

PacificBeach88 wrote:
In 1980, DTC spending was $12 million. By 1993 when Clinton stepped into office it had increased to over $300 million per annum. A 2,500%+ increase. It's continued unabated since.


Watching tv in earlier decades was great. Illness, disease, and drugs and their deadly side effects were not shoved down our throats at every commercial break. I actually don't remember ANY of those commercials in the 1980s, I thought they came sometime in the 90s.
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 01, 2016 9:41 pm

afcjets wrote:
Watching tv in earlier decades was great. Illness, disease, and drugs and their deadly side effects were not shoved down our throats at every commercial break. I actually don't remember ANY of those commercials in the 1980s, I thought they came sometime in the 90s.


Remember, DTC advertising for big pharma wasn't just limited to TV. It was carried out in every doctor's office, with pens, notebooks, samples, posters, etc. Additionally, it was carried out on the internet, radio, newspaper, direct mail, and other advertising avenues.

Until advertising started to get cracked down on in the late 2000s / early 2010s, you'd trip over young, usually attractive, mainly female, drug reps. Although, to be fair I did sleep with a couple of amazing looking, 6 pack abs sporting guys, in their late 20-somethings in 2001 and 2002 when I was single. Oh....those were the days. :P :)
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14949
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 01, 2016 11:06 pm

coolian2 wrote:
New Zealand? Do you mean over the counter? Or like...what? No offence because as a poster, you rock, I'm just wondering about what you mean?


I don't know what he means exactly but to give you an example, my country, France, home of several drug companies including Sanofi, doesn't have adverts for drugs other than cough medicine and the like. The most potent thing advertised must be aspirin, and you can't buy it outside of a pharmacy, behind the counter.
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sat Oct 01, 2016 11:38 pm

coolian2 wrote:
New Zealand? Do you mean over the counter? Or like...what? No offence because as a poster, you rock, I'm just wondering about what you mean?


No. OTC (over the counter) drugs are legal to advertise in many, many, countries. DTC (direct to the consumer) drugs are ones that require a doctor's prescription. Things like Viagra, Cialis, Lyrica, Celebrex, Chantrix, Avalox, Suboxone, Epi-Pen, etc..... Additionally, many of these drugs have proven no more effective at helping than the 30 to 75 year old drugs they are trying to replace. The new drug cost $1,200 per month (and no, I'm not joking) with the old one that works fine costs $4 per month. But, given the power of advertising patients walk into doctor's offices and specifically ask or demand these drugs. When you're a doctor, and a new drug works just as good or maybe a tiny bit better than the old one, and you have a patient demanding it....docs usually Rx it. Sad, but true.
 
ual777
Posts: 1642
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 6:18 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sun Oct 02, 2016 12:37 am

seb146 wrote:
stratosphere wrote:
DocLightning wrote:

No, I don't think it's that. The Obama administration deported more illegal immigrants than any other administration in history by just about any measure.

The reason is GOP outrage at a President of color. It's really that simple. It's systemic and structural racism. And with the next President it will be systemic and structural misogyny.


Yours is a typical liberal response. A man of such education too. The fallback is ALWAYS if they don't like Obama it must be racism. Let me ask you something Doc how do you feel the affordable care act is working? All my doctors have nothing good to say about it. While a noble cause our health care system is nuts and needs fixing the affordable care act is anything but affordable. Our government has never been good at solving complex problems. The big pharma industry is criminal just turn on your TV cant get 5 mins into it without a drug commercial where else in the world do you see that?. We subsidize the rest of the world when it comes to drugs. As for Obama I voted against him the second time not because of him but because I despised Eric Holder and although he is black it had nothing to do with race. I did not like Romney for sure much like I don't like Trump but I hate Hillary more (oh and shes white BTW). This is the precise reason I didn't vote for 25 years we as a nation cannot seem to put anyone up worth a damn. Our political process is WAY too long I am tired of money and influence driving this process. It's always the lesser of two evils none of them are on the side of the working man. Had to laugh at the meme the democrats only care for blacks and latinos every 4 years. Repubs are no better. I am an independent but lean slightly right. But looks like I am back to sitting out this election. If I do vote it will be to keep Killary out.


Typical conservative. Devolve into name calling and playing the victim.

There are legitimate reasons people disagree with Obama's policies. Nothing wrong with that. But, when people say "he's Muslim" or "he was born in Kenya" or "he went to school in Indonesia" as reasons they hate him, that is racism. Or the politician in Texas who ran on the idea that Obama was a gay prostitute. Or any politician or pundit who claims to be a patriot and real American when talking about Obama. Those are code words. Think about it. There are ways to disagree with his policies without calling him names or bringing his race or religion into it. Unfortunately, that is all righties (not all Republicans) want to talk about as the only thing to hate him for. Then, righties start whining that "but you're calling me racist!" and "you just hate other people's opinions!" and "why do you 'liberals' want to stop free speech?"

I just caught a glimpse of how you disagree with Obamacare because of the commercials. One of the biggest reasons we have all of those damn pharmaceutical commercials was the passage of Medicare A, B, C, D which was passed well before Obama was in office. Don't believe me? Google is your friend.


Come on Seb, if there's name calling on this thread it didn't start with the conservatives...
 
ual777
Posts: 1642
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 6:18 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sun Oct 02, 2016 12:51 am

PacificBeach88 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
I just caught a glimpse of how you disagree with Obamacare because of the commercials. One of the biggest reasons we have all of those damn pharmaceutical commercials was the passage of Medicare A, B, C, D which was passed well before Obama was in office. Don't believe me? Google is your friend.


There are only 3 countries that I'm aware of where pharmaceuticals can advertise directly to consumers (aka, DTC). USA, Brazil, and New Zealand, that's it.

This blew up when Reagan started rolling back all sorts of decades old rulings and executive rule making. Much like scrapping the Fairness Doctrine which has dramatically increased polarization and turned AM radio into hate radio. In 1980, DTC spending was $12 million. By 1993 when Clinton stepped into office it had increased to over $300 million per annum. A 2,500%+ increase. It's continued unabated since.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3278148/

Likewise with the Medicare plans which all were only supposed to be temporary as Republicans promised the "free market" would be cheaper than govt run Medicare. This of course is wrong. Private Medicare providers still demand they get a 15% premium to the government run Medicare. Someone's gotta pay for those ad dollars after all. :roll: :roll:


The Fairness Doctrine? Really?

I agree with very little of your opinions but I will agree with pharmaceutical advertising. It's totally out of control.

That being said, I'm fairly conservative, but polarization from the right isn't happening due to the fairness doctrine. It's coming from the left's assault on all things conservative over the past 4-6 years. I notice my friends lately are going further and further right as a reaction to all this (solid red state).

For example, social justice warriors, write privilege, safe spaces, calling everyone a bigot or racist, uneducated, etc etc, all comes with a price. Many on the left today has an arrogance towards people that live in "flyover states" that I find disgusting, and are willing to act with physical violence against anyone who disagrees with them.

The left has also trafficked in identity politics for a while now, and telling the largest group of people in the country that they are hate-filled bigots who lack an education is only going to foster greater division.

I even find myself stuggling to not go further right with a lot of the stuff I see and spend a lot of time convincing my conservative friends that going too far right is wrong.

I couldn't give 2 hoots about stuff like bathroom laws. I prefer to rule by common sense. If nobody can tell you are/used to be a dude, use the women's room and vice verse. If you have a 5 o'clock shadow, don't act persecuted when people go nuts over you using the ladies room.

I DO care about a lot of other issues though, and I am very worried with how the extreme left tries to sell their narrative.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24174
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sun Oct 02, 2016 12:58 am

ual777 wrote:
PacificBeach88 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
I just caught a glimpse of how you disagree with Obamacare because of the commercials. One of the biggest reasons we have all of those damn pharmaceutical commercials was the passage of Medicare A, B, C, D which was passed well before Obama was in office. Don't believe me? Google is your friend.


There are only 3 countries that I'm aware of where pharmaceuticals can advertise directly to consumers (aka, DTC). USA, Brazil, and New Zealand, that's it.

This blew up when Reagan started rolling back all sorts of decades old rulings and executive rule making. Much like scrapping the Fairness Doctrine which has dramatically increased polarization and turned AM radio into hate radio. In 1980, DTC spending was $12 million. By 1993 when Clinton stepped into office it had increased to over $300 million per annum. A 2,500%+ increase. It's continued unabated since.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3278148/

Likewise with the Medicare plans which all were only supposed to be temporary as Republicans promised the "free market" would be cheaper than govt run Medicare. This of course is wrong. Private Medicare providers still demand they get a 15% premium to the government run Medicare. Someone's gotta pay for those ad dollars after all. :roll: :roll:


The Fairness Doctrine? Really?

I agree with very little of your opinions but I will agree with pharmaceutical advertising. It's totally out of control.

That being said, I'm fairly conservative, but polarization from the right isn't happening due to the fairness doctrine. It's coming from the left's assault on all things conservative over the past 4-6 years. I notice my friends lately are going further and further right as a reaction to all this (solid red state).

For example, social justice warriors, write privilege, safe spaces, calling everyone a bigot or racist, uneducated, etc etc, all comes with a price. Many on the left today has an arrogance towards people that live in "flyover states" that I find disgusting, and are willing to act with physical violence against anyone who disagrees with them.

The left has also trafficked in identity politics for a while now, and telling the largest group of people in the country that they are hate-filled bigots who lack an education is only going to foster greater division.

I even find myself stuggling to not go further right with a lot of the stuff I see and spend a lot of time convincing my conservative friends that going too far right is wrong.

I couldn't give 2 hoots about stuff like bathroom laws. I prefer to rule by common sense. If nobody can tell you are/used to be a dude, use the women's room and vice verse. If you have a 5 o'clock shadow, don't act persecuted when people go nuts over you using the ladies room.

I DO care about a lot of other issues though, and I am very worried with how the extreme left tries to sell their narrative.


The left may have been doing it "4 to 6 years" as you say, but the assault by righties on American intelligence and Democrats has been going on since the 1990s at least. As for the "extreme left" (which I assume you mean anyone with a (D) behind their name) has been pointing out flaws with right wing think. You know: basic debate. The right comes back with "yeah, well crooked Hillary" and "yeah, well, Bill" and "Obama is the worst president ever" with no basis for that statement.

If you don't care for Obama's policies, that's fine, but there is no comparing him to a Polk or Harding or Hoover.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sun Oct 02, 2016 2:20 am

ual777 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
stratosphere wrote:

Yours is a typical liberal response. A man of such education too. The fallback is ALWAYS if they don't like Obama it must be racism. Let me ask you something Doc how do you feel the affordable care act is working? All my doctors have nothing good to say about it. While a noble cause our health care system is nuts and needs fixing the affordable care act is anything but affordable. Our government has never been good at solving complex problems. The big pharma industry is criminal just turn on your TV cant get 5 mins into it without a drug commercial where else in the world do you see that?. We subsidize the rest of the world when it comes to drugs. As for Obama I voted against him the second time not because of him but because I despised Eric Holder and although he is black it had nothing to do with race. I did not like Romney for sure much like I don't like Trump but I hate Hillary more (oh and shes white BTW). This is the precise reason I didn't vote for 25 years we as a nation cannot seem to put anyone up worth a damn. Our political process is WAY too long I am tired of money and influence driving this process. It's always the lesser of two evils none of them are on the side of the working man. Had to laugh at the meme the democrats only care for blacks and latinos every 4 years. Repubs are no better. I am an independent but lean slightly right. But looks like I am back to sitting out this election. If I do vote it will be to keep Killary out.


Typical conservative. Devolve into name calling and playing the victim.



Come on Seb, if there's name calling on this thread it didn't start with the conservatives...


I had to laugh when Seb of all people said that. The irony. The hypocrisy.

"Devolve into name calling and playing the victim" actually sums up the behavior of liberals and lefties quite well (particularly in here).

It is no surprise that the left would extend their own self reflection to those opposite. It is a sign of desperation; a last-ditch attempt when all else has failed and they have nothing to give.
 
ual777
Posts: 1642
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 6:18 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sun Oct 02, 2016 2:22 am

seb146 wrote:
ual777 wrote:
PacificBeach88 wrote:

There are only 3 countries that I'm aware of where pharmaceuticals can advertise directly to consumers (aka, DTC). USA, Brazil, and New Zealand, that's it.

This blew up when Reagan started rolling back all sorts of decades old rulings and executive rule making. Much like scrapping the Fairness Doctrine which has dramatically increased polarization and turned AM radio into hate radio. In 1980, DTC spending was $12 million. By 1993 when Clinton stepped into office it had increased to over $300 million per annum. A 2,500%+ increase. It's continued unabated since.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3278148/

Likewise with the Medicare plans which all were only supposed to be temporary as Republicans promised the "free market" would be cheaper than govt run Medicare. This of course is wrong. Private Medicare providers still demand they get a 15% premium to the government run Medicare. Someone's gotta pay for those ad dollars after all. :roll: :roll:


The Fairness Doctrine? Really?

I agree with very little of your opinions but I will agree with pharmaceutical advertising. It's totally out of control.

That being said, I'm fairly conservative, but polarization from the right isn't happening due to the fairness doctrine. It's coming from the left's assault on all things conservative over the past 4-6 years. I notice my friends lately are going further and further right as a reaction to all this (solid red state).

For example, social justice warriors, write privilege, safe spaces, calling everyone a bigot or racist, uneducated, etc etc, all comes with a price. Many on the left today has an arrogance towards people that live in "flyover states" that I find disgusting, and are willing to act with physical violence against anyone who disagrees with them.

The left has also trafficked in identity politics for a while now, and telling the largest group of people in the country that they are hate-filled bigots who lack an education is only going to foster greater division.

I even find myself stuggling to not go further right with a lot of the stuff I see and spend a lot of time convincing my conservative friends that going too far right is wrong.

I couldn't give 2 hoots about stuff like bathroom laws. I prefer to rule by common sense. If nobody can tell you are/used to be a dude, use the women's room and vice verse. If you have a 5 o'clock shadow, don't act persecuted when people go nuts over you using the ladies room.

I DO care about a lot of other issues though, and I am very worried with how the extreme left tries to sell their narrative.


The left may have been doing it "4 to 6 years" as you say, but the assault by righties on American intelligence and Democrats has been going on since the 1990s at least. As for the "extreme left" (which I assume you mean anyone with a (D) behind their name) has been pointing out flaws with right wing think. You know: basic debate. The right comes back with "yeah, well crooked Hillary" and "yeah, well, Bill" and "Obama is the worst president ever" with no basis for that statement.

If you don't care for Obama's policies, that's fine, but there is no comparing him to a Polk or Harding or Hoover.


Case in point above. I don't mean anyone with a (D) next to their name. I mean the extremely vocal kind that I outlined above.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14949
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sun Oct 02, 2016 2:37 am

Well at least these "extremists" aren't getting elected by the dozens. On the other side of the aisle, and now as a presidential candidate, it's another story.
 
Hillis
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sun Oct 02, 2016 3:31 am

I really can't think of anything dumber than the Trump camp really believing that attacking Hillary and blaming her for Bill's behavior in the past will do anything more than point up his own sordid past of marriages, divorces, and cheating on his wives. How do they think this will actually work for them? If anything, it'll piss women off even more when they see Trump blaming her for Bill's indescretions. I just see that backfiring something spectacular on him.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11580
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sun Oct 02, 2016 5:36 am

My main argument with the Republican majority in Congress recently is not anything that posters above have indicate, It is the fact they they refuse to actually work. Refuse to work with those across the aisle, and that they makes statements indicating they refuse to do such, that they won't vet supreme court nominees for PURELY political reasons. If the dems were doing this I would be equally upset. But I am ashamed that the Republican's are doing it.

I really do not understand how anyone can give a pass to this, even if they are Republican or "Conservative". It is unacceptable.

Tugg
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24174
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sun Oct 02, 2016 6:15 am

ual777 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
ual777 wrote:

The Fairness Doctrine? Really?

I agree with very little of your opinions but I will agree with pharmaceutical advertising. It's totally out of control.

That being said, I'm fairly conservative, but polarization from the right isn't happening due to the fairness doctrine. It's coming from the left's assault on all things conservative over the past 4-6 years. I notice my friends lately are going further and further right as a reaction to all this (solid red state).

For example, social justice warriors, write privilege, safe spaces, calling everyone a bigot or racist, uneducated, etc etc, all comes with a price. Many on the left today has an arrogance towards people that live in "flyover states" that I find disgusting, and are willing to act with physical violence against anyone who disagrees with them.

The left has also trafficked in identity politics for a while now, and telling the largest group of people in the country that they are hate-filled bigots who lack an education is only going to foster greater division.

I even find myself stuggling to not go further right with a lot of the stuff I see and spend a lot of time convincing my conservative friends that going too far right is wrong.

I couldn't give 2 hoots about stuff like bathroom laws. I prefer to rule by common sense. If nobody can tell you are/used to be a dude, use the women's room and vice verse. If you have a 5 o'clock shadow, don't act persecuted when people go nuts over you using the ladies room.

I DO care about a lot of other issues though, and I am very worried with how the extreme left tries to sell their narrative.


The left may have been doing it "4 to 6 years" as you say, but the assault by righties on American intelligence and Democrats has been going on since the 1990s at least. As for the "extreme left" (which I assume you mean anyone with a (D) behind their name) has been pointing out flaws with right wing think. You know: basic debate. The right comes back with "yeah, well crooked Hillary" and "yeah, well, Bill" and "Obama is the worst president ever" with no basis for that statement.

If you don't care for Obama's policies, that's fine, but there is no comparing him to a Polk or Harding or Hoover.


Case in point above. I don't mean anyone with a (D) next to their name. I mean the extremely vocal kind that I outlined above.


Right. That means anyone who does not tow the tea party "patriot" line to the letter. See: John McCain, Susan Collins, Arizona Republic just to name a few.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24174
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sun Oct 02, 2016 6:17 am

777Jet wrote:
ual777 wrote:
seb146 wrote:

Typical conservative. Devolve into name calling and playing the victim.



Come on Seb, if there's name calling on this thread it didn't start with the conservatives...


I had to laugh when Seb of all people said that. The irony. The hypocrisy.

"Devolve into name calling and playing the victim" actually sums up the behavior of liberals and lefties quite well (particularly in here).

It is no surprise that the left would extend their own self reflection to those opposite. It is a sign of desperation; a last-ditch attempt when all else has failed and they have nothing to give.


Let's see.... The "liberals" want to talk about an actual plan, about actually doing something. The right says "why do you want to shut us down? Why do you hate free speech?" yup. It is always "liberals" who are meanies....
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sun Oct 02, 2016 2:22 pm

seb146 wrote:
777Jet wrote:
ual777 wrote:

Come on Seb, if there's name calling on this thread it didn't start with the conservatives...


I had to laugh when Seb of all people said that. The irony. The hypocrisy.

"Devolve into name calling and playing the victim" actually sums up the behavior of liberals and lefties quite well (particularly in here).

It is no surprise that the left would extend their own self reflection to those opposite. It is a sign of desperation; a last-ditch attempt when all else has failed and they have nothing to give.


Let's see.... The "liberals" want to talk about an actual plan, about actually doing something. The right says "why do you want to shut us down? Why do you hate free speech?" yup. It is always "liberals" who are meanies....


We were specifically talking about starting the name calling and playing the victim, the two terms you specifically used.
 
ual777
Posts: 1642
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 6:18 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:45 pm

seb146 wrote:
ual777 wrote:
seb146 wrote:

The left may have been doing it "4 to 6 years" as you say, but the assault by righties on American intelligence and Democrats has been going on since the 1990s at least. As for the "extreme left" (which I assume you mean anyone with a (D) behind their name) has been pointing out flaws with right wing think. You know: basic debate. The right comes back with "yeah, well crooked Hillary" and "yeah, well, Bill" and "Obama is the worst president ever" with no basis for that statement.

If you don't care for Obama's policies, that's fine, but there is no comparing him to a Polk or Harding or Hoover.


Case in point above. I don't mean anyone with a (D) next to their name. I mean the extremely vocal kind that I outlined above.


Right. That means anyone who does not tow the tea party "patriot" line to the letter. See: John McCain, Susan Collins, Arizona Republic just to name a few.


Where on earth did I say that? This is what I'm talking about.
 
LMP737
Posts: 6284
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sun Oct 02, 2016 5:31 pm

stratosphere wrote:
. As for Obama I voted against him the second time not because of him but because I despised Eric Holder and although he is black it had nothing to do with race. I did not like Romney for sure much like I don't like Trump but I hate Hillary more (oh and shes white BTW). This is the precise reason I didn't vote for 25 years we as a nation cannot seem to put anyone up worth a damn. Our political process is WAY too long I am tired of money and influence driving this process. It's always the lesser of two evils none of them are on the side of the working man. Had to laugh at the meme the democrats only care for blacks and latinos every 4 years. Repubs are no better. I am an independent but lean slightly right. But looks like I am back to sitting out this election. If I do vote it will be to keep Killary out.


For someone who didn't vote for 25 years you certainly vote a lot.
 
Hillis
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Sun Oct 02, 2016 8:36 pm

LMP737 wrote:
stratosphere wrote:
. As for Obama I voted against him the second time not because of him but because I despised Eric Holder and although he is black it had nothing to do with race. I did not like Romney for sure much like I don't like Trump but I hate Hillary more (oh and shes white BTW). This is the precise reason I didn't vote for 25 years we as a nation cannot seem to put anyone up worth a damn. Our political process is WAY too long I am tired of money and influence driving this process. It's always the lesser of two evils none of them are on the side of the working man. Had to laugh at the meme the democrats only care for blacks and latinos every 4 years. Repubs are no better. I am an independent but lean slightly right. But looks like I am back to sitting out this election. If I do vote it will be to keep Killary out.


For someone who didn't vote for 25 years you certainly vote a lot.


That diatribe looked a lot like what Trump was doing in the first debate-rambling on without saying one gawddamned thing of any importance.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aaron747, Newark727 and 17 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos