Holy crap - this has to stop!

[Bush92]

Seriously. This toxic partisan political culture is poisoning civil society.

What the hell is wrong with us?

The left and the right pulling hair and screeching their bumpersticker slogans and broad brush pig ignorant partisan blamegaming? What's wrong with us?

I'm no youngster. I've never seen such a dangerous ambient.

We have someone shooting at one of our few remaining bipartisan non political fun charitable events because he wants to kill a bunch of (insert political party).

The rhetoric flooding the country is poisoning us. And no one wants to take responsibility for stepping up and saying "enough already". For changing it.

Our representatives are colleagues first and foremost. Political opponents second. They recognize it. That violence against one is violence against the others and against our very institutions. Why are we unable to recognize that?

The danger and violence is all emanating from your side of the isle.

So these people show up to be disruptive and wonder why violence was perpetrated upon them. So where are the Trump people disrupting all those Hillary rallies? Doak..there are none.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The right has it better, they can get presidents without a majority, they're never going to give that up, even if it means the country declines

Why would we give that up? It's been that way since the founding of this country. Or are you suggesting that we should give that up because Democrats are losing that way?

Yes, why would you give up having an advantage? Clearly it's not about fairness, clearly it's not about getting rid of something that is so toxic that it's destroying the country bit by bit every day.

You'd rather cling to power and see the country in decline, than fix the problems.

Yes, history repeats itself over and over and over and people continue to make the same mistakes.

If we went to popular vote instead of the colleges, that would mean major Democrat cities and states would overrule the vote of the rest of the country.

Our founders never wanted that. They wanted equality across the land. So much like having a governmental system of 2 Senators per state regardless of population, colleges serve as an equity to states that are less populated.

New York city has 7 million people. The entire state of Idaho has 1.5 million people. Popular vote would mean that one city in the US has more power than four entire states like Idaho in the union. Is that what you are suggesting?

Do you remember talking to me about school vouchers? Your response was that school vouchers are good because of CHOICE. You made this whole thing about how it's the right who love choice and not the left, blah blah.

Now, you're not talking about choice. In fact you're against choice. Go figure Ray.

You want equality? So, the Republicans having an unfair advantage is equal? What the fuck?

Actually what would happen with PR is that the two party monopoly on power would be destroyed. The Founding Fathers didn't want a monopoly on power, if we're going to talk about what the Founding Fathers did or did not want. They did not want the President being elected by popular politics, but then Obama, Trump, Bush W. and Clinton were all elected more on personality than on substance.

Again, Idaho has a population of 1.5 million and New York has a population of 7-8 million. So, you'd give the people of Idaho more power just because of that? Not only that you'd keep toxic partisan politics in place (I'm certain the Founding Fathers would not want that) just to give the people of Idaho more power for their vote?

The reality is Idaho got ignored at the last Presidential election just like they've been ignored for decades. You're using an argument to say that Idaho need to be listened to, by supporting a system which IGNORES Idaho. Way'da go there Ray.

I didn't say it gave equity to Idaho compared to NYC, what I said is that it at least keeps them in the race. Without the college, those states would be ignored like Hillary ignored them. But because they have some equity through the college system, politicians have to campaign for their votes too.

In other words, without the college, the country would be controlled by NYC, Chicago and California. That's it. If you don't belong to those three cities and states, it's not worth your time to vote. We would be a one-party government forever (which is what the Democrats are trying to do anyway with immigration).

It keeps them in a race they haven't been in for, well probably since forever.

Oh, so, without the electoral college Idaho would be ignored, just as it is ignored with the electoral college. Is this really your argument? Come on.

The reality is this, Ray. With two parties in power, they'll go wherever the votes are needed to get them across the finishing line. Right now that's Florida, Ohio, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nevada, Maine, Arizona, North Carolina, Colorado.

Take a look at this map. It's basically the states I mentioned. Where's Idaho?

The Crazy, Lopsided Math of Campaign 2016's Ad Spending So Far

This is from June 10th 2016

Trump spent $2.5 million in Florida, $1.8 million in North Carolina, $3.6 million in Iowa, the whole of Idaho got $361,000 spent on it by all sides.

Compare that to $54 million for Florida. They have 20 million people, that's $2.5 per person in the state. That's $6 per voter.
In Idaho that's $0.60 per voter, ten times less. And apparently you want the electoral college so Idaho doesn't get ignored.

Do you know what happens with PR?

Firstly you have a lot more parties. Which means you could have a Red-Neck Farmers' Party which might sweep up the votes of all the red neck farmers. Instead of Trump going to Florida and spending loads of money on advertising in the state, then walking away and only going back to play golf, he'd have to keep up the interest in the state, he'd have to offer them what a smaller party might be offering them and more.
In fact he'd have to join in a coalition (or well the House might, depending on how the system worked) with the Red-Neck Farmers' Party who would demand certain concessions for propping up his government.
Even if they weren't in government they'd be able to fight for their core support, putting in bills into Congress, trying to strike down those that didn't suit them.

Right now you have two parties, Democrats and Republicans. Democrats fight for whatever it is that Democrats think half the country wants and the Republicans doing the same for the other half.

In PR you'd have different parties fighting for different things and having far more success at it than trying to convince the big wigs at the top that it should be so.

So, your arguments for keeping the system are actually the arguments for GETTING RID OF THE SYSTEM.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's the dimocrats fault. I mean the democRATS. No, I mean the democraps. Yeah. They started it.

Barry HUSSEIN Obamao. Hitlery Clinton. It's all their fault there is so much hate in the air.

They hatched a plan to poison the political landscape when they were fucking tots in the back of a pizza joint.

"Trump is not my President" is most hateful of all.

But saying the same thing about Obama was okay?

 

[eddiew]

Soros is funding the sedition, neutralize him and it stops the next day

Crusader You can play 2nd base now.....

 

[SYTFE]

Seriously. This toxic partisan political culture is poisoning civil society.

What the hell is wrong with us?

The left and the right pulling hair and screeching their bumpersticker slogans and broad brush pig ignorant partisan blamegaming? What's wrong with us?

I'm no youngster. I've never seen such a dangerous ambient.

We have someone shooting at one of our few remaining bipartisan non political fun charitable events because he wants to kill a bunch of (insert political party).

The rhetoric flooding the country is poisoning us. And no one wants to take responsibility for stepping up and saying "enough already". For changing it.

Our representatives are colleagues first and foremost. Political opponents second. They recognize it. That violence against one is violence against the others and against our very institutions. Why are we unable to recognize that?

The danger and violence is all emanating from your side of the isle.

So these people show up to be disruptive and wonder why violence was perpetrated upon them. So where are the Trump people disrupting all those Hillary rallies? Doak..there are none.

Way to completely miss the incisive rhetoric that your dear leader has been spewing. It's as if you have some sort of permanent blinders on that prevent you from seeing it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why would we give that up? It's been that way since the founding of this country. Or are you suggesting that we should give that up because Democrats are losing that way?

Yes, why would you give up having an advantage? Clearly it's not about fairness, clearly it's not about getting rid of something that is so toxic that it's destroying the country bit by bit every day.

You'd rather cling to power and see the country in decline, than fix the problems.

Yes, history repeats itself over and over and over and people continue to make the same mistakes.

If we went to popular vote instead of the colleges, that would mean major Democrat cities and states would overrule the vote of the rest of the country.

Our founders never wanted that. They wanted equality across the land. So much like having a governmental system of 2 Senators per state regardless of population, colleges serve as an equity to states that are less populated.

New York city has 7 million people. The entire state of Idaho has 1.5 million people. Popular vote would mean that one city in the US has more power than four entire states like Idaho in the union. Is that what you are suggesting?

Do you remember talking to me about school vouchers? Your response was that school vouchers are good because of CHOICE. You made this whole thing about how it's the right who love choice and not the left, blah blah.

Now, you're not talking about choice. In fact you're against choice. Go figure Ray.

You want equality? So, the Republicans having an unfair advantage is equal? What the fuck?



Actually what would happen with PR is that the two party monopoly on power would be destroyed. The Founding Fathers didn't want a monopoly on power, if we're going to talk about what the Founding Fathers did or did not want. They did not want the President being elected by popular politics, but then Obama, Trump, Bush W. and Clinton were all elected more on personality than on substance.

Again, Idaho has a population of 1.5 million and New York has a population of 7-8 million. So, you'd give the people of Idaho more power just because of that? Not only that you'd keep toxic partisan politics in place (I'm certain the Founding Fathers would not want that) just to give the people of Idaho more power for their vote?

The reality is Idaho got ignored at the last Presidential election just like they've been ignored for decades. You're using an argument to say that Idaho need to be listened to, by supporting a system which IGNORES Idaho. Way'da go there Ray.

I didn't say it gave equity to Idaho compared to NYC, what I said is that it at least keeps them in the race. Without the college, those states would be ignored like Hillary ignored them. But because they have some equity through the college system, politicians have to campaign for their votes too.

In other words, without the college, the country would be controlled by NYC, Chicago and California. That's it. If you don't belong to those three cities and states, it's not worth your time to vote. We would be a one-party government forever (which is what the Democrats are trying to do anyway with immigration).

It keeps them in a race they haven't been in for, well probably since forever.

Oh, so, without the electoral college Idaho would be ignored, just as it is ignored with the electoral college. Is this really your argument? Come on.

The reality is this, Ray. With two parties in power, they'll go wherever the votes are needed to get them across the finishing line. Right now that's Florida, Ohio, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nevada, Maine, Arizona, North Carolina, Colorado.

Take a look at this map. It's basically the states I mentioned. Where's Idaho?

The Crazy, Lopsided Math of Campaign 2016's Ad Spending So Far

This is from June 10th 2016

Trump spent $2.5 million in Florida, $1.8 million in North Carolina, $3.6 million in Iowa, the whole of Idaho got $361,000 spent on it by all sides.

Compare that to $54 million for Florida. They have 20 million people, that's $2.5 per person in the state. That's $6 per voter.
In Idaho that's $0.60 per voter, ten times less. And apparently you want the electoral college so Idaho doesn't get ignored.

Do you know what happens with PR?

Firstly you have a lot more parties. Which means you could have a Red-Neck Farmers' Party which might sweep up the votes of all the red neck farmers. Instead of Trump going to Florida and spending loads of money on advertising in the state, then walking away and only going back to play golf, he'd have to keep up the interest in the state, he'd have to offer them what a smaller party might be offering them and more.
In fact he'd have to join in a coalition (or well the House might, depending on how the system worked) with the Red-Neck Farmers' Party who would demand certain concessions for propping up his government.
Even if they weren't in government they'd be able to fight for their core support, putting in bills into Congress, trying to strike down those that didn't suit them.

Right now you have two parties, Democrats and Republicans. Democrats fight for whatever it is that Democrats think half the country wants and the Republicans doing the same for the other half.

In PR you'd have different parties fighting for different things and having far more success at it than trying to convince the big wigs at the top that it should be so.

So, your arguments for keeping the system are actually the arguments for GETTING RID OF THE SYSTEM.

But the blue should have been able to control the red.

 

[skye]

I agree

This has to stop

This Administration has to get tough with left wing thugs

Zero tolerance.

Know what I mean?

 

[Clementine]

Here is just one little example of why people are off the rails these days. It's shit like this that keeps people angry and riled. The left just keeps up the rhetoric.

The whacko squad is planning more marches across the country and one in Mexico and they are calling for Trump's impeachment, claiming he is guilty of high crimes. No proof necessary for them to get nasty and go after him and his family.

Fucking insanity on display. Want the violent attacks stopped? Quit funding and pandering to the fringe element of the left. And stop pretending that all the Muslims pouring in are peaceful.

Impeachment March

 

[frigidweirdo]

And remember who stopped Katie's law. The law that would imprison immigrants who were felons but returned to the states anyway.

The Democrats can fool their own, but they can't fool us.

Makes sense to send away the

Do you know me?

Yup............see your leftist skirt all the time.......................

You clearly don't. But then seeing someone pretend they do isn't something new or shocking for me.

I've seen your posts...............that's enough for me..........whatever floats your boat.

Oh, wow, you've seen my posts..... you must be an expert on me then.

Jesus...................I have an opinion based on what I've seen you post in the past................and guess what............I DISAGREE WITH YOU most of the time..........

Get over it.......

There's a difference between disagreeing with someone, and pretending you know what they think. Or, in your case it's a "I disagree with you most of the time, so I'll just pretend you're the same as everyone else I speak to that I disagree with, and then make comments pretending I know this person"

Get over it? Look dude, I put up with a lot of people on this forum using the same old fucking tactics day in, day out, without an ounce of logic. It gets tiring.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I agree

This has to stop

This Administration has to get tough with left wing thugs

Zero tolerance.

Know what I mean?

Yes, we know what you mean.

 

[Bush92]

Seriously. This toxic partisan political culture is poisoning civil society.

What the hell is wrong with us?

The left and the right pulling hair and screeching their bumpersticker slogans and broad brush pig ignorant partisan blamegaming? What's wrong with us?

I'm no youngster. I've never seen such a dangerous ambient.

We have someone shooting at one of our few remaining bipartisan non political fun charitable events because he wants to kill a bunch of (insert political party).

The rhetoric flooding the country is poisoning us. And no one wants to take responsibility for stepping up and saying "enough already". For changing it.

Our representatives are colleagues first and foremost. Political opponents second. They recognize it. That violence against one is violence against the others and against our very institutions. Why are we unable to recognize that?

The danger and violence is all emanating from your side of the isle.

So these people show up to be disruptive and wonder why violence was perpetrated upon them. So where are the Trump people disrupting all those Hillary rallies? Doak..there are none.

Way to completely miss the incisive rhetoric that your dear leader has been spewing. It's as if you have some sort of permanent blinders on that prevent you from seeing it.

Oh, I'm sorry, I couldn't hear...I was at the bottom of the basket of deplorables.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, why would you give up having an advantage? Clearly it's not about fairness, clearly it's not about getting rid of something that is so toxic that it's destroying the country bit by bit every day.

You'd rather cling to power and see the country in decline, than fix the problems.

Yes, history repeats itself over and over and over and people continue to make the same mistakes.

If we went to popular vote instead of the colleges, that would mean major Democrat cities and states would overrule the vote of the rest of the country.

Our founders never wanted that. They wanted equality across the land. So much like having a governmental system of 2 Senators per state regardless of population, colleges serve as an equity to states that are less populated.

New York city has 7 million people. The entire state of Idaho has 1.5 million people. Popular vote would mean that one city in the US has more power than four entire states like Idaho in the union. Is that what you are suggesting?

Do you remember talking to me about school vouchers? Your response was that school vouchers are good because of CHOICE. You made this whole thing about how it's the right who love choice and not the left, blah blah.

Now, you're not talking about choice. In fact you're against choice. Go figure Ray.

You want equality? So, the Republicans having an unfair advantage is equal? What the fuck?



Actually what would happen with PR is that the two party monopoly on power would be destroyed. The Founding Fathers didn't want a monopoly on power, if we're going to talk about what the Founding Fathers did or did not want. They did not want the President being elected by popular politics, but then Obama, Trump, Bush W. and Clinton were all elected more on personality than on substance.

Again, Idaho has a population of 1.5 million and New York has a population of 7-8 million. So, you'd give the people of Idaho more power just because of that? Not only that you'd keep toxic partisan politics in place (I'm certain the Founding Fathers would not want that) just to give the people of Idaho more power for their vote?

The reality is Idaho got ignored at the last Presidential election just like they've been ignored for decades. You're using an argument to say that Idaho need to be listened to, by supporting a system which IGNORES Idaho. Way'da go there Ray.

I didn't say it gave equity to Idaho compared to NYC, what I said is that it at least keeps them in the race. Without the college, those states would be ignored like Hillary ignored them. But because they have some equity through the college system, politicians have to campaign for their votes too.

In other words, without the college, the country would be controlled by NYC, Chicago and California. That's it. If you don't belong to those three cities and states, it's not worth your time to vote. We would be a one-party government forever (which is what the Democrats are trying to do anyway with immigration).

It keeps them in a race they haven't been in for, well probably since forever.

Oh, so, without the electoral college Idaho would be ignored, just as it is ignored with the electoral college. Is this really your argument? Come on.

The reality is this, Ray. With two parties in power, they'll go wherever the votes are needed to get them across the finishing line. Right now that's Florida, Ohio, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nevada, Maine, Arizona, North Carolina, Colorado.

Take a look at this map. It's basically the states I mentioned. Where's Idaho?

The Crazy, Lopsided Math of Campaign 2016's Ad Spending So Far

This is from June 10th 2016

Trump spent $2.5 million in Florida, $1.8 million in North Carolina, $3.6 million in Iowa, the whole of Idaho got $361,000 spent on it by all sides.

Compare that to $54 million for Florida. They have 20 million people, that's $2.5 per person in the state. That's $6 per voter.
In Idaho that's $0.60 per voter, ten times less. And apparently you want the electoral college so Idaho doesn't get ignored.

Do you know what happens with PR?

Firstly you have a lot more parties. Which means you could have a Red-Neck Farmers' Party which might sweep up the votes of all the red neck farmers. Instead of Trump going to Florida and spending loads of money on advertising in the state, then walking away and only going back to play golf, he'd have to keep up the interest in the state, he'd have to offer them what a smaller party might be offering them and more.
In fact he'd have to join in a coalition (or well the House might, depending on how the system worked) with the Red-Neck Farmers' Party who would demand certain concessions for propping up his government.
Even if they weren't in government they'd be able to fight for their core support, putting in bills into Congress, trying to strike down those that didn't suit them.

Right now you have two parties, Democrats and Republicans. Democrats fight for whatever it is that Democrats think half the country wants and the Republicans doing the same for the other half.

In PR you'd have different parties fighting for different things and having far more success at it than trying to convince the big wigs at the top that it should be so.

So, your arguments for keeping the system are actually the arguments for GETTING RID OF THE SYSTEM.

View attachment 133175

But the blue should have been able to control the red.

So, you're saying land area should have equality of vote, not the people?

I mean, seriously, this isn't a response to what I wrote. This is a "I can't respond to what you wrote, so I'll try and find a man that fits my agenda". What's your argument Ray?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Seriously. This toxic partisan political culture is poisoning civil society.

What the hell is wrong with us?

The left and the right pulling hair and screeching their bumpersticker slogans and broad brush pig ignorant partisan blamegaming? What's wrong with us?

I'm no youngster. I've never seen such a dangerous ambient.

We have someone shooting at one of our few remaining bipartisan non political fun charitable events because he wants to kill a bunch of (insert political party).

The rhetoric flooding the country is poisoning us. And no one wants to take responsibility for stepping up and saying "enough already". For changing it.

Our representatives are colleagues first and foremost. Political opponents second. They recognize it. That violence against one is violence against the others and against our very institutions. Why are we unable to recognize that?

The danger and violence is all emanating from your side of the isle.

So troublemakers come to his rallies to disrupt or try to stop it, but Trump is responsible for telling his people to use the same kind of violence they planned to use against his supporters. But those troublemakers are not promoting violence--Trump is.

Here's an idea: If troublemakers don't want a problem--don't go to Trump rallies in the first place to start trouble. Nah....... too much thinking for a liberal.

 

[skye]

I agree

This has to stop

This Administration has to get tough with left wing thugs

Zero tolerance.

Know what I mean?

Yes, we know what you mean.

With all respect

Who cares what you say....

nope, nobody

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Soros is funding the sedition, neutralize him and it stops the next day

Back to the Evil Jewish Overlords schtick.

What kind of a Jew would say that working with real Nazi were the happiest days of his life?

 

[jc456]

And a perfect example of what I was talking about...

Can't ignore facts

 

[SYTFE]

Seriously. This toxic partisan political culture is poisoning civil society.

What the hell is wrong with us?

The left and the right pulling hair and screeching their bumpersticker slogans and broad brush pig ignorant partisan blamegaming? What's wrong with us?

I'm no youngster. I've never seen such a dangerous ambient.

We have someone shooting at one of our few remaining bipartisan non political fun charitable events because he wants to kill a bunch of (insert political party).

The rhetoric flooding the country is poisoning us. And no one wants to take responsibility for stepping up and saying "enough already". For changing it.

Our representatives are colleagues first and foremost. Political opponents second. They recognize it. That violence against one is violence against the others and against our very institutions. Why are we unable to recognize that?

The danger and violence is all emanating from your side of the isle.

So troublemakers come to his rallies to disrupt or try to stop it, but Trump is responsible for telling his people to use the same kind of violence they planned to use against his supporters. But those troublemakers are not promoting violence--Trump is.

Here's an idea: If troublemakers don't want a problem--don't go to Trump rallies in the first place to start trouble. Nah....... too much thinking for a liberal.

"Troublemakers?" Get a grip dude. This is America, and we have the right to free speech. You're now the second degenerate refusing to condone Trump's calls for violence. Disgusting.

 

[Manonthestreet]

FLASHBACK: KEY DEMOCRATS Call for Violence in the Streets..."March, Bleed, Die" [Video] » 100percentfedUp.com

 

[TemplarKormac]

And a perfect example of what I was talking about...

The HATE is on your side. You (collectively) get these nuts worked into a frenzy of hate until one of them thinks he's doing God's service. This is on you. Live with it.

You can't even see it. You're just like those you attack.

In reality, the partisans are all the same. Left, right. Doesn't matter. The hateful rhetoric has to end somehow, but not without infringing on the free speech rights of Americans.

 

[bripat9643]

Seriously. This toxic partisan political culture is poisoning civil society.

What the hell is wrong with us?

The left and the right pulling hair and screeching their bumpersticker slogans and broad brush pig ignorant partisan blamegaming? What's wrong with us?

I'm no youngster. I've never seen such a dangerous ambient.

We have someone shooting at one of our few remaining bipartisan non political fun charitable events because he wants to kill a bunch of (insert political party).

The rhetoric flooding the country is poisoning us. And no one wants to take responsibility for stepping up and saying "enough already". For changing it.

Our representatives are colleagues first and foremost. Political opponents second. They recognize it. That violence against one is violence against the others and against our very institutions. Why are we unable to recognize that?

The danger and violence is all emanating from your side of the isle.

So troublemakers come to his rallies to disrupt or try to stop it, but Trump is responsible for telling his people to use the same kind of violence they planned to use against his supporters. But those troublemakers are not promoting violence--Trump is.

Here's an idea: If troublemakers don't want a problem--don't go to Trump rallies in the first place to start trouble. Nah....... too much thinking for a liberal.

"Troublemakers?" Get a grip dude. This is America, and we have the right to free speech. You're now the second degenerate refusing to condone Trump's calls for violence. Disgusting.

Trump called for law breaking trespassers to be treated exactly the way the law prescribes.