Dot Com
Nullius in verba
I wish someone who isn't in the bought-and-paid-for parties would run and win. I won't be voting if it comes down to one Establ. pick (Wall Street approved) vs. another Establ. pick.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Biden. Scary thing is as scary as he is he might not be as bad as what we have.
Biden would actually not be a bad choice. He isnt an ideologue. He understands working with the opposition. He didnt have a 30 year senate career for nothing. He is very underestimated.
He wont get the nomination, having crapped out many times before. And he still has that plagiarism thing going on. Plus his public image is that of a moron. But if he assumed the presidency it would be a huge improvement.
Rabbi - when you are right, you are right. And I believe you are right about this one. Biden is a smart guy and he is terrific in a small room, bringing people together and hammering out an agreement.
He's not too good in a big room. He just can't seem to get his foot out of his mouth.
In that regard, I think he is the exact opposite of the current POTUS.
I am talking elections in the last 20 years. Elections from 100 years ago do not have much bearing on todays political scene
When I saw he wanted to limit his sample to only that which supported his claim and not look at the bigger picture, I realized he was only wasting our time.
I am talking elections in the last 20 years. Elections from 100 years ago do not have much bearing on todays political scene
When I saw he wanted to limit his sample to only that which supported his claim and not look at the bigger picture, I realized he was only wasting our time.
The last six elections are a pretty good sample. But I forget that I am dealing with Republicans who are still stuck in the 1950s
Almost the entire Democrat party is waiting for Hillary to announce. Big donors are holding off donating to any other candidate because they expect she'll run.
What if she doesn't? Who is the front runner after Hillary? Who unites the Democrats and offers a prospect for a win in 2016?
I am talking elections in the last 20 years. Elections from 100 years ago do not have much bearing on todays political scene
When I saw he wanted to limit his sample to only that which supported his claim and not look at the bigger picture, I realized he was only wasting our time.
The last six elections are a pretty good sample. But I forget that I am dealing with Republicans who are still stuck in the 1950s
When I saw he wanted to limit his sample to only that which supported his claim and not look at the bigger picture, I realized he was only wasting our time.
The last six elections are a pretty good sample. But I forget that I am dealing with Republicans who are still stuck in the 1950s
Um....you are omitting the 80's.
I guess adding three more election cycles to the six you prefer would make too good a sample.
I see we have another leftist turd who wishes for a Soviet style Leftist dictatorship here in the US.Again, the real problem you guys have is Demographics.
When George H. Bush won 40 states in 1988, he got 60% of the White Vote, 11% of the black vote and 30% of the Hispanic votes. He won states like CA and IL, which the Republicans haven not won since. He got 53% of the popular vote.
When the Weird Mormon Robot lost in 2012, he got 59% of the White vote, 6% of the black vote, and 29% of the Hispanic vote. Really, numbers about comparable to what Bush got. But he lost all the big population states except for Texas, only got 47% of the vote.
Why?
Because white folks aren't carrying as much weight as they used to. While they were 85% of the electorate in 1988, they were only 72% of the electorate in 2012. And that number will keep going down.
so the GOP has to stop with the race baiting and immigration bashing.
I see we have another leftist turd who wishes for a Soviet style Leftist dictatorship here in the US.Again, the real problem you guys have is Demographics.
When George H. Bush won 40 states in 1988, he got 60% of the White Vote, 11% of the black vote and 30% of the Hispanic votes. He won states like CA and IL, which the Republicans haven not won since. He got 53% of the popular vote.
When the Weird Mormon Robot lost in 2012, he got 59% of the White vote, 6% of the black vote, and 29% of the Hispanic vote. Really, numbers about comparable to what Bush got. But he lost all the big population states except for Texas, only got 47% of the vote.
Why?
Because white folks aren't carrying as much weight as they used to. While they were 85% of the electorate in 1988, they were only 72% of the electorate in 2012. And that number will keep going down.
so the GOP has to stop with the race baiting and immigration bashing.
I see we have another leftist turd who wishes for a Soviet style Leftist dictatorship here in the US.Again, the real problem you guys have is Demographics.
When George H. Bush won 40 states in 1988, he got 60% of the White Vote, 11% of the black vote and 30% of the Hispanic votes. He won states like CA and IL, which the Republicans haven not won since. He got 53% of the popular vote.
When the Weird Mormon Robot lost in 2012, he got 59% of the White vote, 6% of the black vote, and 29% of the Hispanic vote. Really, numbers about comparable to what Bush got. But he lost all the big population states except for Texas, only got 47% of the vote.
Why?
Because white folks aren't carrying as much weight as they used to. While they were 85% of the electorate in 1988, they were only 72% of the electorate in 2012. And that number will keep going down.
so the GOP has to stop with the race baiting and immigration bashing.