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.
LolLolWell, First of all the congress controls the purse... It’s in the constitution.There is nothing conservative about adding 1.48 trillion dollars to the national debt in a booming economy.
There is nothing conservative about tariffs, they are governmental control over the economy...something real conservatives are against.
And collected federal taxes never leave Washington DC.
I am conflicted on the tariffs deal, I am more libertarian than conservative.
What we have been on the losing end of trade deals for decades and decades… Because of career politicians and their political correctness.
Congress cannot spend a dime without the signature from the POTUS...it is in the Constitution
Who came first the chicken or the egg
The chicken of course, God created animals, not eggs.
Bingo! Congress is the chicken… And the constitution says the President shall not make legislation and that includes spending the purse.
Slade3200 , Stormy Daniels , John Shaw , Golfing Gator , Dont Taz Me Bro
Unfortunately, the best we may be able to do is watch these two insane parties pull us apart even further, so the people demand some sanity.
As 2020 candidates turn left, some Democrats worry about the center
Party activists have been energized as Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris and other candidates endorsed plans to provide Medicare coverage to every American, some form of tuition-free college, a national $15 minimum wage and the so-called "Green New Deal" advocated by U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
But Trump and his allies in the Republican Party have seized on those stances to attack the Democratic 2020 field as outside the American political mainstream — a claim the president plans to make throughout his re-election campaign, according to sources with knowledge of his strategy.
Some Democrats fear the argument has potency. They worry the primary may produce a nominee who will not appeal to centrist working and middle-class voters who voted for Trump in 2016 but whom Democrats believe they can win back.
"The big progressive programs are popular in a caucus or primary electorate, but probably don't move the needle among voters who want to find someone who will change Washington by tilting the system to favor people in the middle — not the very rich or the very poor," said Jeff Link, an Iowa Democrat who worked for former President Barack Obama's campaign.
And speaking of that, Trump will call anything 'socialism.' Democrats might as well go big.
This is all yet another extension of the "big lie" that traces back to the Red Scare daze, where the terms "communist" and "socialist" were intentionally tarnished and conflated with the more authoritarian European governments (and ignored with the less authoritarian ones to which the same labels could apply) as political pandering --- which also led to the intentional slurring of Liberalism by the same hyperconservative demagogues in the McCarthy era.
Ronald Reagan dabbled in this deceit specifically about "socialized medicine" in 1961 --- when the eeeebil plot of Medicare was imminent.
Notice that right at the start Reagan uses a quote from Norman Thomas conflating socialism with "liberalism". This is a fake quote. When you're selling deceit, veracity is the first casualty.
Author Upton Sinclair, who ran for both Congress (as a Socialist) and Governor of California (as a Democrat), noted the effect of deceitfully demonized terms:
"The American People will take Socialism, but they won’t take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to ‘End Poverty in California’ I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie."
Sadly this deceit slugs on even today. Scores of posters on this board fling "socialist" around like so many turds, yet can't explain why it's a turd even while they use socialist innovations like the internet to fling them. Ultimately it's the result of the failure of critical thinking. Nobody asks "why", they just swallow any emotional hook that matches what they want to hear. Context and meaning and veracity be damned. Drones are led around by the nose by emotional bullshit and they go willingly.
Another example readily visible on this venue is the proliferation of fake quotes like Reagan's from 58 years ago and photoshopped images. Indeed there is nothing new about "fake news"; only its technology has changed. Reagan did it on a vinyl record; today we do it on Tweeter and Nosebook. But poisoning terminology has a long and infamous history.
LolLolLolWell, First of all the congress controls the purse... It’s in the constitution.
And collected federal taxes never leave Washington DC.
I am conflicted on the tariffs deal, I am more libertarian than conservative.
What we have been on the losing end of trade deals for decades and decades… Because of career politicians and their political correctness.
Congress cannot spend a dime without the signature from the POTUS...it is in the Constitution
Who came first the chicken or the egg
The chicken of course, God created animals, not eggs.
Bingo! Congress is the chicken… And the constitution says the President shall not make legislation and that includes spending the purse.
Once again...Congress cannot spend any money that has not been signed off on by the POTUS. The POTUS bears blame as well as Congress.
If they could just spend money without the POTUS signature, there would never be a shutdown.
Quit giving your god a free pass
LolLolLolCongress cannot spend a dime without the signature from the POTUS...it is in the Constitution
Who came first the chicken or the egg
The chicken of course, God created animals, not eggs.
Bingo! Congress is the chicken… And the constitution says the President shall not make legislation and that includes spending the purse.
Once again...Congress cannot spend any money that has not been signed off on by the POTUS. The POTUS bears blame as well as Congress.
If they could just spend money without the POTUS signature, there would never be a shutdown.
Quit giving your god a free pass
You’re just upset, that your Hildabeast did not get in there
Bingo! Congress is the chicken… And the constitution says the President shall not make legislation and that includes spending the purse.
LolLolLol
Who came first the chicken or the egg
The chicken of course, God created animals, not eggs.
Bingo! Congress is the chicken… And the constitution says the President shall not make legislation and that includes spending the purse.
Once again...Congress cannot spend any money that has not been signed off on by the POTUS. The POTUS bears blame as well as Congress.
If they could just spend money without the POTUS signature, there would never be a shutdown.
Quit giving your god a free pass
You’re just upset, that your Hildabeast did not get in there
Damn, that was a weak ass comeback. I except better from you.
Thank you for your unconditional surrender.
There would be no trump if there was no Obama, I’m pretty sure Trump learned that one from Obama. LolBingo! Congress is the chicken… And the constitution says the President shall not make legislation and that includes spending the purse.
So Trump's emergency spending is unconstitutional.
Well we agree on something
LolLolThe chicken of course, God created animals, not eggs.
Bingo! Congress is the chicken… And the constitution says the President shall not make legislation and that includes spending the purse.
Once again...Congress cannot spend any money that has not been signed off on by the POTUS. The POTUS bears blame as well as Congress.
If they could just spend money without the POTUS signature, there would never be a shutdown.
Quit giving your god a free pass
You’re just upset, that your Hildabeast did not get in there
Damn, that was a weak ass comeback. I except better from you.
Thank you for your unconditional surrender.
LolLol
Bingo! Congress is the chicken… And the constitution says the President shall not make legislation and that includes spending the purse.
Once again...Congress cannot spend any money that has not been signed off on by the POTUS. The POTUS bears blame as well as Congress.
If they could just spend money without the POTUS signature, there would never be a shutdown.
Quit giving your god a free pass
You’re just upset, that your Hildabeast did not get in there
Damn, that was a weak ass comeback. I except better from you.
Thank you for your unconditional surrender.
your other hero.
LolOnce again...Congress cannot spend any money that has not been signed off on by the POTUS. The POTUS bears blame as well as Congress.
If they could just spend money without the POTUS signature, there would never be a shutdown.
Quit giving your god a free pass
You’re just upset, that your Hildabeast did not get in there
Damn, that was a weak ass comeback. I except better from you.
Thank you for your unconditional surrender.
your other hero.
Stein did not help Trump at all.
Absolutely false. Trump won 3 states by a total of 80,000 votes. Stein took far more than that.
he is a master baiter, I'd agree.
but hes not racist....its ludicrous and I personally get along with blacks and they with me. we even joke and have fun.
I had a guy at work give me the black power salute and I'd return a hail Hitler and we talked and hung out all the time.
It was for fun, because ewe have humanity and not this ridiculous idea we have to save everyone.
You can't compare yourself joking around with people who know you personally and are okay with it, to the POTUS ... obviously he has a much larger responsibility to avoid uttering borderline racist remarks, since a lot of the people in his country are not white. The POTUS is the President of the United States, not President of White America.
George Wallace built a whole career on race-baiting, speaking of Independent candidates. Like the others his plan was to siphon off enough electoral votes that the election would have to be thrown into the House of Representatives. Came close to doing it too.
I think he was pretty direct.....but yeah he was a piece of shit.....
He did come close but failed and were all thankful for that
We are, even if the end result was we got Nixon
The point though was, back to the topic, an example of the only way a third party can possibly hope to win the Presidency, by sucking off enough Electoral Votes from the D and R candidates that nobody comes out with 270.
We actually have a system where we can split our preferences to the point where the electorate's third and possibly fringe choice can get Constitutionally "elected". Quincy Adams got in this way even though Andrew Jack
son finished more than ten points higher in the popular vote and won 15 more in the EC.he is a master baiter, I'd agree.
but hes not racist....its ludicrous and I personally get along with blacks and they with me. we even joke and have fun.
I had a guy at work give me the black power salute and I'd return a hail Hitler and we talked and hung out all the time.
It was for fun, because ewe have humanity and not this ridiculous idea we have to save everyone.
You can't compare yourself joking around with people who know you personally and are okay with it, to the POTUS ... obviously he has a much larger responsibility to avoid uttering borderline racist remarks, since a lot of the people in his country are not white. The POTUS is the President of the United States, not President of White America.
George Wallace built a whole career on race-baiting, speaking of Independent candidates. Like the others his plan was to siphon off enough electoral votes that the election would have to be thrown into the House of Representatives. Came close to doing it too.
I think he was pretty direct.....but yeah he was a piece of shit.....
He did come close but failed and were all thankful for that
We are, even if the end result was we got Nixon
The point though was, back to the topic, an example of the only way a third party can possibly hope to win the Presidency, by sucking off enough Electoral Votes from the D and R candidates that nobody comes out with 270.
We actually have a system where we can split our preferences to the point where the electorate's third and possibly fringe choice can get Constitutionally "elected". Quincy Adams got in this way even though Andrew Jackson finished more than ten points higher in the popular vote and won 15 more in the EC.
Yeah I agree, I just dont care about third parties much, they tend to be too extreme for me
Well, First of all the congress controls the purse... It’s in the constitution.LolLol
No real conservative would ever vote for that ticket, kasich is Supported by the likes of Chris Matthews which makes him a progressive.
Chris Matthews is a fucking shit stain
No real conservative would ever vote for Trump...yet here we are...
Trump has governed more conservative than any career politician....
He may not be one himself but those are the facts
There is nothing conservative about adding 1.48 trillion dollars to the national debt in a booming economy.
There is nothing conservative about tariffs, they are governmental control over the economy...something real conservatives are against.
And collected federal taxes never leave Washington DC.
I am conflicted on the tariffs deal, I am more libertarian than conservative.
What we have been on the losing end of trade deals for decades and decades… Because of career politicians and their political correctness.
Congress cannot spend a dime without the signature from the POTUS...it is in the Constitution
Well, First of all the congress controls the purse... It’s in the constitution.LolNo real conservative would ever vote for Trump...yet here we are...
Trump has governed more conservative than any career politician....
He may not be one himself but those are the facts
There is nothing conservative about adding 1.48 trillion dollars to the national debt in a booming economy.
There is nothing conservative about tariffs, they are governmental control over the economy...something real conservatives are against.
And collected federal taxes never leave Washington DC.
I am conflicted on the tariffs deal, I am more libertarian than conservative.
What we have been on the losing end of trade deals for decades and decades… Because of career politicians and their political correctness.
Congress cannot spend a dime without the signature from the POTUS...it is in the Constitution
Actually they can, if they override.
You can't compare yourself joking around with people who know you personally and are okay with it, to the POTUS ... obviously he has a much larger responsibility to avoid uttering borderline racist remarks, since a lot of the people in his country are not white. The POTUS is the President of the United States, not President of White America.
George Wallace built a whole career on race-baiting, speaking of Independent candidates. Like the others his plan was to siphon off enough electoral votes that the election would have to be thrown into the House of Representatives. Came close to doing it too.
I think he was pretty direct.....but yeah he was a piece of shit.....
He did come close but failed and were all thankful for that
We are, even if the end result was we got Nixon
The point though was, back to the topic, an example of the only way a third party can possibly hope to win the Presidency, by sucking off enough Electoral Votes from the D and R candidates that nobody comes out with 270.
We actually have a system where we can split our preferences to the point where the electorate's third and possibly fringe choice can get Constitutionally "elected". Quincy Adams got in this way even though Andrew Jack
son finished more than ten points higher in the popular vote and won 15 more in the EC.You can't compare yourself joking around with people who know you personally and are okay with it, to the POTUS ... obviously he has a much larger responsibility to avoid uttering borderline racist remarks, since a lot of the people in his country are not white. The POTUS is the President of the United States, not President of White America.
George Wallace built a whole career on race-baiting, speaking of Independent candidates. Like the others his plan was to siphon off enough electoral votes that the election would have to be thrown into the House of Representatives. Came close to doing it too.
I think he was pretty direct.....but yeah he was a piece of shit.....
He did come close but failed and were all thankful for that
We are, even if the end result was we got Nixon
The point though was, back to the topic, an example of the only way a third party can possibly hope to win the Presidency, by sucking off enough Electoral Votes from the D and R candidates that nobody comes out with 270.
We actually have a system where we can split our preferences to the point where the electorate's third and possibly fringe choice can get Constitutionally "elected". Quincy Adams got in this way even though Andrew Jackson finished more than ten points higher in the popular vote and won 15 more in the EC.
Yeah I agree, I just dont care about third parties much, they tend to be too extreme for me
Ideologically they can be anywhere. Fringers like Wallace or centrists like Anderson. The point is that the system prevents us from having any choice, good OR bad, outside of the entrenched Duopoly. And that's why we always get stuck with voting for the lesser of two evils not to elect the one but to block the other. Duopoly KNOWS they can get away with that minimalist shit. And that's not what an election should be at all.
It should be mentioned as part of this that the Duopoly also controls the debates, literally. They used to be held by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters but the so-called "Commission on Presidential Debates", a blatant collusion of the Demoplican-Republicrat Duopoly Party, formed 1987 to literally "take control of" the Presidential debates. This means that nobody gets to raise an issue that both parties don't allow and means they get to dick-tate who gets into those debates, and who gets asked what. That's blatantly antidemocratic.
George Wallace built a whole career on race-baiting, speaking of Independent candidates. Like the others his plan was to siphon off enough electoral votes that the election would have to be thrown into the House of Representatives. Came close to doing it too.
I think he was pretty direct.....but yeah he was a piece of shit.....
He did come close but failed and were all thankful for that
We are, even if the end result was we got Nixon
The point though was, back to the topic, an example of the only way a third party can possibly hope to win the Presidency, by sucking off enough Electoral Votes from the D and R candidates that nobody comes out with 270.
We actually have a system where we can split our preferences to the point where the electorate's third and possibly fringe choice can get Constitutionally "elected". Quincy Adams got in this way even though Andrew Jack
son finished more than ten points higher in the popular vote and won 15 more in the EC.George Wallace built a whole career on race-baiting, speaking of Independent candidates. Like the others his plan was to siphon off enough electoral votes that the election would have to be thrown into the House of Representatives. Came close to doing it too.
I think he was pretty direct.....but yeah he was a piece of shit.....
He did come close but failed and were all thankful for that
We are, even if the end result was we got Nixon
The point though was, back to the topic, an example of the only way a third party can possibly hope to win the Presidency, by sucking off enough Electoral Votes from the D and R candidates that nobody comes out with 270.
We actually have a system where we can split our preferences to the point where the electorate's third and possibly fringe choice can get Constitutionally "elected". Quincy Adams got in this way even though Andrew Jackson finished more than ten points higher in the popular vote and won 15 more in the EC.
Yeah I agree, I just dont care about third parties much, they tend to be too extreme for me
Ideologically they can be anywhere. Fringers like Wallace or centrists like Anderson. The point is that the system prevents us from having any choice, good OR bad, outside of the entrenched Duopoly. And that's why we always get stuck with voting for the lesser of two evils not to elect the one but to block the other. Duopoly KNOWS they can get away with that minimalist shit. And that's not what an election should be at all.
It should be mentioned as part of this that the Duopoly also controls the debates, literally. They used to be held by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters but the so-called "Commission on Presidential Debates", a blatant collusion of the Demoplican-Republicrat Duopoly Party, formed 1987 to literally "take control of" the Presidential debates. This means that nobody gets to raise an issue that both parties don't allow and means they get to dick-tate who gets into those debates, and who gets asked what. That's blatantly antidemocratic.
I agree, but I dont like Italy and others. Look I despise both parties, but it's the best us flawed humans have come up with, just like capitalism and republican democracy......I do think we should see more third parties on the ballot and in debates, but Ibalso hate our current debate format with a 2 min answer, 2 min???? wtf is that shit.....
I think he was pretty direct.....but yeah he was a piece of shit.....
He did come close but failed and were all thankful for that
We are, even if the end result was we got Nixon
The point though was, back to the topic, an example of the only way a third party can possibly hope to win the Presidency, by sucking off enough Electoral Votes from the D and R candidates that nobody comes out with 270.
We actually have a system where we can split our preferences to the point where the electorate's third and possibly fringe choice can get Constitutionally "elected". Quincy Adams got in this way even though Andrew Jack
son finished more than ten points higher in the popular vote and won 15 more in the EC.I think he was pretty direct.....but yeah he was a piece of shit.....
He did come close but failed and were all thankful for that
We are, even if the end result was we got Nixon
The point though was, back to the topic, an example of the only way a third party can possibly hope to win the Presidency, by sucking off enough Electoral Votes from the D and R candidates that nobody comes out with 270.
We actually have a system where we can split our preferences to the point where the electorate's third and possibly fringe choice can get Constitutionally "elected". Quincy Adams got in this way even though Andrew Jackson finished more than ten points higher in the popular vote and won 15 more in the EC.
Yeah I agree, I just dont care about third parties much, they tend to be too extreme for me
Ideologically they can be anywhere. Fringers like Wallace or centrists like Anderson. The point is that the system prevents us from having any choice, good OR bad, outside of the entrenched Duopoly. And that's why we always get stuck with voting for the lesser of two evils not to elect the one but to block the other. Duopoly KNOWS they can get away with that minimalist shit. And that's not what an election should be at all.
It should be mentioned as part of this that the Duopoly also controls the debates, literally. They used to be held by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters but the so-called "Commission on Presidential Debates", a blatant collusion of the Demoplican-Republicrat Duopoly Party, formed 1987 to literally "take control of" the Presidential debates. This means that nobody gets to raise an issue that both parties don't allow and means they get to dick-tate who gets into those debates, and who gets asked what. That's blatantly antidemocratic.
I agree, but I dont like Italy and others. Look I despise both parties, but it's the best us flawed humans have come up with, just like capitalism and republican democracy......I do think we should see more third parties on the ballot and in debates, but Ibalso hate our current debate format with a 2 min answer, 2 min???? wtf is that shit.....
Actually it's not at all the best us flawed humans have come up with, for the obvious reasons already laid out. By both you and me.
We are, even if the end result was we got Nixon
The point though was, back to the topic, an example of the only way a third party can possibly hope to win the Presidency, by sucking off enough Electoral Votes from the D and R candidates that nobody comes out with 270.
We actually have a system where we can split our preferences to the point where the electorate's third and possibly fringe choice can get Constitutionally "elected". Quincy Adams got in this way even though Andrew Jack
son finished more than ten points higher in the popular vote and won 15 more in the EC.We are, even if the end result was we got Nixon
The point though was, back to the topic, an example of the only way a third party can possibly hope to win the Presidency, by sucking off enough Electoral Votes from the D and R candidates that nobody comes out with 270.
We actually have a system where we can split our preferences to the point where the electorate's third and possibly fringe choice can get Constitutionally "elected". Quincy Adams got in this way even though Andrew Jackson finished more than ten points higher in the popular vote and won 15 more in the EC.
Yeah I agree, I just dont care about third parties much, they tend to be too extreme for me
Ideologically they can be anywhere. Fringers like Wallace or centrists like Anderson. The point is that the system prevents us from having any choice, good OR bad, outside of the entrenched Duopoly. And that's why we always get stuck with voting for the lesser of two evils not to elect the one but to block the other. Duopoly KNOWS they can get away with that minimalist shit. And that's not what an election should be at all.
It should be mentioned as part of this that the Duopoly also controls the debates, literally. They used to be held by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters but the so-called "Commission on Presidential Debates", a blatant collusion of the Demoplican-Republicrat Duopoly Party, formed 1987 to literally "take control of" the Presidential debates. This means that nobody gets to raise an issue that both parties don't allow and means they get to dick-tate who gets into those debates, and who gets asked what. That's blatantly antidemocratic.
I agree, but I dont like Italy and others. Look I despise both parties, but it's the best us flawed humans have come up with, just like capitalism and republican democracy......I do think we should see more third parties on the ballot and in debates, but Ibalso hate our current debate format with a 2 min answer, 2 min???? wtf is that shit.....
Actually it's not at all the best us flawed humans have come up with, for the obvious reasons already laid out. By both you and me.
Nope. Just that the parties put themselves over their country.
Trump is your independent candidate. He's hated by the elites of both parties
Bullshit. Republicans have fallen in lock step behind him
You are nuts. He's hated by the leadership of both parties.Trump is your independent candidate. He's hated by the elites of both parties
Bullshit. Republicans have fallen in lock step behind him
