The Head of the Democratic Party Is Either a Failure or a Liar

[Conservative65]

Both !!

The Head of the Democratic Party Is Either a Failure or a Liar

Why do you care? You won't vote Democratic anyway.

Ever heard of keeping your friends close, and your enemies closer?

We don't vote in anything that ISIS or terrorists do either.
But shouldn't we keep up with how they are running their operations?

You should keep close track of the Democratic campaign. It will help you understand why the republican candidate loses so bad.

I don't know why Democrats would watch it. They don't care about what any of them have to say just what they have between their legs or the color of skin.

Obviously, there is a lot you don't know. That's OK. You're a right winger. You don't have to know much.

I know all I need to know about you BOY.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why do you care? You won't vote Democratic anyway.

Ever heard of keeping your friends close, and your enemies closer?

We don't vote in anything that ISIS or terrorists do either.
But shouldn't we keep up with how they are running their operations?

You should keep close track of the Democratic campaign. It will help you understand why the republican candidate loses so bad.

I don't know why Democrats would watch it. They don't care about what any of them have to say just what they have between their legs or the color of skin.

Obviously, there is a lot you don't know. That's OK. You're a right winger. You don't have to know much.

I know all I need to know about you BOY.

Example of willful ignorance ^^^. Of course, that is a compliment.

 

[Conservative65]

Ever heard of keeping your friends close, and your enemies closer?

We don't vote in anything that ISIS or terrorists do either.
But shouldn't we keep up with how they are running their operations?

You should keep close track of the Democratic campaign. It will help you understand why the republican candidate loses so bad.

I don't know why Democrats would watch it. They don't care about what any of them have to say just what they have between their legs or the color of skin.

Obviously, there is a lot you don't know. That's OK. You're a right winger. You don't have to know much.

I know all I need to know about you BOY.

Example of willful ignorance ^^^. Of course, that is a compliment.

^^^^^ Example of the typical Liberal ass kissing retard. Nothing to compliment there.

 

[Iceweasel]

 

[LordBrownTrout]

No....its because a lot of people are laughing at them and the dnc is trying to keep this to a minimum by holding these debates at 11 pm on monday nights.

"a lot"? Is that a majority, or only the majority to which you identify?

Do you not find the Clown Car not hilarious? If not why not? Four years ago it was the same sort of childish banter, wherein each candidate tried to be the most conservative. Everyone who watched and thinks about such things knows that what the clowns offer if elected is far and away from what they will or can do if they get enough electoral votes to claim the prize.

I'm as certain as possible the GOP will once again lose the popular vote, the only way the GOP can win is to convince the single issue voters in Red States to vote for them, thus they will continue the drum beat on wedge issues for at least one more general election iteration.

Some day the single issue, wedge issue, voter will realize the Republican Party talks the talk but always fails to walk the walk. My unsolicited advice to them is too watch their feet, what have they done, not their lips, what they say they will do.

I do find the clown car hilarious. There are two of them, one representing each party and they both work against the US and its citizens. It won't surprise me one bit if hillary wins. The dems have attained that magical number of worthless people who suck and leach off of the hard working people of this country. This is your dem party. I have no idea who the repubs are anymore.

The Democratic Party voter is generally the one who showers after work. The Republicans drink double martini's and don't leave tips (see, I can play your stupid game too, but I recognize it is stupid).

The underclass, those you consider "worthless" likely don't vote, are prevented from voting (voter suppression by your side of the aisle) or if they do vote they won't vote for people who call them worthless.

Many of the "worthless" suffer from untreated mental illness, alcohol or drug addictions or have had their job outsourced to Mexico, China, etc. or purchased by Romney and sold for parts.

Your side attacks collective bargaining, minimum wage and unemployment - why would anyone who suffers under such oppressive ideologies seek to support them, or those of us who have empathy?

The may be no atheists in fox holes, but there are few callous conservatives when faced with a personal crisis by ill health, accident or nature.

It has never been the govts responsibility to take care of us. That comes from the people and their charity towards the not so fortunate. Unfortunately, that is starting to wax cold. One other note, I'm not an atheist. I believe in God.

Dear LordBrownTrout What I have come to discover
is there is a whole population who uses the Govt as the default caretaker. I think it comes from thinking "security and safety" crosses the line into govt handling health care emergencies (I understand when it comes to Ebola, but when you start counting costs and want to pay for prevention not ER costs, then Govt expands into all areas of personal decisions to "try to cut costs"). So it escalates from there.

Charities are not required to help all people out of emergencies, so people turn to Govt to do that.
Instead of reserving Govt for just the absolute emergencies, this has expanded into governing all stages and steps
thinking "this will ensure everyone is treated and protected equally"

People mean well, but so do the Christians when they want everyone to have the benefits of Christian practice.
That may be true and good, and better for public health and welfare.
But it's still not the place of government to mandate and regulate that for all people,
no matter how many lives it saves and what good it does.

Same with stretching Govt to handle health care or private marriage practices.
If we don't handle mental health therapy, and curing drug addictions or abuse on an individual private level, then these problems escalate to the point of a crime or threat to public safety,
so the govt HAS to get involved. So to control those costs, people turn to govt to reform the system and try to manage these populations that way, instead of organizing through churches or charities.

Instead of "establishing equality" by how we treat people ourselves, and setting up free market solutions that cover all the demands of the populations,
the people who believe in establishing this "equal protection" through Govt end up crossing the line and into subjective beliefs, as to what is a threat or priority of "public health safety and general welfare"

I don't think they realize this, but really think they are pushing true equality and what is right as the universal norm, and not something debatable like an optional "belief." But that's the same thing Christians say about prolife arguments and how this is science, not a belief not a choice, and is the right thing for Govt to protect. They believe that is the truth, not a religious option.

Both are pushing beliefs, but the secular will discriminate against the religious beliefs by the fact they are beliefs (not whether the idea is good or will save lives, but on principle).
But when it comes to political beliefs about "right to marriage" or "right to health care"
this same group will push that through Govt while denouncing other groups from doing the same with their "beliefs." How is that not discriminating by creed to treat them differently?

It's sad to me when people on both sides can't respect each other's beliefs as EQUAL
and won't quit compete to force their side on the other, claiming they are defending their beliefs not imposing them.

My solution is to let parties declare their own platforms as political beliefs and religions
and agree to keep them out of govt unless there is a consensus on policy.

Until then, we have this uneven game going on where only the secular beliefs
get to be railroaded through govt, but the religious beliefs are barred by "separation of church and state"
How is that treating people equally by creed, if one group gets their beliefs endorsed by govt but the other gets barred from it?
Shouldn't both groups be barred from imposing either religious or political beliefs on opposing groups?

Whoever figures this out first, If Obama puts himself in a position to make peace with the major parties,
maybe he can earn that Nobel after all. Let's see who is the first public figure to figure it out,
that the parties are pushing creeds, and govt should not be in the business of endorsing one belief over another.

Maybe we should set up a time clock, issue this as a challenge to all religious, political and academic leaders,
and offer to nominate the winner for a Nobel -- whoever is the first to deliver a speech or statement that
brings the parties to acknowledge they are both guilty of pushing beliefs and need to stop discriminating against people of other beliefs.

Ready, Get Set, Start your engines....

Very nice post. Thank you, Emily.

 

[BULLDOG]

Why do you care? You won't vote Democratic anyway.

Ever heard of keeping your friends close, and your enemies closer?

We don't vote in anything that ISIS or terrorists do either.
But shouldn't we keep up with how they are running their operations?

You should keep close track of the Democratic campaign. It will help you understand why the republican candidate loses so bad.

I don't know why Democrats would watch it. They don't care about what any of them have to say just what they have between their legs or the color of skin.

Obviously, there is a lot you don't know. That's OK. You're a right winger. You don't have to know much.

I know all I need to know about you BOY.

That's probably your biggest problem. You think you know all you need to know about a lot of stuff.

 

[Conservative65]

Ever heard of keeping your friends close, and your enemies closer?

We don't vote in anything that ISIS or terrorists do either.
But shouldn't we keep up with how they are running their operations?

You should keep close track of the Democratic campaign. It will help you understand why the republican candidate loses so bad.

I don't know why Democrats would watch it. They don't care about what any of them have to say just what they have between their legs or the color of skin.

Obviously, there is a lot you don't know. That's OK. You're a right winger. You don't have to know much.

I know all I need to know about you BOY.

That's probably your biggest problem. You think you know all you need to know about a lot of stuff.

In this case, it's true. Sounds like you got your panties twisted because someone has you figured out dipshit.

 

[emilynghiem]

Ever heard of keeping your friends close, and your enemies closer?

We don't vote in anything that ISIS or terrorists do either.
But shouldn't we keep up with how they are running their operations?

You should keep close track of the Democratic campaign. It will help you understand why the republican candidate loses so bad.

I don't know why Democrats would watch it. They don't care about what any of them have to say just what they have between their legs or the color of skin.

Obviously, there is a lot you don't know. That's OK. You're a right winger. You don't have to know much.

I know all I need to know about you BOY.

That's probably your biggest problem. You think you know all you need to know about a lot of stuff.

Dear BULLDOG
When both sides make this same mistake of thinking they have all the answers,
at least it's mutual.

When both sides do this, but BLAME THE OTHER ONLY,
it's intolerable.

Whoever really had all the answers would be able to solve the problems already, instead of fighting over who to blame.
My experience tells me both sides have part of the answers,
and that is why they insult each other so much by disrespecting that.

Both sides knowledge and experience are needed to piece together the bigger picture and solution.
Whoever sees that first, and embraces the other instead of rejecting, is the more enlightened.

 

[BULLDOG]

You should keep close track of the Democratic campaign. It will help you understand why the republican candidate loses so bad.

I don't know why Democrats would watch it. They don't care about what any of them have to say just what they have between their legs or the color of skin.

Obviously, there is a lot you don't know. That's OK. You're a right winger. You don't have to know much.

I know all I need to know about you BOY.

That's probably your biggest problem. You think you know all you need to know about a lot of stuff.

In this case, it's true. Sounds like you got your panties twisted because someone has you figured out dipshit.

If you say so. Now run ask someone what to say next..

 

[Conservative65]

I don't know why Democrats would watch it. They don't care about what any of them have to say just what they have between their legs or the color of skin.

Obviously, there is a lot you don't know. That's OK. You're a right winger. You don't have to know much.

I know all I need to know about you BOY.

That's probably your biggest problem. You think you know all you need to know about a lot of stuff.

In this case, it's true. Sounds like you got your panties twisted because someone has you figured out dipshit.

If you say so. Now run ask someone what to say next..

I know so. Now you run ask the organ grinder what dance the little monkey should do next.

 

[BULLDOG]

You should keep close track of the Democratic campaign. It will help you understand why the republican candidate loses so bad.

I don't know why Democrats would watch it. They don't care about what any of them have to say just what they have between their legs or the color of skin.

Obviously, there is a lot you don't know. That's OK. You're a right winger. You don't have to know much.

I know all I need to know about you BOY.

That's probably your biggest problem. You think you know all you need to know about a lot of stuff.

Dear BULLDOG
When both sides make this same mistake of thinking they have all the answers,
at least it's mutual.

When both sides do this, but BLAME THE OTHER ONLY,
it's intolerable.

Whoever really had all the answers would be able to solve the problems already, instead of fighting over who to blame.
My experience tells me both sides have part of the answers,
and that is why they insult each other so much by disrespecting that.

Both sides knowledge and experience are needed to piece together the bigger picture and solution.
Whoever sees that first, and embraces the other instead of rejecting, is the more enlightened.

The difference is that I will change my beliefs any time credible evidence shows me I'm wrong. I never saw any advantage in advocating something I don't have good reason to believe. The majority of right wing rhetoric is just not backed by credible evidence

 

[Conservative65]

I don't know why Democrats would watch it. They don't care about what any of them have to say just what they have between their legs or the color of skin.

Obviously, there is a lot you don't know. That's OK. You're a right winger. You don't have to know much.

I know all I need to know about you BOY.

That's probably your biggest problem. You think you know all you need to know about a lot of stuff.

Dear BULLDOG
When both sides make this same mistake of thinking they have all the answers,
at least it's mutual.

When both sides do this, but BLAME THE OTHER ONLY,
it's intolerable.

Whoever really had all the answers would be able to solve the problems already, instead of fighting over who to blame.
My experience tells me both sides have part of the answers,
and that is why they insult each other so much by disrespecting that.

Both sides knowledge and experience are needed to piece together the bigger picture and solution.
Whoever sees that first, and embraces the other instead of rejecting, is the more enlightened.

The difference is that I will change my beliefs any time credible evidence shows me I'm wrong. I never saw any advantage in advocating something I don't have good reason to believe. The majority of right wing rhetoric is just not backed by credible evidence

You're head must be spinning as much as you're wrong.

You're the typical Liberal. To you, nothing you think is wrong even without proof to back it up.

 

[emilynghiem]

Obviously, there is a lot you don't know. That's OK. You're a right winger. You don't have to know much.

I know all I need to know about you BOY.

That's probably your biggest problem. You think you know all you need to know about a lot of stuff.

Dear BULLDOG
When both sides make this same mistake of thinking they have all the answers,
at least it's mutual.

When both sides do this, but BLAME THE OTHER ONLY,
it's intolerable.

Whoever really had all the answers would be able to solve the problems already, instead of fighting over who to blame.
My experience tells me both sides have part of the answers,
and that is why they insult each other so much by disrespecting that.

Both sides knowledge and experience are needed to piece together the bigger picture and solution.
Whoever sees that first, and embraces the other instead of rejecting, is the more enlightened.

The difference is that I will change my beliefs any time credible evidence shows me I'm wrong. I never saw any advantage in advocating something I don't have good reason to believe. The majority of right wing rhetoric is just not backed by credible evidence

You're head must be spinning as much as you're wrong.

You're the typical Liberal. To you, nothing you think is wrong even without proof to back it up.

Conservative65: Dear Con65 You are coming across as Liberal hate-bait.
Your remarks purely focused on the person, and not the content of what they are saying,
fills the stereotypical image in the Liberal mind of the closed approach you are BOTH preaching against.

Can you not see you come across as the very thing you object to?
Self-justified circular arguments that gain no ground, but equally irritate the other.

BULLDOG is willing to change beliefs based on credible evidence.
Why not focus on content and not just random slamming back and forth.

Conservative65 with other Liberals on here only looking to slam for points,
sure, go ahead and beat them at their own game.

but with BULLDOG who is able to carry on a full discussion in detail,
why not take advantage of that? Save the slamming for people unable to communicate otherwise.

Otherwise you appear to be one of them.

 

[bravoactual]

Republicans do not debate issues, they incite hate.

Der Trumpenfuhurer has come up on single viable idea.

A National Database of Muslims violates the 1st. Amendment Right to Freedom of Religion,

No way Dumb Donald can get the Mexican Government to pay for a wall that will not work in the first.

Der Trumpenfuhrer thinks that the Communist Putin is really good guy.

Der Trumpenfuhrer thinks that the Communist Kim Jung Un is strong leader.

Der Trumpenfuhrer has the support of David Duke, a former Imperial Wi,zard of KKK.

Trump is a Racist, Misogynistic, Islamophobic and liar.

The perfect RePug.

 

[emilynghiem]

Republicans do not debate issues, they incite hate.

Hi bravoactual I think you match Conservative65 as equal and opposites in your disdain.

I find as many conservatives complaining they
can't find a liberal who won't "argue in circles and change the topic"
They will say it's the LIBERALS who won't listen to reason, but get INTOLERANT and HATEFUL.

Here, there are plenty of Liberals willing to discuss and debate to the nth.
And I find a great number of Conservatives and Constitutionalists who can explain their viewpoints.

Why treat the wealth of minds we have here as the garbage other people may be tossing back and forth?
We've got much greater potential here, and the mods are willing to accommodate if thread degenerate into slam or flame wars.
We've got free speech, why not use it to hash things out instead of bash them out.

Not everyone on the progressive Left is the closeminded agenda-driven anti-choice Liberal violating "separation of church and state"
Not everyone on the traditional Right is the bigoted pro-religious type refusing to listen to reason and coming across as unchristian

Nobody is perfect either. So we may well LOOK and ACT like the very stereotype others hate so much.
Obviously this is mutual whatever is going on. Both sides have areas where they can "contradict their own principles"
(like the prochoice pushing an anti-choice health insurance mandate, or the pro-religious freedom trying to censor Muslims when it's their turn to defend themselves)

So do we keep butting heads, assuming nobody is reasonable enough to carry an intelligent argument to completion?

Can we get past the bullying, and into the real issues and grievances we have with each other's beliefs or information
that make us push in different directions. Can't we strive to try better than this?

 

[Borillar]

Ever heard of keeping your friends close, and your enemies closer?

We don't vote in anything that ISIS or terrorists do either.
But shouldn't we keep up with how they are running their operations?

You should keep close track of the Democratic campaign. It will help you understand why the republican candidate loses so bad.

We took 1,200 seats from the Democrats in just the last 6 years, and the House and the Senate. Dem's sit there bitch slapped, we threw them to the ground and kicked dirt in their faces while laughing and still they talk shit.

So what has you latest bunch of republicans accomplished?

I thought the GOP in Texas did well to get rid of language in the platform targeting homosexuality
and changing it to address ALL sexual sins and abuses in general, so at least it is fair and covers all.

And adding that Conversion therapy would remain as a free choice and not be targeted either.

I thought both of those were positive steps.
People were upset about both, but I thought these were bold steps in the right direction.

Maybe in the FAR right direction. What is a sexual sin, other than the sexual abuse of a child, or the use of force?

Some consider conversion therapy abuse of a child, how do you perceive it?

To the right wing, a sexual sin is anything falling outside of marital sex, missionary position, and for the purposes of procreation only.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Both !!

Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz said today that the Democrats' 2016 presidential debates were scheduled to reach the largest audience possible.

I did my best to make sure, along with my staff and along with our debate partners, to come up with a schedule that we felt was going to allow for the—to maximize the opportunity for voters to see our candidates.​

Here's when the Democratic debates have been held:

• 
  
  
  • 8:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Oct. 13
  • 9 p.m. on Saturday, Nov. 14
  • 9 p.m. on Saturday, Dec. 19
  • 9 p.m. tonight, on Sunday of a long weekend

The Dems' second debate was the "was the lowest-rated primary debate this campaign season from either party" until the third debate, which "got the lowest TV ratings of any debate this cycle.

The Head of the Democratic Party Is Either a Failure or a Liar

She isn't the head of the Democratic party.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You should keep close track of the Democratic campaign. It will help you understand why the republican candidate loses so bad.

We took 1,200 seats from the Democrats in just the last 6 years, and the House and the Senate. Dem's sit there bitch slapped, we threw them to the ground and kicked dirt in their faces while laughing and still they talk shit.

So what has you latest bunch of republicans accomplished?

I thought the GOP in Texas did well to get rid of language in the platform targeting homosexuality
and changing it to address ALL sexual sins and abuses in general, so at least it is fair and covers all.

And adding that Conversion therapy would remain as a free choice and not be targeted either.

I thought both of those were positive steps.
People were upset about both, but I thought these were bold steps in the right direction.

Maybe in the FAR right direction. What is a sexual sin, other than the sexual abuse of a child, or the use of force?

Some consider conversion therapy abuse of a child, how do you perceive it?

To the right wing, a sexual sin is anything falling outside of marital sex, missionary position, and for the purposes of procreation only.

Thank you.

 

[bravoactual]

Republicans do not debate issues, they incite hate.

Hi bravoactual I think you match Conservative65 as equal and opposites in your disdain.

I find as many conservatives complaining they
can't find a liberal who won't "argue in circles and change the topic"
They will say it's the LIBERALS who won't listen to reason, but get INTOLERANT and HATEFUL.

Here, there are plenty of Liberals willing to discuss and debate to the nth.
And I find a great number of Conservatives and Constitutionalists who can explain their viewpoints.

Why treat the wealth of minds we have here as the garbage other people may be tossing back and forth?
We've got much greater potential here, and the mods are willing to accommodate if thread degenerate into slam or flame wars.
We've got free speech, why not use it to hash things out instead of bash them out.

Not everyone on the progressive Left is the closeminded agenda-driven anti-choice Liberal violating "separation of church and state"
Not everyone on the traditional Right is the bigoted pro-religious type refusing to listen to reason and coming across as unchristian

Nobody is perfect either. So we may well LOOK and ACT like the very stereotype others hate so much.
Obviously this is mutual whatever is going on. Both sides have areas where they can "contradict their own principles"
(like the prochoice pushing an anti-choice health insurance mandate, or the pro-religious freedom trying to censor Muslims when it's their turn to defend themselves)

So do we keep butting heads, assuming nobody is reasonable enough to carry an intelligent argument to completion?

Can we get past the bullying, and into the real issues and grievances we have with each other's beliefs or information
that make us push in different directions. Can't we strive to try better than this?

I stated facts.

Under Wasserman-Schultz the Democrats lost more seats in the Congress pure and simple. WS has a clean and distinct bias for Hillary Clinton,

WS set a debate schedule that allowed for debates on a Saturday Evening (lower viewership promised) and on the Sunday Evening of 3-Day Weekend.

Her leadership has damaged the Dems and her support of Hillary is in a word disgusting.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Democratic debate drew an audience of 10 million. That last GOP debate drew 11 million.