Page 18 of 21 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 210

Thread: Obama expected to nominate Loretta Lynch to be attorney general: CNN

  1. #171
    Left the building
    Fearandloathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,052

    Re: Obama expected to nominate Loretta Lynch to be attorney general: CNN

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    Yep, it all boils down to getting involved. Voting is the average American involvement in our political process. No more, no less. But in any presidential election only a bit more than half of Americans even bother to vote. So that mean 45-50% depending on the presidential election do not get involved at all. Then around 38% average in midterms bother to vote, that mean 62% of all Americans do not get involved. Fewer than 10% bother to vote in a primary which picks the two candidates that will face each other in November. But a whole lot of Americans will bitch about their choices.

    But so far those who are involved only voted. How many actually worked on a campaign outside of putting a bumper sticker on their car. I think for most Americans, non-involvement outside of bitching is their motto.


    We have had the same issues here, as when turn out drops into the 70's the limited thinkers, usually the left start talking about making a law and forcing people to vote. When the only tool you have is a hammer, all solutions involve nails and the left has only force.

    Having said that, there is no easy solution. In taking part in the above debate I wrote that if politicians want people to change their schedule, go out of their way and go into a polling station and mark it with a pencil [we do that here - the most trusted way] then they should have something worth selling. if all their doing is spewing party line, then their a lamp post that talks and I have better things to do...like writing essays about lamp post politicians and asking really, really rude questions as at all candidates meetings. But in the end, if none of them meets the minimum requirement, then no. What I did in the last federal election was work for an independent because I was bored, but we had an impact, the other slobs started having to talk about what we were talking about...that's the start.

    And I agree, but I always think of this one candidate I covered in the late 70's. He was a Roman Catholic Priest who ran for the New Democratic Party nomination - left, leftists who hate God etc. and won. He won the riding against odds and served one term in Parliament. In an interview I asked him if his success was divine intervention. He replied immediately, "No, a lot of hard work and sweat. But you know what? I learned something the first day. I asked people to help me and they did. Most of them said they had never been asked by the candidate today.

    Part of the US problem is the system. Who in the US can expect to be able to shake a presidential candidates hand? Here, we all can and often do.
    ....."actually, throughout my life my two greatest assets have been my mental stability and being, like, really smart"

  2. #172
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    01-05-18 @ 10:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,296

    Re: Obama expected to nominate Loretta Lynch to be attorney general: CNN

    Quote Originally Posted by EnigmaO01 View Post
    So it's important to you they are not black as heaven forbid there's no way a black person can be qualified.
    I could care less. This administration does not.

  3. #173
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    01-05-18 @ 10:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,296

    Re: Obama expected to nominate Loretta Lynch to be attorney general: CNN

    Quote Originally Posted by Texmex View Post
    Are you saying there aren't black women who are qualified for this job, or does it have to be a white man? I think you are just showing your true colors.
    Oh. Well I think you are a fool .

    I'm sure you can find lots of black women who meet the minimum qualifications of the job. The problem being that that is the standard this adminsitration looks for, rather than looking for the person who would be best at the job.

  4. #174
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,367

    Re: Obama expected to nominate Loretta Lynch to be attorney general: CNN

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Oh. Well I think you are a fool .

    I'm sure you can find lots of black women who meet the minimum qualifications of the job. The problem being that that is the standard this adminsitration looks for, rather than looking for the person who would be best at the job.
    I think Obama picked her because of her experience as a prosecutor.
    "If you can't stand the way this place is, Take yourself to higher places!"
    Break, By Three days grace

    Hilliary Clinton/Tim Kaine 2016

  5. #175
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    01-05-18 @ 10:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,296

    Re: Obama expected to nominate Loretta Lynch to be attorney general: CNN

    Quote Originally Posted by shrubnose View Post
    I don't believe that MLK ever said anything like that.
    we really need a sarcasm emoticon.

  6. #176
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    01-05-18 @ 10:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,296

    Re: Obama expected to nominate Loretta Lynch to be attorney general: CNN

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    I think Obama picked her because of her experience as a prosecutor.
    After Holder announced his resignation the White House started looking for a black woman to replace him. Not a really awesome prosecutor who would faithfully execute the duties of the office in a politically neutral way in order to de-partisanize the department. Their qualification was black female.

  7. #177
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    01-05-18 @ 10:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,296

    Re: Obama expected to nominate Loretta Lynch to be attorney general: CNN

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    The only good thing about this sort of **** is that they can only pull it once.

    Hopefully it will stop being a thing before we reach the point where the news is making a big deal about the "first transgender Filipino state senator of Wyoming."

    So tiresome. Who cares? Their qualifications and their public statements matter, that **** does not. To hell with identity politics.
    I don't know. We'll see how she holds up under questioning. It would be interesting if this turned out to be the Obama Administrations' Harriet Meiers.

  8. #178
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Obama expected to nominate Loretta Lynch to be attorney general: CNN

    Quote Originally Posted by Fearandloathing View Post
    Most of that I agree with, but in perspective, it was the opposite when the circumstances of my parentage allowed me a first class American education, from fifth grade on we learned about the Bill of Rights, how the land was "discovered" and the west was "won", a highly skewed John Wayne version of events. But, they taught us too well, when guys like me started asking where was the constitutionality of forcing people into slavery called military service when they have no right to vote they started handing out detentions, which was really stupid because that only annealed our resolve, just as lobbing tear gas did.
    We became a questioning society and were branded all sorts of ****, "hippies", "yippies", "long hairs", "queers" and of course "lefty pinkos"...

    I watched the film "Joe" not too long ago, with Easy Rider and Kent State thrown in you get the idea.

    What we really were was defenders of the constitution and the right to live free. we were the embodiment of Vermont's license plate "Live Free or Die". And we seriously questioned the John Wayne Story, especially after the Pentagon Papers were published, a copy of which lies on my desk to this day, a reminder that anything any government says is suspect and when it comes to war, a probable lie.

    We found out that America wasn't "discovered" after all, a guy named Lief Erikson beat him too it and old Chris from which much of the US get its name was 12,000 miles off course and nowhere near where he said he was, resulting in the native being misnamed as "Indians" when India is half a world away.

    We learned that the west was not "won" but ****ing stolen, and that the last righteous war, a legitimate case of defense and liberation of many various peoples was probably the last righteous war and that when the bullets start flying, truth starts dying.

    All that was righteous and reasoned, truth in fact. A truth Nixon had to face. But it was not learned. I suspect because that naive push back caused by irrational high school detentions was hijacked by agenda-fed idealogues from the far left to the dark and violent, we had our "mojo" ripped off by the likes of clown acts like the Symbianese Liberation Army and some morons who think a brainless and failed philosophy requiring all things to be surrendered to the state is the road to utopia. But, they are not the "left" of my generation who got their heads beat revealing that anything government cannot on its own be trusted; they will lie, cheat, steal, beat, jail and ultimately kill if they have to.

    Today, the "left" are a bunch of has-beens wallowing in slogans and fighting ancient fights like higher minimum wage and free money called "assistance" while wiping their asses with what was once the finest legal document in the known universe, the United States Constitution. They have no concept of "rights" as individuals but surrender all such identity in a clamoring mob whose main tool is shouting down any and all opponents and turning their leaders into demons or, in the tragic case of the great demon Sarah Palin, "sluts", "bimbos", and "whores", while going into hysterics over the fact she actually has a family that is still together and actually talks to one another. Shame.

    The result is what I post almost daily, the nation reels in cheap, tawdry, ineffective ideological image making while the real issues, crime, break down of family, drugs, school drop outs, the real problems get completely ignored.

    In the real world, a misfit country like Canada should be the one with the problems, ****, 30% of the population aren't even signatories to the constitution, half of them have been threatening to quit for four decades and our political system appoints members of the Senate, they aren't even elected. The United States, as I NEVER tired of pointing out has faced and beaten every obstacle it has faced and they have been mightier than almost every nation. Born out of war against the mightiest power on earth, faced them again later to a draw, fought the deadliest civil war in history. When you remove the moral judgments, which are worthy of discussions, the US is indestructible...at least from the outside.

    The problems you face can be solved, but not when there is a wall running down the middle of the country that would dwarf the Berlin wall....a wall in my opinion the left in America need to stay powerful for as soon as true "liberal" thinking arrives, both left and right have to open their close minds and ask if there isn 't merit in what they thought had none before. And while I repeat, the American left and I have little in common politically, I suggest the right is more capable of thinking "parachute mind", as in it only works if its open.
    Good post, a Canadians view of the US over time really adds some insight. I agree the real issues go unaddressed, with any attempt at rational discussion shot down by hissers and spitters.

    “The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.”


    ― George Orwell

  9. #179
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,145
    Blog Entries
    27

    Re: Obama expected to nominate Loretta Lynch to be attorney general: CNN

    Quote Originally Posted by Fearandloathing View Post
    We have had the same issues here, as when turn out drops into the 70's the limited thinkers, usually the left start talking about making a law and forcing people to vote. When the only tool you have is a hammer, all solutions involve nails and the left has only force.

    Having said that, there is no easy solution. In taking part in the above debate I wrote that if politicians want people to change their schedule, go out of their way and go into a polling station and mark it with a pencil [we do that here - the most trusted way] then they should have something worth selling. if all their doing is spewing party line, then their a lamp post that talks and I have better things to do...like writing essays about lamp post politicians and asking really, really rude questions as at all candidates meetings. But in the end, if none of them meets the minimum requirement, then no. What I did in the last federal election was work for an independent because I was bored, but we had an impact, the other slobs started having to talk about what we were talking about...that's the start.

    And I agree, but I always think of this one candidate I covered in the late 70's. He was a Roman Catholic Priest who ran for the New Democratic Party nomination - left, leftists who hate God etc. and won. He won the riding against odds and served one term in Parliament. In an interview I asked him if his success was divine intervention. He replied immediately, "No, a lot of hard work and sweat. But you know what? I learned something the first day. I asked people to help me and they did. Most of them said they had never been asked by the candidate today.

    Part of the US problem is the system. Who in the US can expect to be able to shake a presidential candidates hand? Here, we all can and often do.
    Back in the 1960's when we only had one day to vote, election day and it was done on paper ballots with pencil voter turn out was above 60% in presidential elections with a high of 65%. Even midterm elections was close to 50%. Now some states have 6 weeks to vote, some mail in ballots, all sorts of laws has been passed to get people to the polls. But usually less than 55% vote in presidential elections and around 35-38% in midterms.

    Why? Who knows. We have bent over backwards to get people to the polls, to make voting as easy as it can get, yet less people vote as a percentage than in the election before it seems. My son never voted, the reason: He says Washington is going to do what Washington is going to do regardless of what the people want. Maybe that has something to do with it, at least it is one reason why he doesn't vote.

    Perhaps another is the hate filled campaigns, the mud slinging, they say it works this negative advertisement. I suppose it does for those who get so mad at one or the other candidate and go vote. But I think it also drives some people away. Why vote for devil A or for devil B. You're doing nothing but electing a devil.

    You have a choice between 5 parties however they chose their candidate and I bet usually one of them comes close to your political ideals. Here, we have two parties. Their candidates are chosen in Primaries where less than 10% of the people vote in them. If you are not a Republican or Democrat, in most states you have no say whom they will choose. Your left in November with a choice they provide you. What if you do not like either candidate? You either hold your nose and vote for the least worst candidate in your opinion, but you know your still voting for a bad candidate. Or you stay home.

    The two parties have moved so far left and right they have left the majority of Americans without a political party home. So people vote left to kick the bums of the right out in 2006. Then they vote right to kick the bums of the left out in 2010, then left again in 2012 and right again in 2014. Yeah they end up kicking the bums out, but more bums take their place. Bums with political party agendas that do not listen to the people.

    We elected a Democratic president and congress in 1992 and then turn around and give him a Republican congress to work with when we get made at him. We elect a Republican president in 2000 with a Republican congress and then when we get mad at him we give him a Democratic congress. In 2008 we elect a Democratic president and congress again, only to give him a Republican House in 2010 and now a Republican Senate when we get mad at him.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  10. #180
    Left the building
    Fearandloathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,052

    Re: Obama expected to nominate Loretta Lynch to be attorney general: CNN

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    Back in the 1960's when we only had one day to vote, election day and it was done on paper ballots with pencil voter turn out was above 60% in presidential elections with a high of 65%. Even midterm elections was close to 50%. Now some states have 6 weeks to vote, some mail in ballots, all sorts of laws has been passed to get people to the polls. But usually less than 55% vote in presidential elections and around 35-38% in midterms.

    Why? Who knows. We have bent over backwards to get people to the polls, to make voting as easy as it can get, yet less people vote as a percentage than in the election before it seems. My son never voted, the reason: He says Washington is going to do what Washington is going to do regardless of what the people want. Maybe that has something to do with it, at least it is one reason why he doesn't vote.

    Perhaps another is the hate filled campaigns, the mud slinging, they say it works this negative advertisement. I suppose it does for those who get so mad at one or the other candidate and go vote. But I think it also drives some people away. Why vote for devil A or for devil B. You're doing nothing but electing a devil.

    You have a choice between 5 parties however they chose their candidate and I bet usually one of them comes close to your political ideals. Here, we have two parties. Their candidates are chosen in Primaries where less than 10% of the people vote in them. If you are not a Republican or Democrat, in most states you have no say whom they will choose. Your left in November with a choice they provide you. What if you do not like either candidate? You either hold your nose and vote for the least worst candidate in your opinion, but you know your still voting for a bad candidate. Or you stay home.

    The two parties have moved so far left and right they have left the majority of Americans without a political party home. So people vote left to kick the bums of the right out in 2006. Then they vote right to kick the bums of the left out in 2010, then left again in 2012 and right again in 2014. Yeah they end up kicking the bums out, but more bums take their place. Bums with political party agendas that do not listen to the people.

    We elected a Democratic president and congress in 1992 and then turn around and give him a Republican congress to work with when we get made at him. We elect a Republican president in 2000 with a Republican congress and then when we get mad at him we give him a Democratic congress. In 2008 we elect a Democratic president and congress again, only to give him a Republican House in 2010 and now a Republican Senate when we get mad at him.


    All of those reasons are correct, and I will add ennui and a sense of world weariness. Look at Obama. He attracted a huge base of voters who had never voted before and now? Angry and disillusioned again by empty promises and lies.

    At the time and still sometimes, the left comes at me for pointing out "the lie", "if you can keep your plan...." But when you consider a political science fact, that less than .3% of the population will ever tell anyone why they didn't vote that lie stands as a crucible. The new Obama wave crashed and died on that lie.

    The two party system isn't really a two party system as they really aren't any different, the money pretty much comes from the same place and "follow the money is the greatest if not only truth to come out of Watergate. But it is the myth of a two party system that is killing you. For the record the difference in platforms between Obama and Romney was about 2% according to some analysts.

    What else I see wrong is the declaration of either Democrat or Republican when registering. True I guess you can say "independent", but to me declating anything ios a violation of my secret ballot right. It's stupid and only feeds the big machinery.

    For the bold, there is a message there for anyone willing to analyze the results. Americans have no trouble giving their faith to a president, but after a few years they tell him "cool it"....

    They don't want runaway policies., To me they are screaming "work together you assholes" but the politicos only hear "war!"

    Change comes by degrees and is usually the result of a small group of people who have no hope of success. In the last provincial election we went up against the old guard, the tried and true party hacks who had been rotting like a corpse and stole the nomination simply by selling memberships and getting more people to the nominating meeting than they did. We won by about 325 to 220. It was supposed to be hopeless, but we though "what's to lose?"

    We lost to the incumbent party in a socialist riding...but we narrowed the margin of victory and let them know they were in a fight. I have had two winners working as a writer and that one loss. The loss, going from three people to winning the nomination in a losing fight was the most fun I've had with my clothes on in a good 15 years.
    ....."actually, throughout my life my two greatest assets have been my mental stability and being, like, really smart"

Page 18 of 21 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •