• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate Confirms Judge Who Attacked Roe v. Wade, Called Being Transgender A Delusion

Phys251 said:
You correctly point out that elections matter and then you bare your HDS for the world to see.

You cannot have it both ways. Pick a side already.
Click to expand...

I say in total candor without shame: HRC was simply the best of two bad choices in 2016. Unlike GOP, I admit when people in my own party have flaws.

I voted for Hillary knowing that if the country elected trump, we'd be in the boat we are now with draconian tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, the rolling back of environmental and financial regulations that hurt all citizens, and the rolling back of women's rights. As bad of a candidate and with as much baggage as HRC came with, America would be in much better shape than we are now if HRC were president. The situation we're faced with, facing of right now with Iran was a direct result of trump unilaterally backing out of the nuclear agreement crafted under Obama and signed off on by our allies.

I'm sorry I can't go, "rah, rah Hillary" and that you're offended. I stand by what I say.
 
lurchadams said:
I say in total candor without shame: HRC was simply the best of two bad choices in 2016. Unlike GOP, I admit when people in my own party have flaws.

I voted for Hillary knowing that if I did not, we'd be in the boat we are now with draconian tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, the rolling back of environmental and financial regulations that hurt all citizens, and the rolling back of women's rights. As bad of a candidate and with as much baggage as HRC came with, America would be in much better shape than we are now if HRC were president. The situation we're faced with, facing of right now with Iran was a direct result of trump unilaterally backing out of the nuclear agreement crafted under Obama and signed off on by our allies.

I'm sorry I can't go, "rah, rah Hillary" and that you're offended. I stand by what I say.
Click to expand...

Why you are offended at my calling out your HDS? In my lifetime I have never seen as much manufactured outrage against a presidential candidate as I did against Hillary. And despite all the crap that was thrown against her, legal and illegal, she still won the popular vote by nearly 3 million voters.

But at least you had the sense to vote for her in the general election.
 
ludin said:
i just sent you the link that 2 people had been recommend for charges.
the only person lying here is you in saying that he committed sexual assault.
that was the last i heard on it.

You don't know what the definition of lying is.
the only person lying are people that continue to claim
that he committed sexual assault which would be you.
or in this case the people that said that he sexually assault them.

you should handle your own lies before screaming at other people.
Click to expand...

Ah, "recommended for charges". Gotcha. I'm not screaming, I just calmly asked you a question based on your lie that Kavarape's accusers are "up on charges", aka have been charged. So no one has been charged with perjury. When do you think those charges will be filed? It's been months since your claim that his accusers "perjured themselves".
 
lurchadams said:
I say in total candor without shame: HRC was simply the best of two bad choices in 2016.
Click to expand...
I agree with your post with one slight correction. The right word should have been "better" not best of the two choices.
 
Phys251 said:
Why you are offended at my calling out your HDS? In my lifetime I have never seen as much manufactured outrage against a presidential candidate as I did against Hillary. And despite all the crap that was thrown against her, legal and illegal, she still won the popular vote by nearly 3 million voters.

But at least you had the sense to vote for her in the general election.
Click to expand...

Alright, my friend. Agree to disagree then. I'm just a pragmatist and yes you are offended by my candor. Again, I'm sorry, but you are or you wouldn't have thrown the "HDS" insult at me.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Literally yes. Conservative ideology is based on inflicting harm on one's perceived enemies.
Click to expand...

what exactly are estate taxes, and gun bans about?
 
lurchadams said:
Alright, my friend. I don't have HDS. I'm just a pragmatist and yes you are offended by my candor. Again, I'm sorry, but you are.
Click to expand...

Again with your being offended at being called out. The manufactured outrage against Hillary on both sides of the aisle was real.
 
prometeus said:
I agree with your post with one slight correction. The right word should have been "better" not best of the two choices.
Click to expand...

Thank you, my friend. I'll try to be "better" in all my future posts in this forum :peace
 
prometeus said:
Thanks for the reply, good points.
Another problem I do not see is the people on either side of the spectrum being up in arms over this type of power play. The founding fathers never intended for a single person, either in the Senate or House to have this kind of power and the ability to change rules at a whim for the sole purpose of political gain.
Click to expand...

I agree. Perhaps the framers had a good reason to let the state legislatures of each state choose their senators. That took the power of the national political party out of the picture. Each senator was bound to his state legislature, locally, not nationally. The people of each state choose or voted for their representatives in the state legislature which in turn chose the senators. That is what a representative republic is all about.

Loyalty was shown to one's state and the representatives, legislature elected by the people of that state. Today, senators show their loyalty for the most part to their party going against the wishes and wants of the people of their state if their party so demands it. We have way too many party line votes these day.

The framers actually hated the idea of political parties. They called them factions during their day. They feared once political parties became strong it would be voting for the good of the party over the good of the country. Sounds like exactly what is happening today. The idea of the professional politician was also abhorrent to them. The idea was of a man leaving his farm or job, serve a term or two in Washington and then return to his job or farm. We've gotten a long way away from the original idea. The original congress was paid per diem, no salary, no benefits such as healthcare and retirement. One was to devote a couple of years to the public service or to the nation, state, or what have you.
 
Crystal said:
Do tell. List their acts against humanity then tell me why you haven’t notified the authorities!
Click to expand...

Their primary, repeated, undeniable act of inhumanity is the commodifying of humanity itself. When money is ALWAYS the first priority, humans aren't. Slavery isn't an institution on the part of the enslaved, it's a sickness existing in the entitled, elitist mind of the slaver.

GOP is a disease of the conscience, not a party.
 
Perotista said:
I agree. Perhaps the framers had a good reason to let the state legislatures of each state choose their senators. That took the power of the national political party out of the picture. Each senator was bound to his state legislature, locally, not nationally. The people of each state choose or voted for their representatives in the state legislature which in turn chose the senators. That is what a representative republic is all about.

Loyalty was shown to one's state and the representatives, legislature elected by the people of that state. Today, senators show their loyalty for the most part to their party going against the wishes and wants of the people of their state if their party so demands it. We have way too many party line votes these day.

The framers actually hated the idea of political parties. They called them factions during their day. They feared once political parties became strong it would be voting for the good of the party over the good of the country. Sounds like exactly what is happening today. The idea of the professional politician was also abhorrent to them. The idea was of a man leaving his farm or job, serve a term or two in Washington and then return to his job or farm. We've gotten a long way away from the original idea. The original congress was paid per diem, no salary, no benefits such as healthcare and retirement. One was to devote a couple of years to the public service or to the nation, state, or what have you.
Click to expand...
Term limits would go a long way to restore the system to the way it should be. The idea of a lifetime pension even if not re-elected is revolting if anything.
 
prometeus said:
Term limits would go a long way to restore the system to the way it should be. The idea of a lifetime pension even if not re-elected is revolting if anything.
Click to expand...
We have term limits on the president and most states if not all have term limits on the governor's. But I don't know of any who have term limits on congress or the state legislatures. We placed limits on the executives, but not on congress or the legislatures. My feeling on that is what is good for the gander is good for the goose.

If we're going to limit the president and governor's of most states to 8 years, then the house of representatives and the state legislatures should also be limited to 8 years. Say 12 for senators. Either that or go back to paying representatives and senators per diem only. No benefits, no retirement system. We could provide housing for them at Ft. McNair or even government paid and furnished apartments. We could also provide a medical clinic for our elected officials in the Capital Building.
 
Perotista said:
I agree. Perhaps the framers had a good reason to let the state legislatures of each state choose their senators. That took the power of the national political party out of the picture. Each senator was bound to his state legislature, locally, not nationally. The people of each state choose or voted for their representatives in the state legislature which in turn chose the senators. That is what a representative republic is all about.

Loyalty was shown to one's state and the representatives, legislature elected by the people of that state. Today, senators show their loyalty for the most part to their party going against the wishes and wants of the people of their state if their party so demands it. We have way too many party line votes these day.

The framers actually hated the idea of political parties. They called them factions during their day. They feared once political parties became strong it would be voting for the good of the party over the good of the country. Sounds like exactly what is happening today. The idea of the professional politician was also abhorrent to them. The idea was of a man leaving his farm or job, serve a term or two in Washington and then return to his job or farm. We've gotten a long way away from the original idea. The original congress was paid per diem, no salary, no benefits such as healthcare and retirement. One was to devote a couple of years to the public service or to the nation, state, or what have you.
Click to expand...

I love that idea! Service, versus a career. Think of how much more productive our representatives would be if they didn't have to spend the majority of their time fundraising for their next election!
 
lurchadams said:
Hey, I'm no HRC fan but, what in the world are you bloviating about? Knock it off, you're embarrassing yourself!
Click to expand...

Good to hear; I was wondering this about your OP. :) Physician, heal thyself.
 
Phys251 said:
You correctly point out that elections matter and then you bare your HDS for the world to see.

You cannot have it both ways. Pick a side already.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.

The Pig King or the Vampire Queen...

The only sane choice?

To pick neither.
 
Phys251 said:
Again with your being offended at being called out. The manufactured outrage against Hillary on both sides of the aisle was real.
Click to expand...

Nixon in a pantsuit deserved better?

But it's kind of awesome how mindless obeisance to her pathological desire for entirely undeserved power - Her Time! - and cultish Democrat collusion with this pathology brought the party to its knees as she failed both deservedly and spectacularly.

And how the party refuses to learn anything from its vicious, hive-mind, criminal behavior.

:donkeyfla
 
3leftsdoo said:
Still not a sensible question. :)

But kudos to Perotista for silk pursing this bad boy.

:applaud
Click to expand...

Just admit post #32 would be much better received on Infowars :roll:
 
:roll:

Where did Perotista go?

:(
 
D_NATURED said:
How is that not obvious, given the facts. How cruel, bigoted, inhuman and greedy does the GOP have to be for you to notice? Really.
Click to expand...

We just had a democrat president drone children and start 3 more wars in the middle east, and the anti-war left were sucking his **** about it.
 
Crystal said:
Only liberals are decent. Is that the message? :lamo
Click to expand...

Just trumpists are incapable of decency. They wear the title of deplorable like a badge of honor.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
We just had a democrat president drone children and start 3 more wars in the middle east, and the anti-war left were sucking his **** about it.
Click to expand...

Which ones? Methinks you just have an oral fetish.
 
ludin said:
I guess you don't know what unfounded allegations are.
it was all made up and the people that did assault ford came forward.

it was their party and no one that dealt with Kavanaugh.

I guess you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty.
Kavanaugh has never assault or raped anyone in his life.

the fact that you still believe these lies is amazing.
see we don't keep people from jobs on baseless
unfounded sexual assault claims.

if he did sexually assault women you would think that
one of his 1000's of female clerks over the past 20 years
would have come forward but nope. they all defended him
and his actions.

PS two of the accusers are up on perjury charges for lying.

PPS not opinion just facts.
Click to expand...

All of those clerks were not witnesses to the event so they would not know.
 
Perotista said:
Okay, this is also the direct result of ex-democratic majority leader Senator Harry Reid's first use of the nuclear option. That also matters. Without Reid's precedence setting use it still would have required 60 votes for cloture. This is a prime example of what happens when the party in power, in this case the Democratic controlled senate strips power and rights away from the minority party.

Without Reid first use of the nuclear option, setting the precedence for a short term political gain the election of Trump wouldn't have mattered at all in the selection of judges. You can be as mad as all get out at Trump and the GOP controlled senate as you want. But the real culprit here, the one to blame is Reid.

Even the current Democratic minority leader Senator Schumer who urged and egged Reid on to use the nuclear option now says that was the biggest mistake the Democrats had made since Schumer had become a senator. How ironic that the party that supposedly believes in minority rights was the party that stripped away the minority party rights in the senate just because they could and had the power to do so.

And yes, elections do have consequence as do the selection of candidates by the two major parties. Let's hope the democrats learned that lesson and come up with a very good one this time around. Candidates do matter.
Click to expand...

The consequences of being in power, and the failure to think ahead. I have said many times, "think ahead".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom