jehurey 3,222 Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 1 minute ago, Vini said: Based on what because I whined about Sanders who actually got cheated? You know damn well Hillary rigged that shit along with Debbie Washerman whatever her name is, Hillary hired her right after she got fired from the DNC for being shady. That's some gangster shit. I like how you think trying to change the subject over to Bernie is helping you. Its not. Bernie ended up getting pressured in different ways because he was the ONLY opposition to Clinton. You see........Mr. Yang isn't going to get ANY pressure..........because he's not going to get ANY press whatsoever. he'll get less air-time than Martin O'Malley. Maybe even less than Lincoln Chafee. THAT is where your whining will stem from. And you'll have no real reason, because there will be enough big-name candidates during the primary that will drown out the longshots. And Bernie is going to support Elizabeth Warren. That's why we haven't heard from Bernie at all,. There goes the "true liberal" vote. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DynamiteCop 2,084 Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 11 minutes ago, Vini said: He's annoying as shit He's right Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Cooke 2,026 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 1 hour ago, jehurey said: I'd like to see as many possible choices on the Democratic side debate each other and determine which one has the most cohesive and effective message. As of right now, the best candidate that I see, with the best overall credentials is probably Elizabeth Warren. She's got both the academic and political experience. If there's one that Trump has taught us is that you can't just bring in some guy from another industry and come in and pretend he knows what to do in the political world. That's the biggest flaw in Vini's choice. He purposely chose him because HE HAS NO political experience. Tom Steyer is a billionaire that has been single-handedly funding the Need To Impeach advertising camapign. There's a rumor that he is thinking about running for President............he's going to be DOA because nobody is asking for a billionaire with zero political experience in Washington. She's weak. Trump would stomp all over her and ignite the far right even more. Pocahontas would be a worse pick than Hilary. Unfortunately it's going to have to be an aggressive white man that can beat trump at his own game. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kokujin 558 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 1 hour ago, Vini said: Thing is UBI will become inevitable as the AI revolution continues. This isn't just my opinion listen to any prominent tech entrepreneurs or AI engineers. there are very cheap, undamaging ways to live. I've been doing it for years. If I'm content with net knowledge food and shelter, then IMO if i'm not having 4 children and committing crime, some efficient work should be all I need to contribute to society. THEN if I want more, I must prove myself either with necessary labor or some knowledge or wit. I don't think I cost the world much at all. And I do work some. UBI sounds cool as faw, but after a few years it will break the econemy and that shit will become just like an allowance. I do think any human who provides SOME service to society should NOT have to struggle to get groceries and should be able to collabo into decent housing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kokujin 558 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 15 minutes ago, Cookester15 said: She's weak. Trump would stomp all over her and ignite the far right even more. Pocahontas would be a worse pick than Hilary. Unfortunately it's going to have to be an aggressive white man that can beat trump at his own game. oh please don't think so highly of yourself. One sane and smart black liberal or person and whitie will backflop on trump. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,222 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 25 minutes ago, Cookester15 said: She's weak. Trump would stomp all over her and ignite the far right even more. Pocahontas would be a worse pick than Hilary. Unfortunately it's going to have to be an aggressive white man that can beat trump at his own game. NNNnnnnnnnnah. Trump's shtick is already running old. We don't need 100% of Trump's 2016 voters to flip or just fall out of favor and not vote. We've already had election in America since Trump's election. The Democrats are doing just fine. And Elizabeth Warren's message is pretty much Bernie's message, and as long as they keep on hitting the fact that middle-class people are even worse off under Trump, those handful of states that barely slipped out of Hillary's grasp will go back to Democrats. Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Indiana. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
54212 432 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 The Dems will be able to beat Trump with nearly anyone. To the point where he's is going to allow them to run a lot more to the left than they otherwise could. But those 2 or 3 Supreme Court picks (crossing my fingers for RBG's death) may be worth it in the long run anyway for the GOP. UBI isn't happening anytime soon. Automation isn't advanced enough yet. No one wants to support parasites like Jerry if it requires a sizable tax increase. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,222 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 6 minutes ago, Saucer said: The Dems will be able to beat Trump with nearly anyone. To the point where he's is going to allow them to run a lot more to the left than they otherwise could. But those 2 or 3 Supreme Court picks (crossing my fingers for RBG's death) may be worth it in the long run anyway for the GOP. UBI isn't happening anytime soon. Automation isn't advanced enough yet. No one wants to support parasites like Jerry if it requires a sizable tax increase. his butthurt is literally spilling into other threads. Quote But those 2 or 3 Supreme Court picks (crossing my fingers for RBG's death) may be worth it in the long run anyway for the GOP. Saucer, the self-proclaimed "true centrist" folks. LOL Quote Link to post Share on other sites
54212 432 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 3 minutes ago, jehurey said: Saucer, the self-proclaimed "true centrist" folks. LOL Judicial activism is the tyranny. It's a complete disregard for the rule of law. No one of any political stripe should support it. You red guard derpsters will be the first against the wall. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,222 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 Just now, Saucer said: Judicial activism is the tyranny. It's a complete disregard for the rule of law. No one of any political stripe should support it. You red guard derpsters will be the first against the wall. Funny, how you only seem to find the "judicial activism" occuring solely from the left. Give me examples of RBG being a judicial activist and disregarded the rule of law. I'll wait. And no..........you getting mad, or attempting to change the topic isn't going to work, either. lol Quote Link to post Share on other sites
54212 432 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 14 minutes ago, jehurey said: Give me examples of RBG being a judicial activist and disregarded the rule of law. You thought this was a good line to pursue? LOL Heller, Janus, Citizens United. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,222 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 Just now, Saucer said: You thought this was a good line to pursue? LOL Heller, Janus, Citizens United. Nope. Explain where she is committing the judicial activism and she is clearly not following the rule of law. I'm still waiting. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
54212 432 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 5 minutes ago, jehurey said: Nope. Explain where she is committing the judicial activism and she is clearly not following the rule of law. I'm still waiting. Compelled speech, banning private ownership of guns, and preventing economic interest groups from engaging in political speech are all unconstitutional and were all struck down. The sooner that pinko witch dies, the sooner American will be Great Again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,222 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 7 minutes ago, Saucer said: Compelled speech, banning private ownership of guns, and preventing economic interest groups from engaging in political speech are all unconstitutional and were all struck down. The sooner that pinko witch dies, the sooner American will be Great Again. Point to me in her Supreme Court opinion on those cases where she says those things. Still waiting. You think Corporations should own the same rights as people????????????????? That's a Yes or No question..........can you answer that? Are you man enough to answer that? ("True Centrist" Saucer, folks) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
54212 432 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 3 minutes ago, jehurey said: Point to me in her Supreme Court opinion on those cases where she says those things. Still waiting. You think Corporations should own the same rights as people????????????????? That's a Yes or No question..........can you answer that? Are you man enough to answer that? ("True Centrist" Saucer, folks) She voted for them dipshit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,222 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 Just now, Saucer said: She voted for them dipshit. She is listed in the Dissent opinion against the majority opinion of Citizens United v FEC Quote Link to post Share on other sites
54212 432 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 3 minutes ago, jehurey said: She is listed in the Dissent opinion against the majority opinion of Citizens United v FEC Yes she voted to prohibit that type of speech. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,222 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 1 minute ago, Saucer said: Yes she voted to prohibit that type of speech. LOL, did you just try and type a DOUBLE NEGATIVE to correct yourself. You said "she voted for them" Citizens United v FEC was majority in favor for Citizens United. What do you think saying "she voted for them" means????????? So..........you think that Corporations ARE PEOPLE, that's a Yes???????? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
54212 432 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 5 minutes ago, jehurey said: LOL, did you just try and type a DOUBLE NEGATIVE to correct yourself. You said "she voted for them" Citizens United v FEC was majority in favor for Citizens United. What do you think saying "she voted for them" means????????? So..........you think that Corporations ARE PEOPLE, that's a Yes???????? You don't even know what a double negative is? She voted for compelled speech, banning private ownership of guns, and preventing economic interest groups from engaging in political speech. How hard is this for you, Jer? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,222 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Saucer said: You don't even know what a double negative is? She voted for compelled speech, banning private ownership of guns, and preventing economic interest groups from engaging in political speech. How hard is this for you, Jer? Nope.........point out where she voted for compelled speech. What part of her opinion specifically implies that. Point out the opinion where they banned the private ownership of guns. And you are saying that CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE?????? Yes or No question........you're being asked for a third time. There's a reason why I also asked "are you man enough" to answer the question. (BTW, you don't to answer that supplemental question.......already got the answer). Edited January 11, 2019 by jehurey Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.