I guess that would depend on the issue. Obviously some issues would require more details than others. Maybe they could get together before the election and decide that together.
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
Like candidate A wants to revamp SS. But how detailed does he need to be?
Candidate A wants to reform Social Security to make it solvent. He proposes moving the wage cap to $175k and extending the retirement age from 65 to 67 for those under the age of 50.
I've mentioned that before as well. It's crazy how many people don't understand simple questions about how the government works. I don't see how you can argue that a testing requirement would be constitutional though.
They could be as detailed as they want. I wouldn't put a requirement on how detailed they need to be. He would have to decide how much detail he needs to get people to agree with him on that issue.
I watched parts of it. I thought it was one of his better speeches.
So your wife was really getting into it by clapping and she wasn't even there?
I didn't watch it but I heard some clips today. Typical stuff that partisans are going to be strongly for or against for most of it.
I don't understand the wearing of white by the D women. Seems a little "high school pep rally"-ish to me.
Trump did go out of his way to fire some (metaphorical) shots at Bernie and AOC on USA as socialist vs. free capitalist country.
Amazing to me what some people will not applaud / approve: lowest unemployment in history for blacks, Latinos, women; a call for an end to very late term or post-birth abortion; efforts to break up sex trafficking rings..... I mean it seems people could grudgingly agree these things are good for everyone.....
instead about the only thing the D women in white approved / applauded was when Trump acknowledged there were more women in Congress than ever before....ie - the only thing they could bring themselves to applaud was themselves.
Some people don't like the personal story / guests part of SOTU - but I heard about a guest ( named Judah?) who survived the Holocaust, then survived the Pittsburgh Tree of Life Synagogue shooting, was there in gallery of SOTU on his 81st birthday - sitting next to the US military soldier who liberated him from the Nazi death camp in Dacau (sp?). I think this liberation happened a year after the soldier was party of the Normandy beach storming / invasion on D-Day.
Pretty moving and interesting - from 'ol "Mr. anti-Semite" DJT.
I don't understand the wearing of white by the D women. Seems a little "high school pep rally"-ish to me.
Trump did go out of his way to fire some (metaphorical) shots at Bernie and AOC on USA as socialist vs. free capitalist country.
Amazing to me what some people will not applaud / approve: lowest unemployment in history for blacks, Latinos, women; a call for an end to very late term or post-birth abortion; efforts to break up sex trafficking rings..... I mean it seems people could grudgingly agree these things are good for everyone.....
instead about the only thing the D women in white approved / applauded was when Trump acknowledged there were more women in Congress than ever before....ie - the only thing they could bring themselves to applaud was themselves.
Some people don't like the personal story / guests part of SOTU - but I heard about a guest ( named Judah?) who survived the Holocaust, then survived the Pittsburgh Tree of Life Synagogue shooting, was there in gallery of SOTU on his 81st birthday - sitting next to the US military soldier who liberated him from the Nazi death camp in Dacau (sp?). I think this liberation happened a year after the soldier was party of the Normandy beach storming / invasion on D-Day.
Pretty moving and interesting - from 'ol "Mr. anti-Semite" DJT.
I wanna know if the Abrams response was really live. Just looked taped and had literally nothing referencing anything that was said in the SOTU. I realize it has to be mostly written beforehand, but they could have at least made it a little more genuine with a reference or two.
The response does not have to address what the President said, merely just deliver a message that the party wants to be delivered.
It just wasn't a response at all. I felt like it rambled along kind of pointlessly. No effort being made to connect it to Trump's speech.
Her name is Stacey Abrams. Ran for gov in GA and lost in a close race. Never conceded, still hasn't. Spent a ton of time, energy, etc. claiming voter suppression, racial injustices, prejudice against African Americans, etc stole the gov race from her.
She was a good candidate to put out what some think of as the Dems main calling card: all identity politics, all the time. That Trump, and really all of America, is in a horrible place regarding every ism - racism, sexism, capitalism, misogynism, xenophobism (OK I know those last two aren't words).....
I didn't hear her response but I think Joe/Jane sixpack average American is tired of hearing what is wrong with her / him, and how he/she needs to feel guilty, and to change. Get woke.
It's surprising that the 2016 Presidential Election didn't deliver this message loud and clear.
i’m no fan of his, but imo, i think the reason the standing/sitting, clapping/not clapping, and smirking was because every time he mentioned something positive, he mentioned either something negative or took shots like the “socialism” comment...isn’t that in itself divisive?
i didn’t get the hiv comment though.
i didn’t get the hiv comment though.
Trump wants to seize private land in Texas to build a monument to himself. That is the embodiment of Socialism.
Yeah because all the problems in Venezuela are due to socialism. There definitely isn't any corruption or tyranny in their government that would cause problems regardless of the socioeconomic model...
Venezuela doesn't have Socialism any more than the Soviet Union had Communism.
There is no true socialism anywhere. There's no pure "Ism" anywhere. And would you like a list of how socialism is enacted and works to the benefit of the average citizens of the United States? It's been going on since the beginning.
No thanks. Your long ramblings tend to bore me.
There are corruption and tyranny in all government. It's just that socialism allows the government to grow to a point where the common man no longer has control. Just another reason to be pro-gun, IMO.
Pure socialism isn't attainable. You'll always need tyranny to force people to comply, which is why laissez-faire will always be the best, and most fair, way to get things done.
Yes even those. If you ever watch "King of Queens", there is an episode where Author wants to be a mentor to someone. No one wants to listen. That's how I feel about your drivel.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Daily Drop: Bill Belichick & UNC are Handing out a Ton of Offers
- Latest: 90sWoollenGymRat
-
