what’s the difference on here?
this is where we are and it’s gotten worse in this country since w bush.
i don’t vote a straight ticket and haven’t since the mid 90’s…what are you doing about it?
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
this is where we are and it’s gotten worse in this country since w bush.
i don’t vote a straight ticket and haven’t since the mid 90’s…what are you doing about it?
I used to not vote straight ticket. I without a doubt will vote straight red in all future elections until I see us move back to sanity. Then I'll start considering doing it differently.
And that’s it in a nutshell. If you have an “R” by your name, Dems view you as the enemy. If you vote Republican, Dems view you as the enemy.
I don't understand what you are asking. No one should automatically vote a straight ticket due to an associated letter. I'm actually one that would like to see it eliminated on ballots. It's one of the things that gives us bad candidates from both parties and systemically reduces the ability of alternative party candidates or independents to ever get elected.
Straight party blind allegiance voting is why we’re so divided and why fuk nut dumbasses and totally inept unqualified people like trump, biden, aoc, mtg get elected. Ffs vote for the person not the party. Put america first to coin a phrase.
But what if we think voting for Trump is putting America first? Because that's what I think.
You thinking Trump puts anyone but himself first makes you an idiot.
i completely support eliminating on ballots.
i’m asking you if you see a difference between the opinion of each side either on this board or outside of it?
i voted in the last mayoral election for the conservative, but he was a moderate as opposed to the dem who just didn’t have any true experience or ideas.
I'd say the divide on both the board and outside of it is pretty consistent. But, it's interesting how things get twisted and described nonetheless. You brought up Bush. I always thought it funny that the media and D's paint(ed) him as a conservative. Of course, if one were merely to compare him to the D party running as fast as possible to the left, he could be considered conservative. I always equate it to the change in country music. What you hear today would have been on top 40 when I was young.
That sentence really makes no sense. There is no excuse if you look behind all the excuses? So are there excuses or not?
Furthermore, couldn't we say the same thing about Republicans? Anybody but Biden, or Fetterman, or Warnock, or anyone else with a D beside their name?
The hypocrisy is alive and well, for certain.
So, it's not your turn to use the shared brain stem? Reading is fundamental.
"Furthermore", if you are capable of reading the chain, a few posts after mine was this:
Which I gave a "Like" to @heelmanwilm. No hypocrisy here whatsoever on this exchange. Stop trying to pick a fight just because you're still bruised and battered from before. The irony is you are the dictionary definition of hypocrisy and don't see it. Go back to sleep or work some self-education. It's hilarious that you are lecturing anyone on a sentence making no sense.
You misunderstand. I think Trump being President is putting America first. So when I vote, I will vote for that end.
What do you not get? I've said a million times that I don't care if everything Trump does benefits Trump AS LONG AS IT ALSO BENEFITS ME, which it did. You understand?
Need something like red flag laws.
Before the shooting, his family had contacted St. Louis police to have a firearm taken away from him, St. Louis Police Commissioner Michael Sack said at a news conference Wednesday. “The mother at the time wanted it out of the house,” he added.
Police responded to a domestic disturbance at the family’s home on October 15 – just nine days before Monday’s shooting, according to a Wednesday night police statement.
“Officers responded and determined at that time the suspect was lawfully permitted to possess the firearm,” the statement obtained by CNN affiliate KMOV reads. “A third party known to the family was contacted and took possession of the firearm so that it would no longer be stored in the home.”
Police on Wednesday night confirmed that the gun removed from the home that day was the rifle that was used in the school shooting.
Before the shooting, his family had contacted St. Louis police to have a firearm taken away from him, St. Louis Police Commissioner Michael Sack said at a news conference Wednesday. “The mother at the time wanted it out of the house,” he added.
Police responded to a domestic disturbance at the family’s home on October 15 – just nine days before Monday’s shooting, according to a Wednesday night police statement.
“Officers responded and determined at that time the suspect was lawfully permitted to possess the firearm,” the statement obtained by CNN affiliate KMOV reads. “A third party known to the family was contacted and took possession of the firearm so that it would no longer be stored in the home.”
Police on Wednesday night confirmed that the gun removed from the home that day was the rifle that was used in the school shooting.
There is so much missing from these couple of statements that I can't even begin to comment with any real confidence and neither can you. I guess the two basic questions to start with are what was the nature of the "domestic disturbance" and how did the shooter get the firearm back from the third party? The hard truth is that we are almost always dealing with a mental issue and there are almost no hard and fast aspects to those scenarios: EXCEPT when we have the benefit of hindsight. It's easy to judge now and say anything knowing the outcome. Nonetheless, thanks for the info.
I don't understand your point. The kid shouldn't have had access to deadly weapon, call it hindsight or just call it "captain obvious". Problems were so obvious 9 days ago that family went as far as having a third-party person remove the gun. The problem was obvious to everyone, but the law didn't said the kid should be able to keep it.
“John Fetterman got 81 million votes in Pennsylvania and threaten to put you in jail if you don’t believe it. Why wouldn’t they? It worked with Joe Biden.”
www.bizpacreview.com
Tucker Carlson: Democrats will tell us 'Fetterman got 81 million votes'
Tucker Carlson goes postal on Fetterman, the city who will cheat for him, the doctor who cleared him, and the media who cover for him.
www.bizpacreview.com
No. The worst case scenario doesn’t even involve the shooter. It pertains to the thousands of others that could be falsely reported as “potential threats” and have their firearms taken away with no proof of anything.
I responded to you before I made it far enough down the chain to see heelmanwilm's post, but for what it's worth, I agree with his message wholeheartedly. Too bad you didn't give me a "like," also. That would have really made my day!
There's no due process. Look, we'd have more criminals convicted if we didn't have a standard of innocent until proven guilty, but we forego that in order that an innocent person not be condemned. Happens anyway but the idea is to risk some things to protect the innocent individual.
the problem isn't blind allegiance to a party as far as my rosy red ass is concerned, it's finding an electable candidate who is capable of thinking and acting independently and isn't a weirdo. Notice I said 'electable'.
I am not blind to the faults of the right. I have voiced here some things I disagree with. But all things considered, I consider my R vote a vote for sanity....or a vote against INsanity, if you will, just as @gunslingerdick said. Hell, just the passing of MILLIONS of illegals in is enough to impeach a president for, as far as I'm concerned. You think I'm going to vote for a candidate who will do nothing to stop that?
The candidates who are elected and are dems will in general follow and support whatever the party is pushing...and the shit they are pushing at this point is nuts. The third party guys are a joke in our two-party system. That's what the problem is; our system is geared to foster polarization and the extremes that go with it. That needs to change so that other candidates have an actual chance to be elected.
Last edited:
no, of course they won't. The bewildering thing is, it isn't hard to understand on your own that every president and politician we elect is for himself. The idea is to find one who for self-interest or our interest generally acts for our best interests, even if we don't get invited to dinner.
That being said, there is absolutely NO reason to think that anything Trump did was contrary to looking after the country.
GED. I keep telling him that the ability to read would open up new worlds to him, particularly the one he lives in.
What a joke! Your limited intelligence is on the same level as randman and uncfootball, only you are much more verbose than those two.
Trump has only the interest of that part of the country that is on his side in mind, just as he is with politicians. Go against Trump and root for another candidate and he is intent on making that individual's life a living hell. Side with those who wanted to impeach him, which he obviously deserved, and Republican or not he intended on destroying your political career.
You're an absolute hoot, bluetard!
well, sorry if I can't take your word for any of this. You know why.
I would like someone to attempt to justify books like these being in schools. We have become a perverse society to the delight of sick, groomer, liberals.
www.foxnews.com
Pentagon's schools infested with shocking pornographic material for military kids: 'Time to send a d*ck pic'
Fox News Digital finds that Department of Defense Activity school libraries are filled with sexually explicit and pornographic "banned" books.
So those thousand have to remove their gun-bumperstickers? Or are they also not allowed to participate in the militia against Soros/Hilary invaders?
It's so laughable that your entire worldview is defined by insane characterizations of this one man. Not that Trump does not have his faults but no sane person could say he was only trying to and only benefitting his supporters when in reality, despite his bragging and overstatements, he really was just about the best jobs president in history. Well, maybe not but pretty close.
He said he'd deliver, and he did, for all Americans. First time in decades most gains were going to the bottom half of wage earners with median income rising in just a few years more than the past 20. I could go on but all of that and getting control of the border helped all Americans.
which innocent individual are you talking about, the Highland Park folks or St Louis?
I am making a general reference to basic Constitutional principles. Yes, maybe stripping people of their right to own a gun without due process may prevent a shooting. Maybe seizing suspicious assets without due process helps go after drug criminals.
But you are going to infringe and are infringing on innocent people with both of these things just like if we removed the innocent until proven guilty principle.
It will also get people killed just like Swatting can do. It's a means of swatting actually and trying to disarm someone so they cannot defend themselves.
Do you trust everyone you have met or know? No one has a grudge or ever has against you? Think about it.
Maybe we should just talk to those mean old guns and get them to quit shooting people. Or maybe the forks and spoons making everyone fat? Our country has a morality problem not a gun problem.
Similar threads
