The Democratic Party is out of touch, and will lose again to Donald Trump.
One does not need to have insight like Nostradamus, to make such a
prediction.
I do not know any candidate by the name of The Democratic Party.
I do not know any candidate by the name of The Democratic Party.
Does it matter that I did not name them, my point was obviously they will
ALL lose to or drop out of the race.
One will remain and the last man or woman standing will lose to Donald
Trump, I thought that was a obvious point.
However I am glad nonetheless, to clear up any confusion on your part.
Hello Greg,will
I do not know any candidate by the name of The Democratic Party.
Does it matter that I did not name them, my point was obviously they
ALL lose to or drop out of the race.
Bush41 was flying high after he single-handedly pushed Iraq out
of Kuwait in the Gulf War, his chances for winning a second term
virtually assured, as his approval ratings were over 90 percent.
In October 1991 a Democratic candidate from Arkansas entered the
race for the Democratic nomination. Nobody gave him a snowball's
chance in hell. He went on to win his party's nomination, and
the White House, on a theme cooked up by a mad Cajun by the name
of James Carville.
cry of Bill Clinton, who went on to serve two consecutive terms,
leaving office with the highest job approval ratings in history.
Bill Clinton was not the only candidate who had pulled off such
a stunt. Jimmy Carter had done it in 1976, beating all the bigwigs
in his own party to claim the nomination of his party, en route to
winning the presidency. "Only the best" was his mantra.
It is anybody's game at this point in time. A new candidate
just entered the race, with no poll numbers at all. Nobody is
assured of winning the nomination, much less the election.
One will remain and the last man or woman standing will lose to Donald
Trump, I thought that was a obvious point.
Bill Weld may win the Republican nomination, putting an end
to Donald Trump's reign of terror.
if not only for a short time, as their chosen candidate prepares
to do battle with his Democratic opponent ...
If you do not believe that fantasy, here is another one -
Unlike the last election, the American people will decide who
they want, not the Russians. A legitimate president who would
serve them well.
However I am glad nonetheless, to clear up any confusion on your part.
People do not vote for a party, but for candidates of their choice.
Unlike the last election, the American people will decide who
they want, not the Russians. A legitimate president who would
serve them well.
On 07-11-19 21:32, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Lee Lofaso about Re: Nostradamus <=-
You know who's not going to be the primary winner? Tulsi Gabbard. The reason is because she's a veteran; liberals hate that. How would they
ever win the election if they back a person who served our country?
People who are willing to serve our country are not going to be
successful in the democratic primary; valor doesn't win liberal votes, unfortunately; the opposite does.
People do not vote for a party, but for candidates of their choice.
I must admit that I do in fact vote for a party. I can't be the only one.
Unlike the last election, the American people will decide who
they want, not the Russians. A legitimate president who would
serve them well.
You don't think that the primary winner will be the biggest gimmick
available
at the time? Whoever can use the most shock value to disgust conservatives; >somebody who truly hates the health & safety of the American citizens; the >one who will incite race wars and create the most hostile social climate >among whites & non-whites; Kamala's got this.
The only thing she's missing, to be a success in the Democratic primary, is >free health care for all who pass through the USA & Iran. <- That will seal >the deal for sure.
You know who's not going to be the primary winner? Tulsi Gabbard. The reason >is because she's a veteran; liberals hate that. How would they ever win the >election if they back a person who served our country? People who are
willing
to serve our country are not going to be successful in the democratic >primary; valor doesn't win liberal votes, unfortunately; the opposite does.
LL> >LL>I do not know any candidate by the name of The Democratic Party.
LL>
LL> >Does it matter that I did not name them, my point was obviously they will
LL> > ALL lose to or drop out of the race.
LL>
LL> Bush41 was flying high after he single-handedly pushed Iraq out
LL> of Kuwait in the Gulf War, his chances for winning a second term
LL> virtually assured, as his approval ratings were over 90 percent.
LL>
LL> In October 1991 a Democratic candidate from Arkansas entered the
LL> race for the Democratic nomination. Nobody gave him a snowball's
LL> chance in hell. He went on to win his party's nomination, and
LL> the White House, on a theme cooked up by a mad Cajun by the name
LL> of James Carville.
I thought I remembered you suggested year ago that you were related to
James Carville. I could be mistaken.
LL> "It's the economy, stupid!" became the rallying
LL> cry of Bill Clinton, who went on to serve two consecutive terms,
LL> leaving office with the highest job approval ratings in history.
LL>
LL> Bill Clinton was not the only candidate who had pulled off such
LL> a stunt. Jimmy Carter had done it in 1976, beating all the bigwigs
LL> in his own party to claim the nomination of his party, en route to
LL> winning the presidency. "Only the best" was his mantra.
LL>
LL> It is anybody's game at this point in time. A new candidate
LL> just entered the race, with no poll numbers at all. Nobody is
LL> assured of winning the nomination, much less the election.
LL>
LL> >One will remain and the last man or woman standing will lose to
Donald
LL> > Trump, I thought that was a obvious point.
LL>
LL> Bill Weld may win the Republican nomination, putting an end
LL> to Donald Trump's reign of terror.
Reign of Terror?
Excuse me, what reign of terror, only if your a Iranian.
Seriously though, do you even realize that today the stock market broke
another record today July 11, 2019
Republicans will then rejoice,
LL> if not only for a short time, as their chosen candidate prepares
LL> to do battle with his Democratic opponent ...
LL>
LL> If you do not believe that fantasy, here is another one -
LL>
LL> Unlike the last election, the American people will decide who
LL> they want, not the Russians. A legitimate president who would
LL> serve them well.
LL>
LL> >However I am glad nonetheless, to clear up any confusion on your
part.
LL>
History will repeat itself, Trump will be out there in the polls appearing >like he is not really doing that great, (It really does give the Democratic >party hope) - false hope but whatever. Then come September to October of >2020, you better sit down and hang on....
You are in for a real treat or a disaster, depending on which way you see >things.
I do not know any candidate by the name of The Democratic Party.
Does it matter that I did not name them, my point was obviously they will
ALL lose to or drop out of the race.
One will remain and the last man or woman standing will lose to Donald
Trump, I thought that was a obvious point.
However I am glad nonetheless, to clear up any confusion on your part.
at all. I am glad that people today have more choices, and that
there are multiple parties having candidates to choose from.
We survived having a black man as president. So why not a black woman?
Oh what a sight it will be when the first openly gay president
takes the stage with his husband on January 20, 2021 ...
On 07-14-19 14:03, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: War or Planefuls of <=-
On 07-14-19 14:03, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: War or Planefuls of <=-
It is not worth the effort to attempt to reason with you anymore. It is clear that you have not read the elements of obstruction of justice
that Mueller stated against Trump.
It is clear that you do not understand how Barr is doing exactly what Trump is directing him to do, i.e. working as Trump's lawyer and not the people's lawyer. There are carefully laid out rules about how the Whitehouse is not supposed to communicate with the Justice department except through particular channels -- and those channels do not include Trump telling Barr what to do, but that is what is happening.
The opinions you are spouting are so close to those issued by the far
right news outlets,
It is not worth the effort to attempt to reason with you anymore. It
is clear that you have not read the elements of obstruction of
justice that Mueller stated against Trump.
I guess we will have to return to the old ways, of agreeing to
disagree. With me being on the right, I can a achieve this quite effectively.
It is clear that you do not understand how Barr is doing exactly what
Trump is directing him to do, i.e. working as Trump's lawyer and not
the people's lawyer. There are carefully laid out rules about how
the Whitehouse is not supposed to communicate with the Justice
department except through particular channels -- and those channels
do not include Trump telling Barr what to do, but that is what is
happening.
Don't you listen to your boss or used to listen to your boss if you
are now retired. Anyway what I referring to is known as chain of
command and it happens everyday in every line of work. This is
something that is not indigenous to The White House. It's called
getting things done.
The Democrats are not use to a Republican President who will not
The opinions you are spouting are so close to those issued by the far
right news outlets,
It's funny that you mention this, I was just explaining to my wife the other day of what happens when I see news headlines on the internet. I always be sure to look for the outlet of where the story originated;
If the the story is from New York Times or the Washington Post, there
are many that are biased.
It has been seen time and time again that they don't give the truth at least not immediately it is buried within several paragraphs.
Left leaning newspapers have printed more stories that force them to
also print a statement of retraction. They also use from anonymous
sources more times than I care to remember, which are nothing more
then baseless statements that is not worth the paper that it's printed
on.
district, weat all. I am glad that people today have more choices, and that
there are multiple parties having candidates to choose from.
I agree, it's better to have choices. Sometimes, in my voting
have local elections with candidates running unopposed; it'sdisheartening
when the unopposed candidate is from my least favorite party.
with you being in the wrong, it is also achieved quite easily... that you cannot accept that is very telling...I don't back down ever and specially for snowflakes who have nothing but
trump is not a republican president... he is only wearing that classification like wearing dirty underwear...
the right-wing ones do the same thing...
with you being in the wrong, it is also achieved quite easily... that
you cannot accept that is very telling...
I don't back down ever and specially for snowflakes who have nothing
but hatred for our President.
If Dale does not want to continue the conversation for whatever
reason, I am more then ok with that.
But for the record, I am not wrong.
You libs are all the same you want to argue and debate and make accusations. You are incapable of agreeing to disagree.
trump is not a republican president... he is only wearing that
classification like wearing dirty underwear...
With his money?
You got the Trump Derangement Syndrome real bad.
You see I do not need to go off and act all bat-shit crazy to get my
point across.
I am on the right, life is as good as cherry pie.
the right-wing ones do the same thing...
We don't need to make fake ass and bias stories We Won! & We will Win again!
says he with his head firmly buried in the sand...
says he with his head firmly buried in the sand...
Believe me, my head is anything but buried in the sand,
On 2019 Jul 16 13:07:32, you wrote to me:
says he with his head firmly buried in the sand...
Believe me, my head is anything but buried in the sand,
willful ignorance: A decision in bad faith to avoid becoming informed about something so as to avoid having to make undesirable decisions that such information might prompt.
invincible ignorance: the fallacy of insisting on the legitimacy of one's position in the face of contradictory facts.
Your inability to refute what I have indicated show that your side has no facts contradictory or otherwise.
says he with his head firmly buried in the sand...
Believe me, my head is anything but buried in the sand,
willful ignorance: A decision in bad faith to avoid becoming informed about
something so as to avoid having to make undesirable decisions that such information might prompt.
invincible ignorance: the fallacy of insisting on the legitimacy of one's
position in the face of contradictory facts.
in other words, burying your head in the sand...
ml> ml>> says he with his head firmly buried in the sand...
ml>
ml> GD> Believe me, my head is anything but buried in the sand,
ml>
ml> willful ignorance: A decision in bad faith to avoid becoming informed
ml> about something so as to avoid having to make undesirable decisions that
ml> such information might prompt.
ml>
ml> invincible ignorance: the fallacy of insisting on the legitimacy of one's
ml> position in the face of contradictory facts.
Your inability to refute what I have indicated show that your side has no >facts contradictory or otherwise.
Oh what a sight it will be when the first openly gay president
takes the stage with his husband on January 20, 2021 ...
To hell with that idea,
wake up from your dream,
because that will not happen on January 20, 2021
and not does not have much potential of happening within
the next fifty years.
Willful ignorance - something that can be denied.
Invincible ignorance - something that cannot be denied.
Hello Greg,infor
ml> ml>> says he with his head firmly buried in the sand...
ml>
ml> GD> Believe me, my head is anything but buried in the sand,
ml>
ml> willful ignorance: A decision in bad faith to avoid becoming
decisionml> about something so as to avoid having to make undesirable
nothat
ml> such information might prompt.
ml>
ml> invincible ignorance: the fallacy of insisting on the legitimacy one's
ml> position in the face of contradictory facts.
Your inability to refute what I have indicated show that your side has
facts contradictory or otherwise.
Willful ignorance - something that can be denied.
Invincible ignorance - something that cannot be denied.
Well, now that we all know which one is which ...
Only 4 Republicans in the House have condemned the president's
words as being racist. Only 1 Republican in the Senate has
On 07-18-19 00:40, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Lee Lofaso about Re: What is wrong with yo <=-
Is it racist for a conservative nationalist to say that each of those
four women should go back to the country they're loyal to? Even if
Willful ignorance - something that can be denied.
Invincible ignorance - something that cannot be denied.
incorrect... they have specific meanings... look them up and learn something
;)
LL> > ml> ml>> says he with his head firmly buried in the sand...
LL> > ml>
LL> > ml> GD> Believe me, my head is anything but buried in the sand,
LL> > ml>
LL> > ml> willful ignorance: A decision in bad faith to avoid becoming infor
LL> > ml> about something so as to avoid having to make undesirable decision
LL> > that
LL> > ml> such information might prompt.
LL> > ml>
LL> > ml> invincible ignorance: the fallacy of insisting on the legitimacy o
LL> > one's
LL> > ml> position in the face of contradictory facts.
LL> >
LL> >Your inability to refute what I have indicated show that your side
has no
LL> >facts contradictory or otherwise.
LL>
LL> Willful ignorance - something that can be denied.
LL>
LL> Invincible ignorance - something that cannot be denied.
LL>
LL> Well, now that we all know which one is which ...
Don't about value- getting his money's worth out of the pocket dictionary
that he picked up at the local Wal*Mart.
Only 4 Republicans in the House have condemned the president's
words as being racist. Only 1 Republican in the Senate has
Republicans typically have bigger worries than racism analysis. Democrats
don't. Nothing more important going on in their lives, or in their constituents lives.
Is it racist for a conservative nationalist to say that each of those four
women should go back to the country they're loyal to?
Even if they've never been to their country of loyalty - they still "need to
go back there."
Sorry, this is the way some people talk.
Never come to liberal New York if you don't like it.
Meanwhile, back on earth:
What about Alexandria's border jumpers? They're tired of being forced to
drink urine from human skulls in the detention centers,
and we need to close the loophole that's forcing them into that predicament.
But wait - before we give a crap about that - The President Might Be Racist!
Let's act fast on a vote on whether or not the president is racist!
Nothing better to do!
There are times when we do not know we are ignorant. And there are
times when we recognize our ignorance. Usually, it makes no difference whether we know we are ignorant, or if we recognize our ignorace.
Unless the expected consequences are significant. In which case, we
can do whatever we want without consequence.
OTOH, if those expected consequences are unexpected ...
Maybe *she* should "go home" to Puerto Rico,
Nobody should be faced with the mean choice of accepting conditions as they are or abandoning the place he has grown up in. We not only have a right, we have a responsibility, to make our environment as just and as flourishing as our Founding Fathers declared it must be if it were to
live up to its aspiration as "the standard of the world."
THOSE WHO WANT to leave have a right to, but those who want to stay
and work for what they consider a better society must be protected in
that right--for without it, our nation would sink into stagnation, and
the process of change would harden into repression by those who benefit
by keeping things just as they are.
Wonderful speech Mark,
and I agree with you.
On 2019 Jul 22 07:26:54, you wrote to me:Then I agree with what you transcribed.
Wonderful speech Mark,
i didn't write it, i only transcribed it...
and I agree with you.
i don't believe you...
On 07-22-19 02:19, Mark Lewis <=-<<SNIP>>
spoke to Gregory Deyss about The 'love it or leave it' <=-
One of the most ignorant and hateful statements that a
person can make to another is "If you don't like it here,
why don't you leave?"
Sydney J Harris - July 21 1969 - Chicago Daily News
Wonderful speech Mark,
i didn't write it, i only transcribed it...
and I agree with you.
i don't believe you...
Then I agree with what you transcribed.
I did not see any issue with it and I read it several times.
Although I do find it interesting that you did not answer me.
Although I do find it interesting that you did not answer me.
i don't care to engage further with those posts.
On 07-23-19 06:11, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Lee Lofaso about Re: War or Planefuls of <=-
back." Standing up for thugs like Trayvon Martin - Barack even said
"If I had a Son he would like Trayvon.
Let's not forget the thug Michael Brown.
On 07-23-19 06:11, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Lee Lofaso about Re: War or Planefuls of <=-
back." Standing up for thugs like Trayvon Martin - Barack even said "If I had a Son he would like Trayvon.
On what basis do you have for calling Trayvon a thug? His only crime
was walking while black, and he was murdered for that by some wanta be
cop doing vigilante justice.
Let's not forget the thug Michael Brown.
Much the same, except this time it was a real cop that murdered him, firing multiple times while his hands were raised in the air.
On what basis do you have for calling Trayvon a thug? His only crime
was walking while black, and he was murdered for that by some wanta be
cop doing vigilante justice.
On 2019 Jul 21 08:20:56, you wrote to me:make to
Maybe *she* should "go home" to Puerto Rico,
One of the most ignorant and hateful statements that a person can
another is "If you don't like it here, why don't you leave?"
That attitude is the main reason America was founded, in all itshope and
energy and goodness. The people who came here, to make a better landthan had
ever been seen before by the common people, had been rebuffed andrejected by
their neighbors in the Old World.
On 07-24-19 07:08, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Walking while black <=-
Let's not forget the thug Michael Brown.
Much the same, except this time it was a real cop that murdered him, firing multiple times while his hands were raised in the air.
Do you live in a alternate reality where facts don't matter.
First of many facts that prove the case against Micheal Brown
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBWuULMdNw
On 07-24-19 14:39, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Walking while black <=-
On what basis do you have for calling Trayvon a thug? His only crime
was walking while black, and he was murdered for that by some wanta be
cop doing vigilante justice.
Be careful my liberal buddy; Trayvon was killed by a latino - it's not
pc to say anything bad about a latino unless it's US Senator Ted Cruz.
I know why the country was founded - and that the native Americans were unable to control immigration into THEIR country, and look what
There are disputed lands across the USA, but do any Democrats even have the nerve to try to exploit native Americans for votes? Maybe Elizabeth Warren should try promising some land back? :)
Instead of trying to pull out some irrelevant Youtube video, why don't
you at least bother to do a Google on the name and read any of the
several articles that report on the shooting of Brown and/or Martin?
Americans wereI know why the country was founded - and that the native
inunable to control immigration into THEIR country, and look what
I believe the majority of USA native American voters will back Trump
2020. I don't know natives from all around, but natives from thepueblos of
New Mexico are often complaining about illegal immigrants. They might consider me to be one, but we're still fighting the same battle.Extremely
patriotic people; many of whom are veterans.
didn't have ANYBODY that could speak or understand native American languages. Drove the Japanese nuts..
didn't have ANYBODY that could speak or understand native American >BA>languages. Drove the Japanese nuts..
They called them "code talkers." Not many of them are still alive, but I bet
they don't vote against America.
They called them "code talkers." Not many of them are still alive, but I
they don't vote against America.
They have their own nation(s).
alive, but IThey called them "code talkers." Not many of them are still
independent of thethey don't vote against America.
They have their own nation(s).
Yes, but their nation isn't akin to statehood; they're not
USA.
Elizabeth Warren is the only native American who I've heard of who is fighting for open borders. I wonder if she will get endorsement fromher
tribe? My sources say no!--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
On 08-01-19 10:12, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Lee Lofaso about Re: The 'love it or leave <=-
They called them "code talkers." Not many of them are
still alive, but I
they don't vote against America.
They have their own nation(s).
Yes, but their nation isn't akin to statehood; they're not independent
of the USA.
Elizabeth Warren is the only native American who I've heard of who is fighting for open borders. I wonder if she will get endorsement from
her tribe? My sources say no!
A. Elizabeth Warren has not said that she is native American, she has
said that she has a native American heritage. She does not have a
A. Elizabeth Warren has not said that she is native American, she has DS>said that she has a native American heritage.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 371 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 174:21:38 |
Calls: | 7,915 |
Files: | 12,983 |
Messages: | 5,797,648 |