This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
There is no need to revolt against government. There is however a need to revolt against the nomination process. It's obvious to everyone, even those willing to vote for the lesser of two evils every year. The fact that you can't see it does not surprise me at all. You've been blind on many issues. The NSA issue perhaps being the best example.
I would like to see some significant changes to the nomination process. But I don't understand what you mean by "revolt" in this context. Please explain.
With friends who are willing to vote for Hillary or Trump, we don't need enemies. You do what's best for you...you're not doing the rest of us any favors by settling.
The problem with this is that their base won't allow it, and anyone taking this path is at huge risk of getting primaried by a far right loon.
Trump is a proven fraud, an admitted sexual predator with a long history of both dangerous words and actions. He is also purposely fueling very dangerous flames all for personal gain and notoriety to feed his narcissism. Whatever you may think of Tim, he is none of the above and making such hyperbolic statements only hurts one's ability to legitimately respond and even denounce Tim's comments.
Revolt: an attempt to put an end to the authority of a person or a body.
What changes specifically and why? You're an establishment guy...mucking with the current process is the last thing a person in your position should want.
I've tried imagining realistic ways the Republican Party can change right now and I just can't see it. Their leadership is comfortable trying to maintain control of at least one house of Congress and winning gubernatorial races.
Yes I disagree with you on the NSA. But that doesn't make me "blind". At worst, in your opinion, it should make me wrong. Using words like "blind" to describe those who don't agree with your position is quite Trumpian of you.
It's been like that for a month and it's been clear since May he didn't have a campaign or intend to build one but go on.
I use the word blind because you refused to see that they were doing what everyone in the thread was saying they were doing. It went on for 500 pages. You were both blind and wrong.
I'm sure that they aren't really "comfortable" with it -- there just isn't any real way out considering the extremist fools that they are beholden to if they want to hold onto their seats.
The most important change I'd like to see is that the order of primary states should be randomly selected every 4 years. One cycle it might be Hawaii first, then Texas. It shouldn't always be Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. That gives outweighed importance to those few states.
Is this going to be the new thing? When one has mounds of evidence in front of them, contrary to their position, are told that X could/would happen AND it then happens while they continue to stay with their opinion, "blind" is a perfectly good adjective to describe them in this context. I'd personally choose willfully ignorant but to each his own.
And what significant impact do you see this having on the process?
Thanks for your permission to vote for the guy I actually support. I feel so much better now.
The job of political parties is to get someone from their Party elected, which is exactly what the DNC did.
If your vote is a protest against the two Parties, good, if it's because you think he's the best choice to lead the country starting in January, not so good.
OK so you want to see an end to our current two party system, which, with all its hiccups, has served us fairly well since 1865.
Gary is a good guy, but only slightly more prepared to execute the office of President than Trump. It's clear to anyone paying attention that he wants to spread the Libertarian message but isn't serious about being President.
Doesn't this come back to a Citizens United discussion about free speech? IN the earlier days of our country, a lot those doctor types got elected. Perhaps that's because there was no TV, no radio, no internet. Advertising was extremely limited. Newspapers existed, but were primarily local. The rich still had an advantage getting THEIR speech out, but it was possible for those of lesser means to be heard.
Fair enough. I don't necessarily disagree. But, I still maintain his flaws overall are less concerning that the others.
Regarding the bolded, I agree... and that's the problem we suffer from.
I pay attention to this stuff, and I have seen one document which appeared outright falsified. What's usually false or misleading are the summaries or 'analysis' pieces written by WL about what is in the emails.
I agree, and think I'll vote for him too since my vote in California doesn't matter. Hopefully it sends the message that I support social freedom, not cutting the government by 40%.
And while I don't agree, (mostly because I see Clinton as infinitely preferable to Trump, and because I see Trump as uniquely dangerous and utterly unqualified), that's a position I at least understand and respect
What journalist wants to stake their reputation to hacked emails posted by Wikileaks?
Aren't you voting for Hillary Clinton?
Reputation on what? State what it states and report on the possibility of disinformation. NYT & WaPo and other elite journalists are doing that right now. I can probably point you to the one instance of actually faked documentation if you like, but let me know if you know any others. Note, I'm distinguishing falsification of text or the emails themselves versus WL's statements about their contents.
- Yes, this happens.
Precedent says all he has to say is he didn't know what he was doing. Should be easy to beat
Defense attorneys everywhere: " Damn,Precedent says all he has to say is he didn't know what he was doing. Should be easy to beat
,why didn't I think of the 'my client didn't mean it' defense'."
Yeah they had to make people's lives miserable. Take food off their table. Make them put off medicine they need. It was for their own good. Listen to yourself man. This is that team mentality I talk about. Whatever my side does is excusable because win. But what did you win? What did those people win? Pretty sure those families don't feel like they won. That sentence is about the saddest thing I have read in a long time.
They shouldn't be too hard on themselves...until recently "ignorance" wasn't ever really accepted as a defense.Defense attorneys everywhere: " Damn,Precedent says all he has to say is he didn't know what he was doing. Should be easy to beat
