The USA Political Thread

[lennco]

Here you can spout your USA political views.

Rules:
1. Keep it clean
2. No fighting
3. Respect the views of others.
4. US Political views, No Religious views
5. Have fun

:wave:

 

[verbster]

Wow. She's 3 years old. One cute thing about kids is that age is that they don't yet grasp figurative speech (like an unfortunate number of adults these days). They take everything literally. That's cute to some people.

But don't worry. To a 3 year old, the importance of the world being on fire ranks slightly below whether she'll get ice cream after lunch. I had to laugh at the comments suggesting the parents be arrested for child endangerment. Now that's scary crazy talk. And an example of why the left is something to worry about.

yes, three years old, guileless and having no concept of figurative language, she still manages to ask the question which was the perfect foil to Cruz's biblical hyperbole.

I have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to arresting the parents, but once again it's a nice try at diverting the focus from Cruz. To take some wingnut's asinine reply to the video and act as though it applies to more than the person who said it (when you know it doesn't) is no better than Cruz telling a kid her world is on fire.

 

[Domainace]

So we agree, it was cute.

 

[verbster]

So we agree, it was cute.

No, we only agree that the little girl's question was cute.

 

[GILSAN]

It would have never been a story at MSNBC had it happened to Hillary or Obama or any Liberal. The BS Liberal media is simply trying to figure out ways to demonize the Conservative candidates.

They are making a mountain out of a molehill from this story, and if you read the comments it's just amazing how people are totally brainwashed.

 

[verbster]

It would have never been a story at MSNBC had it happened to Hillary or Obama or any Liberal. The BS Liberal media is simply trying to figure out ways to demonize the Conservative candidates.

They are making a mountain out of a molehill from this story, and if you read the comments it's just amazing how people are totally brainwashed.

It would not have been a story if Cruz hadn't acted like an idiot. Why is it you always blame liberals for stuff conservatives do to themselves?

Liberals don't need to try to figure out ways to demonize conservative candidates.

Half the comments on both sides are silly. My favorite: "The lesser of two evils is still evil."

Brainwashed. You've used that term more times in the last year than I've seen it used in my life. Guess you have been brainwashed into believing those who don't share your beliefs are the ones brainwashed.

 

[GILSAN]

It would not have been a story if Cruz hadn't acted like an idiot. Why is it you always blame liberals for stuff conservatives do to themselves?

Liberals don't need to try to figure out ways to demonize conservative candidates.

Half the comments on both sides are silly. My favorite: "The lesser of two evils is still evil."

Brainwashed. You've used that term more times in the last year than I've seen it used in my life. Guess you have been brainwashed into believing those who don't share your beliefs are the ones brainwashed.

Because the Liberal Media controls 80-90% of the MSM in the US and a little less in some countries in Europe, therefore they are the ones that are constantly demonizing conservatives. In the UK where UKIP is getting really popular and may win the next elections, you will find daily negative stories about Nigel Farage and UKIP, the same with France's Marine Le Pen, even though they make sense. The media is portraying them in the worst possible way.

Fu%k the BS Liberal media. I don't need them to form my opinions. Their brainwashing comes in obvious but also in subtle ways. They will never fool me.

Even in the last elections a few days ago in Israel, the stupid US Liberal Media kept on trying to convince people before the elections that Natanyahu was a racist and he was going to introduce apartheid and didn't want to negotiate with the Palestinians and would never allow for a two state solution etc etc... All BS propaganda. Good thing the Isralis are not so easily manipulated.

Natanyahu won and the Liberal Media was fuming mad and so was/is Obama. Goooood... I'm very happy for that!

The stupid US Liberal media kept misinforming the world about certain things that happened in Ferguson, like constantly showing us totally non-credible witnesses as credible, during all this time. See the article below

"Clearly some were not telling the truth": St Louis prosecutor claims witnesses lied under oath in Ferguson grand jury trial

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...son-witnesses-clearly-lied.html#ixzz3V4bLoXHc

Notice how the Daily Mail brainwashes us with the 2 pictures, one of Darren Wilson (left) and the other of Michael Brown. Notice how they love to put pictures of a much younger and more inocent looking Michael, while Darrel's picture is grainy to make him look a bit nastier than what he looks like. Treyvon Martin was the same story... always showing a picture of when he was a child.

If this is not brainwashing, what do you call it?

 

[DU]

In the UK where UKIP is getting really popular and may win the next elections,

Right now the projections indicate that the UKIP will win between 1-4 seats. You do know how the General Election works, right?
Right now there is a 90% chance of a hung parliament with majority Conservative.

*Really* popular is a little stretch especially with the last few months of disasters

Even in the last elections a few days ago in Israel, the stupid US Liberal Media kept on trying to convince people before the elections that Natanyahu was a racist and he was going to introduce apartheid and didn't want to negotiate with the Palestinians and would never allow for a two state solution etc etc... All BS propaganda. Good thing the Isralis are not so easily manipulated.

Natanyahu won and the Liberal Media was fuming mad and so was/is Obama. Goooood... I'm very happy for that!

You could try spelling his name correctly as this might add more credence to your argument. That said, I'm not sure why anyone would thing that Mr Netanyahu would institute a policy that is based on an Afrikaans language term for racial segregation in South Africa?

As for his desire to negotiate with the Palestinians?

Netanyahu was then asked specifically whether he meant that a Palestinian state would not be established if he were reelected prime minister. He answered, “Indeed.”

That was on film and published. It was BS propaganda. Directly from Netanyahu in an attempt to win the election.

Where do you even come up with this stuff?

{I know that he didn't say that he opposed a two-state solution just that it would not happen if he were re-election.... if he meant that it was just not possible with the circumstances but then his re-election would not have been relevant. I kind of go with what the people of Israel presumed and I know enough of them to know they thought}

 

[GILSAN]

Right now the projections indicate that the UKIP will win between 1-4 seats. You do know how the General Election works, right?
Right now there is a 90% chance of a hung parliament with majority Conservative.

*Really* popular is a little stretch especially with the last few months of disasters

Yes I have a fair idea of how the British elections work... and they are NOT the beam of Democracy that people are led to believe in. Here are some facts:

UK Parliament has 650 seats. The main 3 Parties being the Conservatives, Labour and Liberals.
If UKIP gets 18% of the popular vote in the next election they end up with 1 or 2 Seats.
Let me repeat: 1 or 2 seats out of a total of 650 seats for getting 18% of the popular vote.
But what's really shocking is that if the Liberals get 9% of the popular vote (half of what UKIP gets) the Liberals get 29 SEATS, yes 29 seats for 9% of the vote while UKIP gets 1-2 Seats for 18% of the vote. Isn't that something!

You can see from the link, the table shows more scenarios, but let me give you another example (you probably know this by now, but perhaps not everyone knows)
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/Analysis_UKIP.html

Look at this scenario:
Conservatives get 22% of Vote = 158 seats
Labour .......... get 36% " " = 386 seats
Liberals ......... get 9% " " = 32 seats
UKIP.............. get 24% " " = 46 seats
Notice how UKIP got 2% more votes than the conservatives but got 112 seats LESS. WTF is this crap? Is this what they call Democracy. This is 100 times worst than the US system.

Con % Lab % Lib % UKIP % CON seats LAB seats LIB seats UKIP seats
32 36 9 14 255 344 23 0
30 36 9 16 240 355 26 1
28 36 9 18 225 365 29 2
26 36 9 20 208 374 31 8
24 36 9 22 186 382 32 21
22 36 9 24 158 386 32 46
20 36 9 26 123 385 30 84
18 36 9 28 76 379 26 140
16 36 9 30 30 367 23 201
14 36 9 32 9 352 19 241
12 36 9 34 5 335 17 265
10 36 9 36 5 319 14 284
8 36 9 38 5 303 13 301

Sorry, but my table is not aligning properly.

So we can see how the Liberal Media are very keen in demonizing UKIP every day to keep them from getting at least 30% of the vote, which could put them into 1st spot depending on how Labour and Conservatives do.

You could try spelling his name correctly as this might add more credence to your argument. That said, I'm not sure why anyone would thing that Mr Netanyahu would institute a policy that is based on an Afrikaans language term for racial segregation in South Africa?

Natanyahu, Netanyahu, NetanYAHOO. Who gives a flying crap how I spelt it... except you of course, but then again you know everything and never make a mistake... right?

Everyone including you understood who I was talking about, so I'll call him NetanYAHOO from now on. It sounds exactly the same and if Google doesn't find it, then I'm sure Yahoo will.

 

[GILSAN]

Another day and another example of how the left with the help of their Media continue demonizing Nigel Farage of UKIP.

"Nigel Farage brands anti-Ukip protesters 'scum' after they invaded the pub where he was having a family lunch leaving his children terrified

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...leaving-children-terrified.html#ixzz3V96iEzXx

The pub was stormed by a group in fancy dress which included migrants, HIV activists, gay people, disabled people and breastfeeding mother. They are said to have gone into the Queen's Head, chased the Farages out and then jumped on the Ukip leader's car bonnet as he drove away.

Wouldn't surprise me that the left wing media informed this "scum" of Farages whereabouts.

 

[DU]

Yes I have a fair idea of how the British elections work... and they are NOT the beam of Democracy that people are led to believe in. Here are some facts:

No one claimed it was the beam of democracy (whatever a beam is). it is however a good example of a parliamentary democracy. I don't know what you consider a beam of Democracy... perhaps you are smarter than all of the influential people that initially setup the government system. Perhaps in the US Jefferson was just an idiot and in England the Magna Carta was just the scribblings of dumbasses.

UK Parliament has 650 seats. The main 3 Parties being the Conservatives, Labour and Liberals.
If UKIP gets 18% of the popular vote in the next election they end up with 1 or 2 Seats.
Let me repeat: 1 or 2 seats out of a total of 650 seats for getting 18% of the popular vote.
But what's really shocking is that if the Liberals get 9% of the popular vote (half of what UKIP gets) the Liberals get 29 SEATS, yes 29 seats for 9% of the vote while UKIP gets 1-2 Seats for 18% of the vote. Isn't that something!

You can see from the link, the table shows more scenarios, but let me give you another example (you probably know this by now, but perhaps not everyone knows)
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/Analysis_UKIP.html

Firstly these are all projections based on flawed assumptions - you are taking the numbers where each UKIP vote is taken directly from a Conservative vote (which will more usually be the case). These are just projections and are not really about the UKIP but about how difficult it is for any minority party to garner seats. The idea that this is somehow because they are UKIP is ridiculous. It would impact any party whether totally left or right wing.

The way seats are assigned is not based on a proportional vote system. In fact the entire basis of the parliamentary system is based on local elections rather than national elections for a good reason. It's not perfect but in theory it should provide better results for more marginal constituencies (though key areas would obviously disagree due to the perceived London bias - which is not entirely based solely on appearance but has real basis). This is why there has been push for more direct power / independence to specific regions.

So I'm not sure what your point is. The UKIP has popular areas, has popular support in some communities but it's their policies and actions that dictate feeling towards them not what the media says. They have had a significant number of bad press because they can't keep their party lines organized. Nigel Farage is a very smart man and a very good speaker; however, there are still core party members that remind people of the EDL and while a lot of people might not like all aspects of diversity they understand what are fair lines to draw before stepping into Xenophobia.

Natanyahu, Netanyahu, NetanYAHOO. Who gives a flying crap how I spelt it... except you of course, but then again you know everything and never make a mistake... right?

I guess i shold not expect anyone from Portogol or that Madeera place to understand why you should get someone's name right. I don't think I would get much respect for my understanding of Madeera culture if I said Medera. or whatever you Portogeezers say. I would have thought given the amount of media you consume to find excesses and issue (and the truth) you'd have read his name enough to know how to spell it, though. To many it may show laziness - if you don't look up his name (easily found with Google or Yahoo) - how much effort have you made to escape your own personal information bubble?

Another day and another example of how the left with the help of their Media continue demonizing Nigel Farage of UKIP.

"Nigel Farage brands anti-Ukip protesters 'scum' after they invaded the pub where he was having a family lunch leaving his children terrified

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...leaving-children-terrified.html#ixzz3V96iEzXx.

You are quoting the DailyFail - this is a paper that is fairly far on the right. I'm not sure what makes you think they are anti-UKIP. The BBC site doesn't mention "scum" at all on the heading....aren't they msm?

What is a non-msm source that you trust? What was their take on events? Pretty much every one (including the link you have) was more critical of the protestors than Mr Farage. Or at least that was my reading.

 

[verbster]

Oh boy, Teddy "Canadian" Cruz jumps into the ring first. Now Democrats get to be birthers.

 

[GILSAN]

At least this so-called non American makes a lot more sense than Obama. No PC crap from him

Bowe Bergdahl, a U.S. soldier who has long been suspected of abandoning his Afghanistan outpost in 2009, has been charged with desertion,

Yet, all this time Obama and the Liberal Media have been trying to convince people that Begdahl was a hero.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/201...peaks-recovery-sgt-bowe-bergdahl-its-good-day

 

[DU]

At least this so-called non American makes a lot more sense than Obama. No PC crap from him

head desk

 

[GILSAN]

head desk

Speak in English please

 

[verbster]

At least this so-called non American makes a lot more sense than Obama. No PC crap from him

What exactly is Obama doing that doesn't make sense to you?

No PC crap, eh? That'll be the day. Every candidate covers themselves by trying to be all things for all people, or when they say something idiotic...and they all do. The only people who think their favorites don't make mistakes or only speak the truth are the people who already believe the stuff being preached.

It's easy for candidates like Cruz to make sweeping criticisms as a way to discredit others, implying by their criticism that they could have done better or will solve what they are criticizing, which is never true. Criticizing is just the easy route to take because blaming seems to work better at getting a vote than telling the truth. Convincing people that something is wrong and that someone else is to blame is easy. It's simple divide and conquer strategy, a way to further polarize beliefs and divert focus from the fact that the criticizers have no real plans that will make things better for all, not just some.

Just listen carefully to candidates talk, and use some critical thinking skills to question what they say. Like Cruz's position of eliminating the IRS, while at the same time yapping about a flat tax...well, which is it going to be? If a flat tax is instituted, who's going to be in charge of instituting it and taking care of the whole revenue situation? You can't get rid of the IRS, and then re-establish a new IRS and act like you've accomplished something. Or take Obamacare, a term that causes some people to turn rabid just hearing it said. Unfortunately, most of its critics can't explain it or what specifically makes it so bad to them. Many don't even know that obamacare is the same thing as the affordable care act.

And what about people who influence the candidates? I mean, it's easy to criticize the church Obama attended because of the things the preacher said and thus how people thought it affected Obama, but it's the same, actually worse, with Cruz's preacher father and the nutty things he claims all the time, like "homosexuality and evolutionary biology are Marxist tools to undermine the traditional family and 'destroy' God." Easy to say, like denying evolution, and truly believing Noah could get two of everything on board the ark that wasn't even the size of a football field and not even getting into how repopulation could have happened without a genetic pool for diversity. None of it is true. It's all just propaganda.

 

[GILSAN]

Easy to say, like denying evolution, and truly believing Noah could get two of everything on board the ark.

Evolution, evolution, what a laugh. As long as there are monkeys on earth, evolution is a load of BS. The true evolution's happening can be seen on the images below

 

[verbster]

Evolution, evolution, what a laugh. As long as there are monkeys on earth, evolution is a load of BS. The true evolution's happening can be seen on the images below.

You seem to think that every monkey should have evolved into humans, that evolution changes every single animal, or something. Do you believe dinosaurs existed? Why or why not?

 

[GILSAN]

You seem to think that every monkey should have evolved into humans, that evolution changes every single animal, or something. Do you believe dinosaurs existed? Why or why not?

Is the Pope a Catholic? Why or why not?

Dinosaurs... they probably started as chickens and then grew pretty big.... or was it the other way round? Damn crazy evolution scientists sometimes confuse the hell out of me with all these theories

And here is Tex, the rooster the size of a Dino. Of course he is from Texas,,, where everything is big

 

[verbster]

Is the Pope a Catholic? Why or why not?

Dinosaurs... they probably started as chickens and then grew pretty big.... or was it the other way round? Damn crazy evolution scientists sometimes confuse the hell out of me with all these theories

And here is Tex, the rooster the size of a Dino. Of course he is from Texas,,, where everything is big

So if you believe dino's existed, and you believe in creationism, that the world and everything in it was created in six days, that would mean that humans and dino's existed at the same time, right?

And while we're there, I asked why or why not because if you believe in the science of fossils (as evidence of dinosaurs), then that creates a problem with everything being created at the same time . . . unless you're one of those who think six days isn't literal, and could mean six billion years . . . then again, why would so much time be necessary if all the plants and animals didn't evolve to survive.

FYI, I was born in Texas, and can tell you for sure if you think things are big there, go to Alaska and see what big really is.

 

[GILSAN]

If you aspire to be Politically Progressive, then here's a guide for you: