|
If they aren't the same
Why do their speeches sound so much alike ;-)
|
If they aren't the same
|
If they aren't the same
wrote:
Why do their speeches sound so much alike ;-) Same speech writer? Shudder hired Harry? |
If they aren't the same
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:39:38 -0500, Califbill wrote:
wrote: Why do their speeches sound so much alike ;-) Same speech writer? Shudder hired Harry? Great minds think alike? |
If they aren't the same
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 06:15:19 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 7/19/16 2:17 AM, wrote: Why do their speeches sound so much alike ;-) Not to worry...isn't Potsie speaking tonight? ?? I didn't even know Anson Williams was going to be there. I see Chachi is a Trump guy tho. |
If they aren't the same
Poquito Loco
- hide quoted text - On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:39:38 -0500, Califbill wrote: wrote: Why do their speeches sound so much alike Â*;-) Same speech writer? Â*Shudder hired Harry? "Great minds think alike?" you do realize that the 2nd part of that saying is..... "and fools seldom differ!" |
If they aren't the same
|
If they aren't the same
Poquito Loco Wrote in message:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:39:38 -0500, Califbill wrote: wrote: Why do their speeches sound so much alike ;-) Same speech writer? Shudder hired Harry? Great minds think alike? Even the Hillery mob wouldn't hire Harry. God knows he must have tried to get hired. -- x ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
If they aren't the same
True North Wrote in message:
Poquito Loco - hide quoted text - On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:39:38 -0500, Califbill wrote: wrote: Why do their speeches sound so much alike ;-) Same speech writer? Shudder hired Harry? "Great minds think alike?" you do realize that the 2nd part of that saying is..... "and fools seldom differ!" The second part refers to you and your ass wipe. Right? -- x ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
If they aren't the same
On 7/19/16 12:22 PM, justan wrote:
True North Wrote in message: Poquito Loco - hide quoted text - On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:39:38 -0500, Califbill wrote: wrote: Why do their speeches sound so much alike ;-) Same speech writer? Shudder hired Harry? "Great minds think alike?" you do realize that the 2nd part of that saying is..... "and fools seldom differ!" The second part refers to you and your ass wipe. Right? That must have been your rating in the navy: chief of the ship ass wiper |
If they aren't the same
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 11:54:42 -0400, Poquito Loco
wrote: On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:39:38 -0500, Califbill wrote: wrote: Why do their speeches sound so much alike ;-) Same speech writer? Shudder hired Harry? Great minds think alike? Actually when I hear the 5 or 6 lines that they are complaining about, it really just sounds like the same hackneyed phrases most 1st ladies roll out there about family values and handing things down to your kids. Martha Washington probably said the same crap 235 years ago. At least nobody is accusing Melania of plagiarizing Hillary. The Clintons don't have any family values. At least, like most things Clinton, "there is no evidence to support that" and "what difference does it make"? |
If they aren't the same
On 7/19/16 12:27 PM, wrote:
The Clintons don't have any family values. Bull**** |
If they aren't the same
On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 12:27:58 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 11:54:42 -0400, Poquito Loco wrote: On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:39:38 -0500, Califbill wrote: wrote: Why do their speeches sound so much alike ;-) Same speech writer? Shudder hired Harry? Great minds think alike? Actually when I hear the 5 or 6 lines that they are complaining about, it really just sounds like the same hackneyed phrases most 1st ladies roll out there about family values and handing things down to your kids. Martha Washington probably said the same crap 235 years ago. At least nobody is accusing Melania of plagiarizing Hillary. The Clintons don't have any family values. At least, like most things Clinton, "there is no evidence to support that" and "what difference does it make"? What's really obvious is that someone (or a "team" of peeps) were tasked with comparing her speech to others and ultimately attacking and try to tear her and Trump apart. You really can't tell me that some reporter remembers phrases used in a minor speech 8 years ago. The LWM discrediting machine is in pedal to the metal mode. |
If they aren't the same
11:27
- show quoted text - Actually when I hear the 5 or 6 lines that they are complaining about, it really just sounds like the same hackneyed phrases most 1st ladies roll out there about family values and handing things down to your kids. Martha Washington probably said the same crap 235 years ago. At least nobody is accusing Melania of plagiarizing Hillary. The Clintons don't have any family values. At least, like most things Clinton, "there is no evidence to support that" and "what difference does it make"? ...... What difference does it make? Exactly! Joe Biden plagiarized papers in college and he's Vice President. |
If they aren't the same
On 7/19/16 2:10 PM, Tim wrote:
11:27 - show quoted text - Actually when I hear the 5 or 6 lines that they are complaining about, it really just sounds like the same hackneyed phrases most 1st ladies roll out there about family values and handing things down to your kids. Martha Washington probably said the same crap 235 years ago. At least nobody is accusing Melania of plagiarizing Hillary. The Clintons don't have any family values. At least, like most things Clinton, "there is no evidence to support that" and "what difference does it make"? ..... What difference does it make? Exactly! Joe Biden plagiarized papers in college and he's Vice President. Whatever the Trumps do is fine with the Trumpites |
If they aren't the same
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 12:59:36 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 7/19/16 12:27 PM, wrote: The Clintons don't have any family values. Bull**** Maybe the denied "stand by you man" thing but they certainly have problems with honesty, ethics and integrity. Bill admitted lying under oath and gave up his law license for it. Hillary has lied to us about the emails, among other things and Comey confirmed it. I think that by October, we are going to hear a lot more about her and as much as the dumbocrats say "what difference does it make", I suspect it will. The only reason she has a chance is her opponent is Trump. There are a half dozen other people who would beat her. |
If they aren't the same
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:01:38 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote: On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 12:27:58 PM UTC-4, wrote: On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 11:54:42 -0400, Poquito Loco wrote: On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:39:38 -0500, Califbill wrote: wrote: Why do their speeches sound so much alike ;-) Same speech writer? Shudder hired Harry? Great minds think alike? Actually when I hear the 5 or 6 lines that they are complaining about, it really just sounds like the same hackneyed phrases most 1st ladies roll out there about family values and handing things down to your kids. Martha Washington probably said the same crap 235 years ago. At least nobody is accusing Melania of plagiarizing Hillary. The Clintons don't have any family values. At least, like most things Clinton, "there is no evidence to support that" and "what difference does it make"? What's really obvious is that someone (or a "team" of peeps) were tasked with comparing her speech to others and ultimately attacking and try to tear her and Trump apart. You really can't tell me that some reporter remembers phrases used in a minor speech 8 years ago. The LWM discrediting machine is in pedal to the metal mode. It is only a half dozen throw away lines in a 17 minute speech but it is also an unforced error. I bet the Donald has fired a few people by now. |
If they aren't the same
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 14:25:15 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 7/19/16 2:10 PM, Tim wrote: 11:27 - show quoted text - Actually when I hear the 5 or 6 lines that they are complaining about, it really just sounds like the same hackneyed phrases most 1st ladies roll out there about family values and handing things down to your kids. Martha Washington probably said the same crap 235 years ago. At least nobody is accusing Melania of plagiarizing Hillary. The Clintons don't have any family values. At least, like most things Clinton, "there is no evidence to support that" and "what difference does it make"? ..... What difference does it make? Exactly! Joe Biden plagiarized papers in college and he's Vice President. Whatever the Trumps do is fine with the Trumpites I am still not sure what she did. They were the same basic platitudes we hear all the time and a fairly insignificant amount of the number of words she read. I am curious who actually wrote it tho. These people are pretty slow on the uptake. If they had their head a quarter inch out of their ass, Melania would have said that she was so taken by Michelle's speech that it influenced what she said 8 years later. Lame for sure but better than anything I heard them say so far. |
If they aren't the same
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 11:10:06 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:
11:27 - show quoted text - Actually when I hear the 5 or 6 lines that they are complaining about, it really just sounds like the same hackneyed phrases most 1st ladies roll out there about family values and handing things down to your kids. Martha Washington probably said the same crap 235 years ago. At least nobody is accusing Melania of plagiarizing Hillary. The Clintons don't have any family values. At least, like most things Clinton, "there is no evidence to support that" and "what difference does it make"? ..... What difference does it make? Exactly! That's Hillary's line, isn't it? |
If they aren't the same
Keyser Söze Wrote in message:
On 7/19/16 12:27 PM, wrote: The Clintons don't have any family values. Bull**** Im sure Billy was valueing Hilly when he stained the infamous blue dress. The weak and meek HillySTANDS BY HER MAN. The two of them make me want to vomit. -- x ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
If they aren't the same
Keyser Söze Wrote in message:
On 7/19/16 2:10 PM, Tim wrote: 11:27 - show quoted text - Actually when I hear the 5 or 6 lines that they are complaining about, it really just sounds like the same hackneyed phrases most 1st ladies roll out there about family values and handing things down to your kids. Martha Washington probably said the same crap 235 years ago. At least nobody is accusing Melania of plagiarizing Hillary. The Clintons don't have any family values. At least, like most things Clinton, "there is no evidence to support that" and "what difference does it make"? ..... What difference does it make? Exactly! Joe Biden plagiarized papers in college and he's Vice President. Whatever the Trumps do is fine with the Trumpites Whatever the Clintons did do and would like to do is fine with you. But, what difference does it make. You are a nobody who demands no respect from anyone except your dumb kanadian buddy. -- x ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
If they aren't the same
Poquito Loco Wrote in message:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 11:10:06 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: 11:27 - show quoted text - Actually when I hear the 5 or 6 lines that they are complaining about, it really just sounds like the same hackneyed phrases most 1st ladies roll out there about family values and handing things down to your kids. Martha Washington probably said the same crap 235 years ago. At least nobody is accusing Melania of plagiarizing Hillary. The Clintons don't have any family values. At least, like most things Clinton, "there is no evidence to support that" and "what difference does it make"? ..... What difference does it make? Exactly! That's Hillary's line, isn't it? She owns it and couldn't give it away if she tried. -- x ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
If they aren't the same
On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 5:14:03 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/19/16 4:10 PM, wrote: On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:01:38 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote: On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 12:27:58 PM UTC-4, wrote: On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 11:54:42 -0400, Poquito Loco wrote: On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:39:38 -0500, Califbill wrote: wrote: Why do their speeches sound so much alike ;-) Same speech writer? Shudder hired Harry? Great minds think alike? Actually when I hear the 5 or 6 lines that they are complaining about, it really just sounds like the same hackneyed phrases most 1st ladies roll out there about family values and handing things down to your kids. Martha Washington probably said the same crap 235 years ago. At least nobody is accusing Melania of plagiarizing Hillary. The Clintons don't have any family values. At least, like most things Clinton, "there is no evidence to support that" and "what difference does it make"? What's really obvious is that someone (or a "team" of peeps) were tasked with comparing her speech to others and ultimately attacking and try to tear her and Trump apart. You really can't tell me that some reporter remembers phrases used in a minor speech 8 years ago. The LWM discrediting machine is in pedal to the metal mode. It is only a half dozen throw away lines in a 17 minute speech but it is also an unforced error. I bet the Donald has fired a few people by now. David Frum thinks the latest Trump ****-ups are predictors: Since Sunday, every journalist at this convention has been collecting examples of the Trump campaign’s failures and incompetence: the quarrel with Ohio Governor John Kasich, the absent senators and governors, the no-show donors, the convention’s financial embarrassments, the floor fight over rules, the lack of a proper schedule, and the defective apps and other technology. Suddenly, there is one easy-to-understand incident that encapsulates in one grim joke all this convention’s cavalcade of derp. "one grim joke" Mo Trump has just vividly demonstrated that his campaign—never mind the campaign, he himself—have zero skill at crisis management. Confronted with this comically absurd failure, their instinct is not only to lie, shift blame, and refuse responsibility, but to do so in laughably unbelievable ways. It’s all a big joke when the crisis in question is a plagiarized speech by a would-be first lady. It won’t be so funny when a President Trump tries to manage a truly life-and-death crisis in the same blundering, dopey, and cowardly way. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...atters/492038/ hmmm, I wonder if he'll duck his head while running under sniper fire? |
If they aren't the same
On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 10:39:44 AM UTC-5, Califbill wrote:
wrote: Why do their speeches sound so much alike ;-) Same speech writer? Shudder hired Harry? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoE0KLGUs_I |
If they aren't the same
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 18:14:00 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 7/19/16 4:10 PM, wrote: It is only a half dozen throw away lines in a 17 minute speech but it is also an unforced error. I bet the Donald has fired a few people by now. David Frum thinks the latest Trump ****-ups are predictors: Since Sunday, every journalist at this convention has been collecting examples of the Trump campaign’s failures and incompetence: the quarrel with Ohio Governor John Kasich, the absent senators and governors, the no-show donors, the convention’s financial embarrassments, the floor fight over rules, the lack of a proper schedule, and the defective apps and other technology. Suddenly, there is one easy-to-understand incident that encapsulates in one grim joke all this convention’s cavalcade of derp. "one grim joke" Mo Trump has just vividly demonstrated that his campaign—never mind the campaign, he himself—have zero skill at crisis management. Confronted with this comically absurd failure, their instinct is not only to lie, shift blame, and refuse responsibility, but to do so in laughably unbelievable ways. It’s all a big joke when the crisis in question is a plagiarized speech by a would-be first lady. It won’t be so funny when a President Trump tries to manage a truly life-and-death crisis in the same blundering, dopey, and cowardly way. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...atters/492038/ Trump could not be helping Hillary more if he was being paid to ... and he might be. I wonder what big government contract or regulatory concession he will land in 2017? I am sure it would just be a coincidence tho. |
If they aren't the same
|
If they aren't the same
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 23:17:35 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote: That's just Republican/Teabagger bull****. How is 14 weeks = 2 years? http://tinyurl.com/79p97z3 "So that means Democrats had an effective filibuster-proof majority for about 14 weeks." I'm surprised you tried to get that past a non-wingnut. I suppose after looking at that, I would say it is a stretch. "technically" is still "true" so the dems did have 60 from July 7 until Feb 4 when Brown took office so it is more than 14 weeks and I am curious about haw many filibusters they had in that time when they were down to 59? (Jan to July) If it was a problem, why didn't Teddy step down and get Kirk in there sooner? More of that Kennedy hubris? I suppose I could go look at Thomas and see but I really do not care enough to dig through hundreds of bills and look at the votes I think Mother Jones is cooking the books as much as the wingnuts. |
If they aren't the same
|
If they aren't the same
On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 12:17:34 AM UTC-4, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 21:45:34 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... I think that by October, we are going to hear a lot more about her and as much as the dumbocrats say "what difference does it make", I suspect it will. The only reason she has a chance is her opponent is Trump. There are a half dozen other people who would beat her. Sure, but they are all Democrats. Why didn't the democrats pick one of them? I ask the republicans the same question. HRC had the machine. That's how it works. The Republicans had.......Trump. It's their speed now. This is a national death wish. Whoever wins, it will be a disaster. Are you saying we should change our form of government? Good luck with that. Besides, it's only unreasonable people that don't get along. Pretty soon, they won't be elected to public office. The people won't stand for it. That has to be the most stupid statement I've read in a long time. The sheeple will continue to elect the people that promise them the most. Being reasonable doesn't play into that equation at all. |
If they aren't the same
On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 05:48:21 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote: On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 12:17:34 AM UTC-4, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 21:45:34 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... I think that by October, we are going to hear a lot more about her and as much as the dumbocrats say "what difference does it make", I suspect it will. The only reason she has a chance is her opponent is Trump. There are a half dozen other people who would beat her. Sure, but they are all Democrats. Why didn't the democrats pick one of them? I ask the republicans the same question. HRC had the machine. That's how it works. The Republicans had.......Trump. It's their speed now. This is a national death wish. Whoever wins, it will be a disaster. Are you saying we should change our form of government? Good luck with that. Besides, it's only unreasonable people that don't get along. Pretty soon, they won't be elected to public office. The people won't stand for it. That has to be the most stupid statement I've read in a long time. The sheeple will continue to elect the people that promise them the most. Being reasonable doesn't play into that equation at all. I left that one teed up there, figuring someone else could knock it out of the park. Anyone who thinks the system works, is just not paying attention. |
If they aren't the same
In article ,
says... On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 05:48:21 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote: On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 12:17:34 AM UTC-4, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 21:45:34 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... I think that by October, we are going to hear a lot more about her and as much as the dumbocrats say "what difference does it make", I suspect it will. The only reason she has a chance is her opponent is Trump. There are a half dozen other people who would beat her. Sure, but they are all Democrats. Why didn't the democrats pick one of them? I ask the republicans the same question. HRC had the machine. That's how it works. The Republicans had.......Trump. It's their speed now. This is a national death wish. Whoever wins, it will be a disaster. Are you saying we should change our form of government? Good luck with that. Besides, it's only unreasonable people that don't get along. Pretty soon, they won't be elected to public office. The people won't stand for it. That has to be the most stupid statement I've read in a long time. The sheeple will continue to elect the people that promise them the most. Being reasonable doesn't play into that equation at all. I left that one teed up there, figuring someone else could knock it out of the park. Anyone who thinks the system works, is just not paying attention. It was a simple question. "Are you saying we should change our form of government?" You could have just answered it. What do you propose? Go ahead and knock it out of the park. Otherwise it's just sour grapes on your part. I know, I know, there are some people that want to control everything. But I have a vote, so they have to contend with me. That's how it works in the USA. I like that, win or lose. |
If they aren't the same
Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 05:48:21 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote: On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 12:17:34 AM UTC-4, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 21:45:34 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... I think that by October, we are going to hear a lot more about her and as much as the dumbocrats say "what difference does it make", I suspect it will. The only reason she has a chance is her opponent is Trump. There are a half dozen other people who would beat her. Sure, but they are all Democrats. Why didn't the democrats pick one of them? I ask the republicans the same question. HRC had the machine. That's how it works. The Republicans had.......Trump. It's their speed now. This is a national death wish. Whoever wins, it will be a disaster. Are you saying we should change our form of government? Good luck with that. Besides, it's only unreasonable people that don't get along. Pretty soon, they won't be elected to public office. The people won't stand for it. That has to be the most stupid statement I've read in a long time. The sheeple will continue to elect the people that promise them the most. Being reasonable doesn't play into that equation at all. I left that one teed up there, figuring someone else could knock it out of the park. Anyone who thinks the system works, is just not paying attention. It was a simple question. "Are you saying we should change our form of government?" You could have just answered it. What do you propose? Go ahead and knock it out of the park. Otherwise it's just sour grapes on your part. I know, I know, there are some people that want to control everything. But I have a vote, so they have to contend with me. That's how it works in the USA. I like that, win or lose. Over the years our government has changed. States Rights, seem to have been killed. How we pick the President has changed somewhat. Used to be the state legislatures picked the Electoral College members. That mores in to the citizens of each state voting on the members. Some states have inner take all, others split the vote. But the we are going the Republic may have a hard time surviving. |
If they aren't the same
On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 17:24:23 -0500, Califbill wrote:
Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 05:48:21 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote: On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 12:17:34 AM UTC-4, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 21:45:34 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... I think that by October, we are going to hear a lot more about her and as much as the dumbocrats say "what difference does it make", I suspect it will. The only reason she has a chance is her opponent is Trump. There are a half dozen other people who would beat her. Sure, but they are all Democrats. Why didn't the democrats pick one of them? I ask the republicans the same question. HRC had the machine. That's how it works. The Republicans had.......Trump. It's their speed now. This is a national death wish. Whoever wins, it will be a disaster. Are you saying we should change our form of government? Good luck with that. Besides, it's only unreasonable people that don't get along. Pretty soon, they won't be elected to public office. The people won't stand for it. That has to be the most stupid statement I've read in a long time. The sheeple will continue to elect the people that promise them the most. Being reasonable doesn't play into that equation at all. I left that one teed up there, figuring someone else could knock it out of the park. Anyone who thinks the system works, is just not paying attention. It was a simple question. "Are you saying we should change our form of government?" You could have just answered it. What do you propose? Go ahead and knock it out of the park. Otherwise it's just sour grapes on your part. I know, I know, there are some people that want to control everything. But I have a vote, so they have to contend with me. That's how it works in the USA. I like that, win or lose. Over the years our government has changed. States Rights, seem to have been killed. How we pick the President has changed somewhat. Used to be the state legislatures picked the Electoral College members. That mores in to the citizens of each state voting on the members. Some states have inner take all, others split the vote. But the we are going the Republic may have a hard time surviving. Luckily, we'll be dead before everyone must learn Chinese. |
If they aren't the same
Poquito Loco wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 17:24:23 -0500, Califbill wrote: Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 05:48:21 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote: On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 12:17:34 AM UTC-4, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 21:45:34 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... I think that by October, we are going to hear a lot more about her and as much as the dumbocrats say "what difference does it make", I suspect it will. The only reason she has a chance is her opponent is Trump. There are a half dozen other people who would beat her. Sure, but they are all Democrats. Why didn't the democrats pick one of them? I ask the republicans the same question. HRC had the machine. That's how it works. The Republicans had.......Trump. It's their speed now. This is a national death wish. Whoever wins, it will be a disaster. Are you saying we should change our form of government? Good luck with that. Besides, it's only unreasonable people that don't get along. Pretty soon, they won't be elected to public office. The people won't stand for it. That has to be the most stupid statement I've read in a long time. The sheeple will continue to elect the people that promise them the most. Being reasonable doesn't play into that equation at all. I left that one teed up there, figuring someone else could knock it out of the park. Anyone who thinks the system works, is just not paying attention. It was a simple question. "Are you saying we should change our form of government?" You could have just answered it. What do you propose? Go ahead and knock it out of the park. Otherwise it's just sour grapes on your part. I know, I know, there are some people that want to control everything. But I have a vote, so they have to contend with me. That's how it works in the USA. I like that, win or lose. Over the years our government has changed. States Rights, seem to have been killed. How we pick the President has changed somewhat. Used to be the state legislatures picked the Electoral College members. That mores in to the citizens of each state voting on the members. Some states have inner take all, others split the vote. But the we are going the Republic may have a hard time surviving. Luckily, we'll be dead before everyone must learn Chinese. They may win an economic war, but I doubt they control the country. More like a despot takes over and declares marshal law. |
If they aren't the same
On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 15:33:41 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 05:48:21 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote: On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 12:17:34 AM UTC-4, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 21:45:34 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... I think that by October, we are going to hear a lot more about her and as much as the dumbocrats say "what difference does it make", I suspect it will. The only reason she has a chance is her opponent is Trump. There are a half dozen other people who would beat her. Sure, but they are all Democrats. Why didn't the democrats pick one of them? I ask the republicans the same question. HRC had the machine. That's how it works. The Republicans had.......Trump. It's their speed now. This is a national death wish. Whoever wins, it will be a disaster. Are you saying we should change our form of government? Good luck with that. Besides, it's only unreasonable people that don't get along. Pretty soon, they won't be elected to public office. The people won't stand for it. That has to be the most stupid statement I've read in a long time. The sheeple will continue to elect the people that promise them the most. Being reasonable doesn't play into that equation at all. I left that one teed up there, figuring someone else could knock it out of the park. Anyone who thinks the system works, is just not paying attention. It was a simple question. "Are you saying we should change our form of government?" You could have just answered it. What do you propose? Go ahead and knock it out of the park. Otherwise it's just sour grapes on your part. I know, I know, there are some people that want to control everything. But I have a vote, so they have to contend with me. That's how it works in the USA. I like that, win or lose. We are not going to change our form of government, at least not in a constitutional sense but saying congress is full of feckless and pandering assholes is not changing the government, it is just stating fact. |
If they aren't the same
On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 17:24:23 -0500, Califbill
wrote: Over the years our government has changed. States Rights, seem to have been killed. How we pick the President has changed somewhat. Used to be the state legislatures picked the Electoral College members. That mores in to the citizens of each state voting on the members. Some states have inner take all, others split the vote. But the we are going the Republic may have a hard time surviving. Those were constitutional changes via amendments and over reaching SCOTUS decisions. I think BAO is just talking about the legislative process and that is mostly guided by senate and house rules. They are not even laws. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:24 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com