Just an observance ....
 

On 9/23/18 10:38 PM, Tim wrote:

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 21:19:52 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/23/18 8:17 PM, Bill wrote:

So it is okay when a Democrat President appoints an ultra liberal leftist?


I'm not aware of any "ultra liberal leftists" Democratic presidents have
nominated to the Supreme Court.
Kagan? Sotomayor? Ginsburg?
If you don't think they are leftists, it is only because of where you
stand.

It's "Democratic," by the way, not
"Democrat." The way you use that word is just an ignorant Republican
party-ism. Oh, wait.

"Democratic" infers that they do things in a democratic way. If you
were watching how they ****ed Bernie, the process was far from
"democratic" but it was certainly the "democrat" way of doing things.
Machine politics over all else.
......

And believe me, there were many of us that watched it very closely and will never trust the DNC again.



Bernie wasn't and isn't a Democrat. What's funny, of course, is that you
fellas trust Trump and the Republicans.

Just an observance ....
 

7:02 AMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
Bernie wasn't and isn't a Democrat. What's funny, of course, is that you
fellas trust Trump and the Republicans.

........


What’s funny is that he led Hillary in points and pills and the wouldn’t back him Mand gave everything to her, totally shafting him. And you back that?

Btw, trump isn’t a republican either. Why do you say we back him? Because we didn’t vote for Hillary? Is that it???

I will say this- it doesn’t matter that you don’t like it, He is the President.

Just an observance ....
 

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 08:02:47 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/23/18 10:38 PM, Tim wrote:

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 21:19:52 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/23/18 8:17 PM, Bill wrote:

So it is okay when a Democrat President appoints an ultra liberal leftist?


I'm not aware of any "ultra liberal leftists" Democratic presidents have
nominated to the Supreme Court.
Kagan? Sotomayor? Ginsburg?
If you don't think they are leftists, it is only because of where you
stand.

It's "Democratic," by the way, not
"Democrat." The way you use that word is just an ignorant Republican
party-ism. Oh, wait.

"Democratic" infers that they do things in a democratic way. If you
were watching how they ****ed Bernie, the process was far from
"democratic" but it was certainly the "democrat" way of doing things.
Machine politics over all else.
......

And believe me, there were many of us that watched it very closely and will never trust the DNC again.



Bernie wasn't and isn't a Democrat. What's funny, of course, is that you
fellas trust Trump and the Republicans.

Bernie was a democrat in the sense that you call all Libertarians
republicans and he was running for the democrat nomination at a very
undemocratic convention. When you have enough "machine" super
delegates to advance a nominee in spite of the vote, it is not
democratic, no matter what it says on the signs over the door.

Just an observance ....
 

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 08:02:47 -0400, Keyser Soze
- show quoted text -
Bernie was a democrat in the sense that you call all Libertarians
republicans and he was running for the democrat nomination at a very
undemocratic convention. When you have enough "machine" super
delegates to advance a nominee in spite of the vote, it is not
democratic, no matter what it says on the signs over the door.

..........

The democrats pulled a totally undemocratic sham.

No more DNC for me

Just an observance ....
 

Tim wrote:

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 08:02:47 -0400, Keyser Soze
- show quoted text -
Bernie was a democrat in the sense that you call all Libertarians
republicans and he was running for the democrat nomination at a very
undemocratic convention. When you have enough "machine" super
delegates to advance a nominee in spite of the vote, it is not
democratic, no matter what it says on the signs over the door.

.........

The democrats pulled a totally undemocratic sham.

No more DNC for me


Yeah, you are the perfect Trumpster.

--
Posted with my iPhone 8+.

Just an observance ....
 

12:35 PMKeyser Söze
- hide quoted text -
Tim wrote:

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 08:02:47 -0400, Keyser Soze
- show quoted text -
Bernie was a democrat in the sense that you call all Libertarians
republicans and he was running for the democrat nomination at a very
undemocratic convention. When you have enough "machine" super
delegates to advance a nominee in spite of the vote, it is not
democratic, no matter what it says on the signs over the door.

.........

The democrats pulled a totally undemocratic sham.

No more DNC for me


Yeah, you are the perfect Trumpster.

--
Posted with my iPhone 8+.

............

Whatever

Just an observance ....
 

On 9/24/18 1:06 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 08:02:47 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/23/18 10:38 PM, Tim wrote:

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 21:19:52 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/23/18 8:17 PM, Bill wrote:

So it is okay when a Democrat President appoints an ultra liberal leftist?


I'm not aware of any "ultra liberal leftists" Democratic presidents have
nominated to the Supreme Court.
Kagan? Sotomayor? Ginsburg?
If you don't think they are leftists, it is only because of where you
stand.

It's "Democratic," by the way, not
"Democrat." The way you use that word is just an ignorant Republican
party-ism. Oh, wait.

"Democratic" infers that they do things in a democratic way. If you
were watching how they ****ed Bernie, the process was far from
"democratic" but it was certainly the "democrat" way of doing things.
Machine politics over all else.
......

And believe me, there were many of us that watched it very closely and will never trust the DNC again.



Bernie wasn't and isn't a Democrat. What's funny, of course, is that you
fellas trust Trump and the Republicans.

Bernie was a democrat in the sense that you call all Libertarians
republicans and he was running for the democrat nomination at a very
undemocratic convention. When you have enough "machine" super
delegates to advance a nominee in spite of the vote, it is not
democratic, no matter what it says on the signs over the door.



Bernie is a socialist. He considers himself an independent. He caucuses
with the Dems. He doesn't run as a Dem. The only Libertarians I recall
who ran for and won federal office ran as Republicans.

Just an observance ....
 

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 15:47:38 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/24/18 1:06 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 08:02:47 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/23/18 10:38 PM, Tim wrote:

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 21:19:52 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/23/18 8:17 PM, Bill wrote:

So it is okay when a Democrat President appoints an ultra liberal leftist?


I'm not aware of any "ultra liberal leftists" Democratic presidents have
nominated to the Supreme Court.
Kagan? Sotomayor? Ginsburg?
If you don't think they are leftists, it is only because of where you
stand.

It's "Democratic," by the way, not
"Democrat." The way you use that word is just an ignorant Republican
party-ism. Oh, wait.

"Democratic" infers that they do things in a democratic way. If you
were watching how they ****ed Bernie, the process was far from
"democratic" but it was certainly the "democrat" way of doing things.
Machine politics over all else.
......

And believe me, there were many of us that watched it very closely and will never trust the DNC again.



Bernie wasn't and isn't a Democrat. What's funny, of course, is that you
fellas trust Trump and the Republicans.

Bernie was a democrat in the sense that you call all Libertarians
republicans and he was running for the democrat nomination at a very
undemocratic convention. When you have enough "machine" super
delegates to advance a nominee in spite of the vote, it is not
democratic, no matter what it says on the signs over the door.



Bernie is a socialist. He considers himself an independent. He caucuses
with the Dems. He doesn't run as a Dem. The only Libertarians I recall
who ran for and won federal office ran as Republicans.

He ran as a democrat in 2016 and that is what we are talking about.
You are just trying to divert from how undemocratic the process was
that scuttled him.
It probably scuttled the best chance the DNC had to win the white
house too. People who hated Hillary were not ever going to change
their mind. Bernie may have flipped a couple of red states. He was
running against Washington "business as usual" too.

Just an observance ....
 

On 9/24/18 7:31 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 15:47:38 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/24/18 1:06 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 08:02:47 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/23/18 10:38 PM, Tim wrote:

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 21:19:52 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/23/18 8:17 PM, Bill wrote:

So it is okay when a Democrat President appoints an ultra liberal leftist?


I'm not aware of any "ultra liberal leftists" Democratic presidents have
nominated to the Supreme Court.
Kagan? Sotomayor? Ginsburg?
If you don't think they are leftists, it is only because of where you
stand.

It's "Democratic," by the way, not
"Democrat." The way you use that word is just an ignorant Republican
party-ism. Oh, wait.

"Democratic" infers that they do things in a democratic way. If you
were watching how they ****ed Bernie, the process was far from
"democratic" but it was certainly the "democrat" way of doing things.
Machine politics over all else.
......

And believe me, there were many of us that watched it very closely and will never trust the DNC again.



Bernie wasn't and isn't a Democrat. What's funny, of course, is that you
fellas trust Trump and the Republicans.

Bernie was a democrat in the sense that you call all Libertarians
republicans and he was running for the democrat nomination at a very
undemocratic convention. When you have enough "machine" super
delegates to advance a nominee in spite of the vote, it is not
democratic, no matter what it says on the signs over the door.



Bernie is a socialist. He considers himself an independent. He caucuses
with the Dems. He doesn't run as a Dem. The only Libertarians I recall
who ran for and won federal office ran as Republicans.

He ran as a democrat in 2016 and that is what we are talking about.
You are just trying to divert from how undemocratic the process was
that scuttled him.
It probably scuttled the best chance the DNC had to win the white
house too. People who hated Hillary were not ever going to change
their mind. Bernie may have flipped a couple of red states. He was
running against Washington "business as usual" too.



I never thought Bernie could win a general election. Never. Still don't.
He said he was a Dem for purpose of the primaries, but he "reverted"
back to what he really was afterwards.

Just an observance ....
 

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 19:36:41 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/24/18 7:31 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 15:47:38 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/24/18 1:06 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 08:02:47 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/23/18 10:38 PM, Tim wrote:

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 21:19:52 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/23/18 8:17 PM, Bill wrote:

So it is okay when a Democrat President appoints an ultra liberal leftist?


I'm not aware of any "ultra liberal leftists" Democratic presidents have
nominated to the Supreme Court.
Kagan? Sotomayor? Ginsburg?
If you don't think they are leftists, it is only because of where you
stand.

It's "Democratic," by the way, not
"Democrat." The way you use that word is just an ignorant Republican
party-ism. Oh, wait.

"Democratic" infers that they do things in a democratic way. If you
were watching how they ****ed Bernie, the process was far from
"democratic" but it was certainly the "democrat" way of doing things.
Machine politics over all else.
......

And believe me, there were many of us that watched it very closely and will never trust the DNC again.



Bernie wasn't and isn't a Democrat. What's funny, of course, is that you
fellas trust Trump and the Republicans.

Bernie was a democrat in the sense that you call all Libertarians
republicans and he was running for the democrat nomination at a very
undemocratic convention. When you have enough "machine" super
delegates to advance a nominee in spite of the vote, it is not
democratic, no matter what it says on the signs over the door.



Bernie is a socialist. He considers himself an independent. He caucuses
with the Dems. He doesn't run as a Dem. The only Libertarians I recall
who ran for and won federal office ran as Republicans.

He ran as a democrat in 2016 and that is what we are talking about.
You are just trying to divert from how undemocratic the process was
that scuttled him.
It probably scuttled the best chance the DNC had to win the white
house too. People who hated Hillary were not ever going to change
their mind. Bernie may have flipped a couple of red states. He was
running against Washington "business as usual" too.



I never thought Bernie could win a general election. Never. Still don't.
He said he was a Dem for purpose of the primaries, but he "reverted"
back to what he really was afterwards.

See now you can't say that about my guy Gary. He is seeking a seat in
the senate as we speak as a Libertarian.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/407916-a-senator-gary-johnson-could-be-good-not-just-for-libertarians-but-for-the

Just an observance ....
 

On 9/24/18 8:28 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 19:36:41 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/24/18 7:31 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 15:47:38 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/24/18 1:06 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 08:02:47 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/23/18 10:38 PM, Tim wrote:

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 21:19:52 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/23/18 8:17 PM, Bill wrote:

So it is okay when a Democrat President appoints an ultra liberal leftist?


I'm not aware of any "ultra liberal leftists" Democratic presidents have
nominated to the Supreme Court.
Kagan? Sotomayor? Ginsburg?
If you don't think they are leftists, it is only because of where you
stand.

It's "Democratic," by the way, not
"Democrat." The way you use that word is just an ignorant Republican
party-ism. Oh, wait.

"Democratic" infers that they do things in a democratic way. If you
were watching how they ****ed Bernie, the process was far from
"democratic" but it was certainly the "democrat" way of doing things.
Machine politics over all else.
......

And believe me, there were many of us that watched it very closely and will never trust the DNC again.



Bernie wasn't and isn't a Democrat. What's funny, of course, is that you
fellas trust Trump and the Republicans.

Bernie was a democrat in the sense that you call all Libertarians
republicans and he was running for the democrat nomination at a very
undemocratic convention. When you have enough "machine" super
delegates to advance a nominee in spite of the vote, it is not
democratic, no matter what it says on the signs over the door.



Bernie is a socialist. He considers himself an independent. He caucuses
with the Dems. He doesn't run as a Dem. The only Libertarians I recall
who ran for and won federal office ran as Republicans.

He ran as a democrat in 2016 and that is what we are talking about.
You are just trying to divert from how undemocratic the process was
that scuttled him.
It probably scuttled the best chance the DNC had to win the white
house too. People who hated Hillary were not ever going to change
their mind. Bernie may have flipped a couple of red states. He was
running against Washington "business as usual" too.



I never thought Bernie could win a general election. Never. Still don't.
He said he was a Dem for purpose of the primaries, but he "reverted"
back to what he really was afterwards.

See now you can't say that about my guy Gary. He is seeking a seat in
the senate as we speak as a Libertarian.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/407916-a-senator-gary-johnson-could-be-good-not-just-for-libertarians-but-for-the


Last I heard, he was running fourth in a three person race. What's he
really doing, splitting off the GOP vote? Is he still in favor of from
cutting social security, killing the minimum wage increases, and
privatizing public education? And how about New Mexico's dependency on
federal spending? Still against that?

Just an observance ....
 

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 20:43:04 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/24/18 8:28 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 19:36:41 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/24/18 7:31 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 15:47:38 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/24/18 1:06 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 08:02:47 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/23/18 10:38 PM, Tim wrote:

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 21:19:52 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/23/18 8:17 PM, Bill wrote:

So it is okay when a Democrat President appoints an ultra liberal leftist?


I'm not aware of any "ultra liberal leftists" Democratic presidents have
nominated to the Supreme Court.
Kagan? Sotomayor? Ginsburg?
If you don't think they are leftists, it is only because of where you
stand.

It's "Democratic," by the way, not
"Democrat." The way you use that word is just an ignorant Republican
party-ism. Oh, wait.

"Democratic" infers that they do things in a democratic way. If you
were watching how they ****ed Bernie, the process was far from
"democratic" but it was certainly the "democrat" way of doing things.
Machine politics over all else.
......

And believe me, there were many of us that watched it very closely and will never trust the DNC again.



Bernie wasn't and isn't a Democrat. What's funny, of course, is that you
fellas trust Trump and the Republicans.

Bernie was a democrat in the sense that you call all Libertarians
republicans and he was running for the democrat nomination at a very
undemocratic convention. When you have enough "machine" super
delegates to advance a nominee in spite of the vote, it is not
democratic, no matter what it says on the signs over the door.



Bernie is a socialist. He considers himself an independent. He caucuses
with the Dems. He doesn't run as a Dem. The only Libertarians I recall
who ran for and won federal office ran as Republicans.

He ran as a democrat in 2016 and that is what we are talking about.
You are just trying to divert from how undemocratic the process was
that scuttled him.
It probably scuttled the best chance the DNC had to win the white
house too. People who hated Hillary were not ever going to change
their mind. Bernie may have flipped a couple of red states. He was
running against Washington "business as usual" too.



I never thought Bernie could win a general election. Never. Still don't.
He said he was a Dem for purpose of the primaries, but he "reverted"
back to what he really was afterwards.

See now you can't say that about my guy Gary. He is seeking a seat in
the senate as we speak as a Libertarian.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/407916-a-senator-gary-johnson-could-be-good-not-just-for-libertarians-but-for-the


Last I heard, he was running fourth in a three person race. What's he
really doing, splitting off the GOP vote? Is he still in favor of from
cutting social security, killing the minimum wage increases, and
privatizing public education? And how about New Mexico's dependency on
federal spending? Still against that?

Actually polling in the 20-25 percentile with 30% undecided but he did
get elected as governor twice there so someone likes him.
He must have the democrats scared because they are coming after him
from as far away as New York and Massachusetts.
The GOP candidate is down around 10-11% and they might decide to throw
their votes to Gary.
I have my doubts he will win but he is going to give Heinrich a run
for his money, particularly for an incumbent senator in a blue state.
I bet before this is over there will be an unprecedented amount of out
of state money flowing into a New Mexico race of any kind.

I know money is pouring into Florida trying to save Nelson's seat.
It's a shame it is all wasted on TV ads and not trying to fix the
****ing lake. If anyone could market that, they would win in a
landslide. Right now the $50,000,000 worth of ads seem to be "who
screwed up the lake, Washington or Tallahassee". Nelson and democrats
in general all the way back to FDR lose that fight.