|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Feb 21, 2017 19:07:20 GMT
So you would vote against your beliefs (if you found a more liberal candidate you liked) out of spite? Okie dokie then. And there is the 2016 election in a nutshell. Though many don't realize yet that that's what they've done. Exactly. Seems that is the Republican way.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 21, 2017 19:08:56 GMT
And there is the 2016 election in a nutshell. Though many don't realize yet that that's what they've done. That is what has been stated more than once on this site as well as globally. It's not just 2016 but it will be 2020. You (the liberals) are losing your own elections by your actions and I don't understand why most fail to acknowledge it. You are driving people away both figuratively and literally Not to mention the Russian involvement messing with elections, the multiple "news sources" that told lie after lie, as well as the Republican Party lying and buying to get what they wanted. So no, it's not all the liberals fault for losing elections.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Feb 21, 2017 19:08:59 GMT
And there is the 2016 election in a nutshell. Though many don't realize yet that that's what they've done. That is what has been stated more than once on this site as well as globally. It's not just 2016 but it will be 2020. You (the liberals) are losing your own elections by your actions and I don't understand why most fail to acknowledge it. You are driving people away both figuratively and literally I think the republicans and their gerrymandering have helped that along As well.
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Feb 21, 2017 19:11:48 GMT
That is what has been stated more than once on this site as well as globally. It's not just 2016 but it will be 2020. You (the liberals) are losing your own elections by your actions and I don't understand why most fail to acknowledge it. You are driving people away both figuratively and literally I think the republicans and their gerrymandering have helped that along As well.
|
|
|
Post by 950nancy on Feb 21, 2017 22:11:37 GMT
Didn't Trump say if he didn't get a certain stairway to exit a plane he would turn around and go back home? Problem solved.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Feb 21, 2017 22:56:49 GMT
And there is the 2016 election in a nutshell. Though many don't realize yet that that's what they've done. That is what has been stated more than once on this site as well as globally. It's not just 2016 but it will be 2020. You (the liberals) are losing your own elections by your actions and I don't understand why most fail to acknowledge it. You are driving people away both figuratively and literally because wackos online running around calling people Libtards aren't making some of us ill about the Republican party? I swear I'm still praying for a viable 3rd party because I'm tired of this hate and division. I'm an independent but for most of my life I've voted generally republican. A dem here or there especially in the Primaries. Some 3rd party. ( I voted for Perot ) The R party & I started parting ways in 2012. That election made me ill. Voted 3rd party all over the place. This year it was even worse. I'm not an old, rich, white guy so I guess I'm not detached enough to join in ( who said that recently )? If you think the democrats are being hateful and no one else is your not looking at republicans at all. If the nation had $1 for every time the word 'libtard' was posted we could probably pay off the national debt.
|
|
ellen
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,516
Jun 30, 2014 12:52:45 GMT
|
Post by ellen on Feb 21, 2017 23:06:11 GMT
So If the Democrats are driving away all of the Republicans and moderates, why doesn't Trump have higher approval ratings? The latest poll breakdown I read said he had about 80% of Republicans supporting him. Overall it was about 40%.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Feb 21, 2017 23:08:14 GMT
So If the Democrats are driving away all of the Republicans and moderates, why doesn't Trump have higher approval ratings? The latest poll breakdown I read said he had about 80% of Republicans supporting him. Overall it was about 40%. maybe they should poll people in Russia
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Feb 21, 2017 23:52:57 GMT
The UK has received over $7 billion dollars in military aid from the US since 1946. In return for which the US has used the British Isles as a giant aircraft carrier ever since. You know, I had a bit of a giggle in wondering what the reaction would be if say...the UK...asked (demanded, finagled, bartered, manipulated it's way, attempted to negotiate, whatever) to use Puerto Rico as a military base. Because you know, we (the US) seem to have no issues putting bases all over the place but we don't exactly welcome the same.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 8:05:23 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 0:00:36 GMT
In return for which the US has used the British Isles as a giant aircraft carrier ever since. You know, I had a bit of a giggle in wondering what the reaction would be if say...the UK...asked (demanded, finagled, bartered, manipulated it's way, attempted to negotiate, whatever) to use Puerto Rico as a military base. Because you know, we (the US) seem to have no issues putting bases all over the place but we don't exactly welcome the same. There is a reason for where those bases are. As arrogant some think the Americans are the powers to be just don't collectively wake up one morning and decide to put a military base in another country. I suspect security plays a big part in these decisions.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Feb 22, 2017 0:05:09 GMT
You know, I had a bit of a giggle in wondering what the reaction would be if say...the UK...asked (demanded, finagled, bartered, manipulated it's way, attempted to negotiate, whatever) to use Puerto Rico as a military base. Because you know, we (the US) seem to have no issues putting bases all over the place but we don't exactly welcome the same. There is a reason for where those bases are. As arrogant some think the Americans are the powers to be just don't collectively wake up one morning and decide to put a military base in another country. I suspect security plays a big part in these decisions. Oh, don't misunderstand...I get that. And I understand that a military base brings security for a host country as well as serves our interests...but come on. Surely it gives you a bit of a giggle too thinking of what the response by our current administration would be of another country trying to put a military base on US land(s)?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 8:05:23 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 0:14:10 GMT
You know, I had a bit of a giggle in wondering what the reaction would be if say...the UK...asked (demanded, finagled, bartered, manipulated it's way, attempted to negotiate, whatever) to use Puerto Rico as a military base. Because you know, we (the US) seem to have no issues putting bases all over the place but we don't exactly welcome the same. There is a reason for where those bases are. As arrogant some think the Americans are the powers to be just don't collectively wake up one morning and decide to put a military base in another country. I suspect security plays a big part in these decisions. Not so much security for everyone else but geographically you as a country are somewhat far away from many of the countries that you want to "keep an eye on" is so far as your military and planes wouldn't be within reach. Imagine trying to supply troops in Afghanistan if you had no bases anywhere except Afghanistan and the USA. They are key logistics facilities. In addition to being invaluable for ongoing conflict, they also allow for faster response to new crises within the region if it's needed. So no, they are not totally there for the benefit of others they are also there to benefit you too.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 8:05:23 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 0:28:37 GMT
There is a reason for where those bases are. As arrogant some think the Americans are the powers to be just don't collectively wake up one morning and decide to put a military base in another country. I suspect security plays a big part in these decisions. Oh, don't misunderstand...I get that. And I understand that a military base brings security for a host country as well as serves our interests...but come on. Surely it gives you a bit of a giggle too thinking of what the response by our current administration would be of another country trying to put a military base on US land(s)? Maybe it's because my sense of humor has left me today but it seems to me that if this country ever needed to have other countries military bases in our country for security reasons then not only is this country screwed but I would hazard a guess so is the rest of the world. On a side note.... I'm watching the local news and right now California has an awful lot of water. Anyone need any? Man a lot places are flooded.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 8:05:23 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 0:52:12 GMT
There is a reason for where those bases are. As arrogant some think the Americans are the powers to be just don't collectively wake up one morning and decide to put a military base in another country. I suspect security plays a big part in these decisions. Not so much security for everyone else but geographically you as a country are somewhat far away from many of the countries that you want to "keep an eye on" is so far as your military and planes wouldn't be within reach. Imagine trying to supply troops in Afghanistan if you had no bases anywhere except Afghanistan and the USA. They are key logistics facilities. In addition to being invaluable for ongoing conflict, they also allow for faster response to new crises within the region if it's needed. So no, they are not totally there for the benefit of others they are also there to benefit you too. No question. We are not that generous to put military bases in other countries unless it benefited us as well. But there is also no question that some of the NATO countries, South Korea, and Japan are glad we're there.
|
|
Judy26
Pearl Clutcher
MOTFY Bitchy Nursemaid
Posts: 2,834
Location: NW PA
Jun 25, 2014 23:50:38 GMT
|
Post by Judy26 on Feb 22, 2017 1:37:10 GMT
I'm being a bit juvenile in posting this but all I can think is that President Obama got to meet Britain's most famous toddler when he visited the Royal Family. It's only fair that the queen should get to meet ours, too!
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,749
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Feb 22, 2017 7:02:35 GMT
I'm being a bit juvenile in posting this but all I can think is that President Obama got to meet Britain's most famous toddler when he visited the Royal Family. It's only fair that the queen should get to meet ours, too! Thank you for one last audible giggle before I hit the hay. Nite
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 8:05:23 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 9:21:17 GMT
I'm being a bit juvenile in posting this but all I can think is that President Obama got to meet Britain's most famous toddler when he visited the Royal Family. It's only fair that the queen should get to meet ours, too! Hope someone doesn't forget to pack his monogrammed bath robe
|
|
craftykitten
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,304
Jun 26, 2014 7:39:32 GMT
|
Post by craftykitten on Feb 22, 2017 9:49:05 GMT
I'm being a bit juvenile in posting this but all I can think is that President Obama got to meet Britain's most famous toddler when he visited the Royal Family. It's only fair that the queen should get to meet ours, too! Hope someone doesn't forget to pack his monogrammed bath robe But Trump doesn't own any bathrobes of course! :-D
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 8:05:23 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 9:56:33 GMT
Hope someone doesn't forget to pack his monogrammed bath robe But Trump doesn't own any bathrobes of course! :-D I nearly choked drinking my coffee at the image that flashed through my mind
|
|
craftykitten
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,304
Jun 26, 2014 7:39:32 GMT
|
Post by craftykitten on Feb 22, 2017 10:01:36 GMT
But Trump doesn't own any bathrobes of course! :-D I nearly choked drinking my coffee at the image that flashed through my mind Sorry about that, wasn't trying to kill you!
|
|
|
Post by Sukkii on Feb 22, 2017 11:22:32 GMT
Can I just clarify that the On-line Petition and subsequent discussion was not to stop #45 visiting the UK and having a Parliamentary visit but to not allow him to have a State Visit. I don't want my Queen to have to watch him playing golf in Scotland (as was suggested) but I would love for Charles to have a go at him about climate change and environmental issues. As the POTUS of course the UK will allow him entry, the Petition was about a State Visit. Not many US Presidents have actually been afforded that honour. There have been many private meetings with PM's and also the Queen but not many State Visits. Theresa May told #45 he would be granted a State Visit one week after he was inaugurated which is outrageous in my mind. Anyway, even after the debate it will still go ahead but at least it was discussed and maybe, just maybe #45 will realise he is not loved by all and is actually loathed and ridiculed my many.
|
|