|
Post by refugeepea on Jan 28, 2019 16:45:38 GMT
I didn’t change my ID because peas were being mean to be over politics. There was ONE pea who terrorized me. Big difference. And you know what?—I never changed my ID on the old board even after that happened and my location was posted. Forgot to mention this. Your location was posted, but you did the SAME thing posting a person's personal information. You are no better.
|
|
|
Post by tentoes on Jan 28, 2019 16:56:05 GMT
I didn't like HIlary because of her own actions--Bengazi for one particular instance--and her "What difference does it make." remark. It certainly made a difference to the men that died because of her inaction. I didn't care for Mr. Clinton either. But it really didn't have anything to do with why I didn't like Hilary.
If you are going to tout your reasons for not liking someone, at the very least make sure they are accurate. 1. That statement about “what difference does it matter” when put with the entire comment does not mean what you are implying. Look it up. 2. When a foreign embassy is attacked in the United States the police or other US law enforcement agencies step in to protect that embassy.. This is a standard agreement countries have with each other. This is the agreement the US had with Libya. When the attack happened at the Benghazi Mission, Libya did nothing because they didn’t want to fight against their own countrymen. When US forces arrived in Libya, they were held up by Libyan officials at the airport. The Ambassador and his security guard were killed in the “safe room” by toxic smoke that came in from the fires started outside the mission. They were dead soon after the attack happened. The other security guard leading the men out of the safe room., lost them in the smoke and kept going back into the room looking for them. When the CIA arrived at the compound they found that security guard on the roof of the safe room trying to put holes in the roof so the smoke would escape. Ultimately it was the Libyans who found the bodies and took them to the hospital. Its all in the Senate Intelligence Report on Benghazi. So explain to me how her inaction resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans? The decisions made, were made on the premise that the Libyans would provide security for the embassies, just like the US does in this country, and other countries do around the world.T Actually, I have no obligation to explain anything to you, now, or anytime in the future. She was (and remains) a creep, just like her sexual abuser husband, and a do for nothing politician that got where she was because of her political position as the wife of a former president. Both were raunchy people, who I have NO RESPECT for anybody that could have even thought of voting for her. That is why Trump won. Live with it.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 30, 2024 16:02:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 16:57:41 GMT
I Don't understand how you have different candidates who seem to have different policies to their parties - Mr Trump and the Wall. That doesn't appear to be a party stance. The problem with the stated position on the wall is that everyone was for it, until Trump said it. Everyone now saying how immoral it is were all saying we need it and illegal immigration is a problem and we need to deport the ones here illegally. We have them all on video saying it. Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, both Clintons. The same things Trump says, they were saying.
|
|
|
Post by gardengoddess on Jan 28, 2019 17:00:54 GMT
You might also look up what happened in the Fall of 2017 in Niger where four of our servicemen were ambushed and it was a complete clusterfuck if you were concerned about Benghazi.
I would bet anyone a thousand dollars had that ambush happened under President Obama with HRC as his SOS, the GOP and right wing news would have lost their shit over it and we would again be subjected to years of hearings.
Faulty intel, a Commander in Chief going against his adviser's recommendations is what got those servicemen killed.
If you don't believe my words, then Google is your friend.
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 9,763
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Jan 28, 2019 17:02:28 GMT
I Don't understand how you have different candidates who seem to have different policies to their parties - Mr Trump and the Wall. That doesn't appear to be a party stance. The problem with the stated position on the wall is that everyone was for it, until Trump said it. Everyone now saying how immoral it is were all saying we need it and illegal immigration is a problem and we need to deport the ones here illegally. We have them all on video saying it. Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, both Clintons. The same things Trump says, they were saying. I beg to differ. Not true.
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Jan 28, 2019 17:07:21 GMT
If you are going to tout your reasons for not liking someone, at the very least make sure they are accurate. 1. That statement about “what difference does it matter” when put with the entire comment does not mean what you are implying. Look it up. 2. When a foreign embassy is attacked in the United States the police or other US law enforcement agencies step in to protect that embassy.. This is a standard agreement countries have with each other. This is the agreement the US had with Libya. When the attack happened at the Benghazi Mission, Libya did nothing because they didn’t want to fight against their own countrymen. When US forces arrived in Libya, they were held up by Libyan officials at the airport. The Ambassador and his security guard were killed in the “safe room” by toxic smoke that came in from the fires started outside the mission. They were dead soon after the attack happened. The other security guard leading the men out of the safe room., lost them in the smoke and kept going back into the room looking for them. When the CIA arrived at the compound they found that security guard on the roof of the safe room trying to put holes in the roof so the smoke would escape. Ultimately it was the Libyans who found the bodies and took them to the hospital. Its all in the Senate Intelligence Report on Benghazi. So explain to me how her inaction resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans? The decisions made, were made on the premise that the Libyans would provide security for the embassies, just like the US does in this country, and other countries do around the world.T Actually, I have no obligation to explain anything to you, now, or anytime in the future. She was (and remains) a creep, just like her sexual abuser husband, and a do for nothing politician that got where she was because of her political position as the wife of a former president. Both were raunchy people, who I have NO RESPECT for anybody that could have even thought of voting for her. That is why Trump won. Live with it. Hillary Clinton is raunchy? Do tell! I bet she’s a blast at a poker game trading dirty stories of sexual conquests with the rest of the Good ol Boys in the club. 😂😂😂😂
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 30, 2024 16:02:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 17:12:10 GMT
If you are going to tout your reasons for not liking someone, at the very least make sure they are accurate. 1. That statement about “what difference does it matter” when put with the entire comment does not mean what you are implying. Look it up. 2. When a foreign embassy is attacked in the United States the police or other US law enforcement agencies step in to protect that embassy.. This is a standard agreement countries have with each other. This is the agreement the US had with Libya. When the attack happened at the Benghazi Mission, Libya did nothing because they didn’t want to fight against their own countrymen. When US forces arrived in Libya, they were held up by Libyan officials at the airport. The Ambassador and his security guard were killed in the “safe room” by toxic smoke that came in from the fires started outside the mission. They were dead soon after the attack happened. The other security guard leading the men out of the safe room., lost them in the smoke and kept going back into the room looking for them. When the CIA arrived at the compound they found that security guard on the roof of the safe room trying to put holes in the roof so the smoke would escape. Ultimately it was the Libyans who found the bodies and took them to the hospital. Its all in the Senate Intelligence Report on Benghazi. So explain to me how her inaction resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans? The decisions made, were made on the premise that the Libyans would provide security for the embassies, just like the US does in this country, and other countries do around the world.T Actually, I have no obligation to explain anything to you, now, or anytime in the future. She was (and remains) a creep, just like her sexual abuser husband, and a do for nothing politician that got where she was because of her political position as the wife of a former president. Both were raunchy people, who I have NO RESPECT for anybody that could have even thought of voting for her. That is why Trump won. Live with it. Like Hillary, don’t like Hillary, that is your choice. But, when one makes accusation against someone that is based on misinformation and lies, that is a reflection of that person. Which would indicate they are no better then the person they are trashing. So that would indicate you are no better then the Clintons. Live with that!
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jan 28, 2019 17:16:09 GMT
If you're supporting him, you're fine with it, because he does literally nothing else. Every policy position is designed to destroy and demean. And no, sweetie - the problem here begins and ends with the folks supporting the pussy grabber. Not with the people standing up to him and them. Since when does pointing out the flaws in Hillary mean you're supporting Trump? When you consistently point out things but your facts are not correct, when you consistently defend people in MAGA hats and blackface, when you consistently like posts from Trumpers and come down on the side of how persecuted they supposedly are ... you might be a Trumper.
|
|
Just T
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 5,585
Jun 26, 2014 1:20:09 GMT
|
Post by Just T on Jan 28, 2019 17:18:49 GMT
Hillary Clinton is raunchy? Do tell! I bet she’s a blast at a poker game trading dirty stories of sexual conquests with the rest of the Good ol Boys in the club. 😂😂😂😂 I don't care for Hillary. But, raunchy? That makes me laugh. If Hillary is raunchy, what exactly is Trump? Or is it okay to be raunchy if you are Republican male?
|
|
|
Post by FuzzyMutt on Jan 28, 2019 17:22:21 GMT
Maybe someone already addressed this, but if Trump and Republicans want a wall so much, why didn’t they do it when they had the House? Honest question; I don’t know the answer. Because it’s like abortion. If they passed legislation to get what they want, they can no longer use it as an issue to campaign on. Much like education, healthcare, equality, and all the broken record promises of the democratic party to its voters?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 30, 2024 16:02:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 17:28:39 GMT
There have been many posts and even threads in the last few years asking for explanations so that left leaning peas could understand where others are coming from. When they explain, they're personally attacked, dismissed and even demonized. It's made astoundingly clear there is nothing they can say to be understood, they are wrong and not worthy of participating here. That's a far cry from a simple "snarky response". You explain what people experience as nothing more than a snarky response, completely dismissing the reality of what is going on, people read what you write and for some reason believe your dismissive version. Your version is factually incorrect. SockMonkey : an example of some of that "over-the-top, reactionary, skewed comprehension or interpretation...perspectives" you asked about.I'm sorry. I really don't think I can engage in further discussion with you. I don't understand what you're trying to argue by tagging me in a couple of people's posts (which really aren't much different from what many others here have said). I truly feel like you just want to fight with people on the Internet. I'm just not down for it. Really? You asked for examples, so I'm showing you the difference in what actually happens and the "skewed interpretation" that Merge had of it. Now you don't understand why I'm giving examples and I must just want to fight? There's another example of some of that "over-the-top, reactionary, skewed comprehension or interpretation...perspectives" for you, right there. Some of you guys do this, over and over. You ask for clarification "because you'd really like to understand where the other side is coming from" and then you turn around and burn them for doing what you asked. That's not rational.
|
|
|
Post by tentoes on Jan 28, 2019 17:29:10 GMT
Like Hillary, don’t like Hillary, that is your choice. But, when one makes accusation against someone that is based on misinformation and lies, that is a reflection of that person. Which would indicate they are no better then the person they are trashing. So that would indicate you are no better then the Clintons. Live with that! Yes, it certainly is my choice, and as far as LIES goes, there have been LOTS and LOTS of lies told about our president over the past two years. So the people telling those lies aren't any better either.
|
|
inkedup
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,837
Jun 26, 2014 5:00:26 GMT
|
Post by inkedup on Jan 28, 2019 17:30:11 GMT
Actually, I have no obligation to explain anything to you, now, or anytime in the future. She was (and remains) a creep, just like her sexual abuser husband, and a do for nothing politician that got where she was because of her political position as the wife of a former president. Both were raunchy people, who I have NO RESPECT for anybody that could have even thought of voting for her. That is why Trump won. Live with it. Hillary Clinton is raunchy? Do tell! I bet she’s a blast at a poker game trading dirty stories of sexual conquests with the rest of the Good ol Boys in the club. 😂😂😂😂[/quote] Raunchy Hillary. Remember when her nude "modeling" photos surfaced? Or that tape of her talking about how she likes to grab pussies? Or the lecherous way she talks about chelsea? Oh, wait. That's your esteemed, classy First Lady and President we're discussing. Loving all your righteous moral outrage, though 😂
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jan 28, 2019 17:31:05 GMT
I didn’t change my ID because peas were being mean to be over politics. There was ONE pea who terrorized me. Big difference. And you know what?—I never changed my ID on the old board even after that happened and my location was posted. Forgot to mention this. Your location was posted, but you did the SAME thing posting a person's personal information. You are no better. Never claimed to be. I know what I did wasn’t cool, and it’s done and over, a one time thing done in anger in the context of that particular thread and I wouldn’t ever do it again. You’re the one who keeps rehashing it insinuating that it was “peas” (plural) and “personal info” (as if I put out an entire biography) or as if I do it all the time. I don’t. You’re the one harping on me and making claims about me that are not completely accurate. Again, you always have the choice to put me on ignore. ETA- If this was meant for me— Also, I have no idea but when I quote you, instead of your profile picture popping up, there's a photo of a white woman wearing glasses for a brief second then the profile picture appears. I find it very odd and don't know if that's your photo. Anyway, you're welcome. And you’re doing the same as you claim to abhor, trying to intimidate me by drawing upon personal information. You’ve # drawn a person to this conversation who isn’t here anymore and you’ve taken the time to go back and drudge up past history.
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Jan 28, 2019 17:36:26 GMT
I'm sorry. I really don't think I can engage in further discussion with you. I don't understand what you're trying to argue by tagging me in a couple of people's posts (which really aren't much different from what many others here have said). I truly feel like you just want to fight with people on the Internet. I'm just not down for it. Really? You asked for examples, so I'm showing you the difference in what actually happens and the "skewed interpretation" that Merge had of it. Now you don't understand why I'm giving examples and I must just want to fight? There's another example of some of that "over-the-top, reactionary, skewed comprehension or interpretation...perspectives" for you, right there. Some of you guys do this, over and over. You ask for clarification "because you'd really like to understand where the other side is coming from" and then you turn around and burn them for doing what you asked. That's not rational. I didn't understand your examples because all you did was tag people. I just... I wish I could understand you, but based on all your interactions here, I just think you want to argue. There's a lot of blaming, and "you all" and "all the left." I know there are folks on the left who aren't innocent and behave similarly, but it's not like it's only happening on one side, and I just feel like there is nothing to learn from you because you can't have a coherent conversation about an issue without blaming or dragging individuals through the dirt. There are plenty of other right-leaning people on this thread who can manage it, and I'm happy to engage with them. Best wishes to you. Please don't tag me again.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jan 28, 2019 17:38:06 GMT
Since when does pointing out the flaws in Hillary mean you're supporting Trump? When you consistently point out things but your facts are not correct, when you consistently defend people in MAGA hats and blackface, when you consistently like posts from Trumpers and come down on the side of how persecuted they supposedly are ... you might be a Trumper. Or at a minimum a trump apologist.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jan 28, 2019 17:41:45 GMT
Like Hillary, don’t like Hillary, that is your choice. But, when one makes accusation against someone that is based on misinformation and lies, that is a reflection of that person. Which would indicate they are no better then the person they are trashing. So that would indicate you are no better then the Clintons. Live with that! Yes, it certainly is my choice, and as far as LIES goes, there have been LOTS and LOTS of lies told about our president over the past two years. So the people telling those lies aren't any better either. Omg you're a true believer.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jan 28, 2019 17:48:36 GMT
I'm sorry. I really don't think I can engage in further discussion with you. I don't understand what you're trying to argue by tagging me in a couple of people's posts (which really aren't much different from what many others here have said). I truly feel like you just want to fight with people on the Internet. I'm just not down for it. Really? You asked for examples, so I'm showing you the difference in what actually happens and the "skewed interpretation" that Merge had of it. Now you don't understand why I'm giving examples and I must just want to fight? There's another example of some of that "over-the-top, reactionary, skewed comprehension or interpretation...perspectives" for you, right there. Some of you guys do this, over and over. You ask for clarification "because you'd really like to understand where the other side is coming from" and then you turn around and burn them for doing what you asked. That's not rational. A. My interpretation of the victim culture that exists among some right-leaning peas is anything but skewed. B. How is it "burning" someone to point out politely where they are factually incorrect? You get to have your own opinion, but you don't get to have your own facts. C. That brings me back to A - and as long as conservatives think it's a "burn" when someone corrects misinformation or requests a reliable source, we're doomed. Facts matter. Why on earth would you want to share an opinion you can't back up with facts from reliable sources?
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jan 28, 2019 17:49:55 GMT
If you are going to tout your reasons for not liking someone, at the very least make sure they are accurate. 1. That statement about “what difference does it matter” when put with the entire comment does not mean what you are implying. Look it up. 2. When a foreign embassy is attacked in the United States the police or other US law enforcement agencies step in to protect that embassy.. This is a standard agreement countries have with each other. This is the agreement the US had with Libya. When the attack happened at the Benghazi Mission, Libya did nothing because they didn’t want to fight against their own countrymen. When US forces arrived in Libya, they were held up by Libyan officials at the airport. The Ambassador and his security guard were killed in the “safe room” by toxic smoke that came in from the fires started outside the mission. They were dead soon after the attack happened. The other security guard leading the men out of the safe room., lost them in the smoke and kept going back into the room looking for them. When the CIA arrived at the compound they found that security guard on the roof of the safe room trying to put holes in the roof so the smoke would escape. Ultimately it was the Libyans who found the bodies and took them to the hospital. Its all in the Senate Intelligence Report on Benghazi. So explain to me how her inaction resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans? The decisions made, were made on the premise that the Libyans would provide security for the embassies, just like the US does in this country, and other countries do around the world.T Actually, I have no obligation to explain anything to you, now, or anytime in the future. She was (and remains) a creep, just like her sexual abuser husband, and a do for nothing politician that got where she was because of her political position as the wife of a former president. Both were raunchy people, who I have NO RESPECT for anybody that could have even thought of voting for her. That is why Trump won. Live with it. Some funny shit right there. You really need to read something based in fact—she was very successful before becoming a First Lady. (And Bill balanced the budget!) It’s hilarious that you’re posting this about HRC, and not Melania— —she wouldn’t have got where she is because of her husband —her husband is a proven sexual aggressor —her husband has been accused of having sexual relations with minors —it has been proven that her husband is a triple time cheater and philanderer —it has been proven that her husband paid off—to silence women—with whom he cheated on his spouses —her husband’s ex wife stated in court that He raped her —her husband has made sneezy sexual comments about his own daughter —she is the only First Lady who posed for skanky ads nude So I think that by your own admission it’s okay not to respect people who voted for trump—a sleezy, creepy, raunchy and classless people. Amiright?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 30, 2024 16:02:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 17:51:40 GMT
Yes, it certainly is my choice, and as far as LIES goes, there have been LOTS and LOTS of lies told about our president over the past two years. So the people telling those lies aren't any better either. Omg you're a true believer. No kidding.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 30, 2024 16:02:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 17:55:20 GMT
Really? You asked for examples, so I'm showing you the difference in what actually happens and the "skewed interpretation" that Merge had of it. Now you don't understand why I'm giving examples and I must just want to fight? There's another example of some of that "over-the-top, reactionary, skewed comprehension or interpretation...perspectives" for you, right there. Some of you guys do this, over and over. You ask for clarification "because you'd really like to understand where the other side is coming from" and then you turn around and burn them for doing what you asked. That's not rational. I didn't understand your examples because all you did was tag people. I just... I wish I could understand you, but based on all your interactions here, I just think you want to argue. There's a lot of blaming, and "you all" and "all the left." I know there are folks on the left who aren't innocent and behave similarly, but it's not like it's only happening on one side, and I just feel like there is nothing to learn from you because you can't have a coherent conversation about an issue without blaming or dragging individuals through the dirt. There are plenty of other right-leaning people on this thread who can manage it, and I'm happy to engage with them. Best wishes to you. Please don't tag me again. I did not say ALL, even in the quote you quoted me says "some of you guys". I was tagging you because you said "you didn't want to get bogged down in details" and I figured that showing you the actual examples as they happened since you would be reading them anyway, would be the best way to prevent bogging you down with details. Don't worry, I won't tag you again since I understand now that you didn't really want to know the question you asked. For you it was simply an underhanded way to dismiss what was being said, since you couldn't factually dismiss it.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jan 28, 2019 17:57:17 GMT
Because it’s like abortion. If they passed legislation to get what they want, they can no longer use it as an issue to campaign on. Much like education, healthcare, equality, and all the broken record promises of the democratic party to its voters? You mean much of the positive improvements and bills proposed by the Democrats that McConnell and the GOP suppressed and obstructed for the last administrations 8 years? Please. Trump campaigned on and promised that he had this great plan for healthcare revamp. He promised to kill the ACA for 2 years. And we’ve come to find out that he had NOTHING. They had no plan, never did. And the current administration is trying to privatize schools for profits (no surprise since the awful human he put in charge of education owns private schools) and is now blessing the notion of pushing Christianity in public schools. They are actively removing any and all protections for the benefit of students and making it easier for businesses/schools to prevail over them. And this administration has done nothing but take away, denounce, and promote exclusion for anything put in place over the last 8 years related to equality.
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Jan 28, 2019 18:02:17 GMT
Oh, see, I think it does. I think a lot of men generally cannot abide a woman who shows she is intelligent. Case in point—look what they’ve been saying about Kamala Harris in the last few days. I haven’t seen this thread, can you link it please? Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jan 28, 2019 18:05:11 GMT
Case in point—look what they’ve been saying about Kamala Harris in the last few days. I haven’t seen this thread, can you link it please? Thank you. It’s all over social media, it wasn’t posted here (Yet) except in small portions of tweets in the trump thread). When I stated “they’ve been saying” I was speaking of the attacks in her via social media, Twitter, news outlets. My apologies for not being more clear.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 30, 2024 16:02:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 18:07:43 GMT
Since when does pointing out the flaws in Hillary mean you're supporting Trump? When you consistently point out things but your facts are not correct, when you consistently defend people in MAGA hats and blackface, when you consistently like posts from Trumpers and come down on the side of how persecuted they supposedly are ... you might be a Trumper. My facts were all correct. I didn't say they were persecuted, I gave thoughtful consideration to the accusations and the proof provided and came to a different conclusion backed up by facts. When you back up your accusations with 8 second videos devoid of any other context besides the offending statement, when you wouldn't allow that as proof disputing your own claims but insist it's enough when it backs up your claims, when you put words in someones mouth that they never said, when your interpretation of events is skewed to the point of dehumanizing others, you might be intellectually dishonest.
|
|
|
Post by FuzzyMutt on Jan 28, 2019 18:13:08 GMT
I just want to say that switching from one political party to another isn't a matter of just pulling a different lever. Politics for many people is as ingrained as religion. TherRe is an evolution of thought that must take place to move from one side to another. And things chip away one issue at a time, at least that's how it worked and continues to work in my case. Gay marriage was really my tipping point. And yes I voted in the Republican primary...for Kasich. And then I voted third party in the general election because all polls seemed to indicate Hillary would win. My thought was that surely a buffoon like Trump would never get elected. But I was wrong. And I have learned from my mistake here and will not do the same thing again. In looking back, I can definitely see that Obama came with a message of Hope and change. And people wanted that. He was a candidate that people felt like they wanted to vote for. Hillary was not that type of candidate and if Democrats want to win in 2020 then they have to examine that. Denying it and placing blame isn't going to move our country forward. You (general) need to ask yourself is more advantageous to be right or is it more advantageous to change minds. Because I want to change minds. The far right is a throwaway group. They are just way too deep in it to ever change their stance. The people in the middle are fair game. Use your arguments to win them over. Give them facts to think about. But don't blame and shame them. They just need information to make a better choice. You (general) need their support to win the next election. This is very powerful and very very very much the type of discussion that would engage the people in the middle. However- the bolded. I don't agree with much of what Donald Trump *says.* Someone called him a buffoon, and I wouldn't disagree with that. Someone questioned his fitness? I question it too. Do I wish there were a better, more rounded candidate?? (ROMNEY! Who took a massive nose dive on one statement.) YES! However, I don't deserve shame. And I certainly don't feel there was a better choice available. So no. Many people who voted for Trump don't need information to make a better choice. A better choice was what was needed. Yet the media and "the other side" (divisiveness in attacking the other side, regardless of side) has made it foolish for anyone who doesn't want their character attacked on every front, every day to run. .......... Without a million quotes... I loved the statement someone made that "approval rating" (ratings... you know.. in these "approval polls" I've never been asked, once?) for Hillary was always high while in office, yet low when she asked for a promotion. Interesting point. Point well taken, not at face value, but I lived in NY during her Senate run, and I remember her campaign as very well accepted. Other than the White House furniture (which was before I cared, so I don't know.. just stating my one memory...) Also, the Pea that mentioned does the Party have an obligation (or duty or responsibility) to get the best person nominated? GREAT question! Then again... that begs the question- I suppose we don't know what's best for us? And that's ok? I'm not in anyway challenging that Pea, just something I will certainly ponder. Lastly... I read the previous 4 or so pages this morning. It's still mind boggling to me that people on both "sides" have issues with the word immigration. There are people who are 100% open and accepting to immigration. To the immigrants, to their families and their inclusion in our society. I am one of those. The folks that come here legally, I am all for it. As far as illegal immigration, different story? I do believe we need to overhaul the system to put a stop to it- someway- I do not support a wall. It just seems on this board and many other places, folks who do not support illegal immigration (which at it's base is- illegal... and exposes real human beings to the dangers of the journey and transport itself, to the lingering worries of living outside the ability of the law and to protect them.) Domestic abuse and violence are rampant, but largely unreported. What am I basing that on? Some articles I read somewhere, of course! But also when my children and I lived in a sanctuary city, both of my kids played soccer. A friend of mine (a Brit in the US) ran a soccer club at an elite boys school. My daughter goalied alot of their practices. One day he asked if my kids and I were interested in volunteering in a program he ran. My daughter and son literally played yard soccer at several beat down apartment complexes to engage children, while the adults (nearly 100% women) were invited to a food pantry, and ESL. I did pronunciation and conversation skills, and helped the older kids with homework. There are some terrible things that happen to people in these "sanctuary cities- I promise you.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jan 28, 2019 18:13:13 GMT
When you consistently point out things but your facts are not correct, when you consistently defend people in MAGA hats and blackface, when you consistently like posts from Trumpers and come down on the side of how persecuted they supposedly are ... you might be a Trumper. My facts were all correct. I didn't say they were persecuted, I gave thoughtful consideration to the accusations and the proof provided and came to a different conclusion backed up by facts. When you back up your accusations with 8 second videos devoid of any other context besides the offending statement, when you wouldn't allow that as proof disputing your own claims but insist it's enough when it backs up your claims, when you put words in someones mouth that they never said, when your interpretation of events is skewed to the point of dehumanizing others, you might be intellectually dishonest. You need to reread your last paragraph over and over and over again... Because it’s exactly what you have been doing on this thread and others.
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Jan 28, 2019 18:18:22 GMT
I haven’t seen this thread, can you link it please? Thank you. It’s all over social media, it wasn’t posted here (Yet) except in small portions of tweets in the trump thread). When I stated “they’ve been saying” I was speaking of the attacks in her via social media, Twitter, news outlets. My apologies for not being more clear. Ahhhh, ok, thank you. I hide all political posts that come up on my Facebook feed. I get them from all sides so I’m an equal opportunity hider!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 30, 2024 16:02:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 18:21:51 GMT
I Don't understand how you have different candidates who seem to have different policies to their parties - Mr Trump and the Wall. That doesn't appear to be a party stance. The problem with the stated position on the wall is that everyone was for it, until Trump said it. Everyone now saying how immoral it is were all saying we need it and illegal immigration is a problem and we need to deport the ones here illegally. We have them all on video saying it. Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, both Clintons. The same things Trump says, they were saying. I don't understand your reasoning for this and I'm asking in all sincerity......the GOP had the majority in the house and the senate for 2 years. Why didn't they pass the budget for it then if they are all behind it? They surely didn't need the Democrats vote for it to go through at that time or have I misunderstood how you vote things through in the US?
|
|
|
Post by tentoes on Jan 28, 2019 18:22:32 GMT
Raunchy Hillary. Remember when her nude "modeling" photos surfaced? Or that tape of her talking about how she likes to grab pussies? Or the lecherous way she talks about chelsea? Oh, wait. That's your esteemed, classy First Lady and President we're discussing. Loving all your righteous moral outrage, though 😂 [/quote][/div]
haha!! There is a reason that Hillary didn't make it as a model. She had to make it on her husband's coat-tails.
|
|