REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

End of the Democratic Party (not kidding)

POSTED BY: DREAMTROVE
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 21:37
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2448
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, May 1, 2017 8:52 PM

DREAMTROVE


Yes, the democratic Party has taken the defense of "we're not a democratic party." Still think I'm crazy when I say we need a new party?
Quote:


DNC argues in court: We don't owe anyone a fair primary process
by David Freddoso | May 1, 2017, 1:13 PM
The DNC argued it could choose their nominee in a smoke-filled back room and it still wouldn't be legally actionable.

The Democratic National Committee is currently defending itself in court against a lawsuit brought by Bernie Sanders supporters over the Democratic presidential primary process. And the proceedings, including an April 25 hearing in which the party argued the case should be dismissed, are already becoming quite amusing.

As Michael Sainato puts it in the Observer, "lawyers representing the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz double[d] down on arguments confirming the disdain the Democratic establishment has toward Bernie Sanders supporters and any entity challenging the party's status quo."

This lawsuit's merits are dubious, it should be noted from the outset. The courts would set an unfortunate precedent if they started dictating how the political parties are governed and how they choose their candidates — it veers dangerously close to the political question doctrine.

It would be even worse if they bought into Sanders' supporters arguments that the party has a "fiduciary duty" to its contributors. If the false appearance of a fair primary process represents some kind of fraud on Bernie Sanders supporters who contributed to the DNC, then surely we're going to see a rash of lawsuits against the RNC after Mexico fails to pay for the Trump border wall, or President Trump fails to fulfill any of the other unrealistic promises he made during the campaign.

Still, it's always fun to see lawyers make arguments in court hearings that are clearly at odds with what their clients are trying to project in real life. Recall, for example, when Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued before the Supreme Court that Obamacare is a tax — something President Obama and Democrats had repeatedly denied when they passed it. Or Alex Jones' child custody case, in which he argued that his highly lucrative conspiracy-mongering on-air persona is all just an act.

This is a bit like that. In this case, DNC lawyers argue that they don't owe anyone a fair process, and that the rules in their charter are basically not binding in court. In fact, if they wanted, DNC attorney Bruce Spiva argued, they could choose their nominee in a smoke-filled back room and it still wouldn't be legally actionable. The transcription of the April 25 hearing quotes Spiva as follows:

"f you had a charity where somebody said, Hey, I'm gonna take this money and use it for a specific purpose, X, and they pocketed it and stole the money, of course that's different. But here, where you have a party that's saying, We're gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, and we're gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have — and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party politics to answer those questions."

This is probably a sound legal argument, but it's also probably not what Sanders' supporters want to hear right now, with a new chairman having taken the reins and promised a more inclusive process.

This isn't the only fun lawsuit going on right now against the DNC. Another, which might actually have some legs, has been brought by several campaign staff from the election that just ended. The lawsuit alleges that the DNC refuses the pay them overtime. That case is still quietly moving through the system, with new filings due this week.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dnc-argues-in-court-we-dont-owe-anyo
ne-a-fair-primary-process/article/2621767




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 1, 2017 10:37 PM

RIVERLOVE


Aw gee, that's a shame. Hey, it's time for something joyous and wonderful to soothe aching souls everywhere.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 1, 2017 11:14 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


DT

That was the same argument they made to the press when it came to giving Hillary all those superdelegates, and changing the rules in the middle of the Nevada primary.

I'm not at all surprised.




Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2017 2:23 AM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


RL - I shoud move to Japan!

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2017 1:09 PM

THGRRI


A fact that gets lost due to ignorance, is that Bernie tried to hijack the Democratic party. He is not a "Democrat." He is a self described Socialist who is the longest serving independent in U.S. congressional history. The Democratic Party did, and does, owe him nothing.



Quote:

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Yes, the democratic Party has taken the defense of "we're not a democratic party." Still think I'm crazy when I say we need a new party?
Quote:


DNC argues in court: We don't owe anyone a fair primary process
by David Freddoso | May 1, 2017, 1:13 PM
The DNC argued it could choose their nominee in a smoke-filled back room and it still wouldn't be legally actionable.

The Democratic National Committee is currently defending itself in court against a lawsuit brought by Bernie Sanders supporters over the Democratic presidential primary process. And the proceedings, including an April 25 hearing in which the party argued the case should be dismissed, are already becoming quite amusing.

As Michael Sainato puts it in the Observer, "lawyers representing the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz double[d] down on arguments confirming the disdain the Democratic establishment has toward Bernie Sanders supporters and any entity challenging the party's status quo."

This lawsuit's merits are dubious, it should be noted from the outset. The courts would set an unfortunate precedent if they started dictating how the political parties are governed and how they choose their candidates — it veers dangerously close to the political question doctrine.

It would be even worse if they bought into Sanders' supporters arguments that the party has a "fiduciary duty" to its contributors. If the false appearance of a fair primary process represents some kind of fraud on Bernie Sanders supporters who contributed to the DNC, then surely we're going to see a rash of lawsuits against the RNC after Mexico fails to pay for the Trump border wall, or President Trump fails to fulfill any of the other unrealistic promises he made during the campaign.

Still, it's always fun to see lawyers make arguments in court hearings that are clearly at odds with what their clients are trying to project in real life. Recall, for example, when Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued before the Supreme Court that Obamacare is a tax — something President Obama and Democrats had repeatedly denied when they passed it. Or Alex Jones' child custody case, in which he argued that his highly lucrative conspiracy-mongering on-air persona is all just an act.

This is a bit like that. In this case, DNC lawyers argue that they don't owe anyone a fair process, and that the rules in their charter are basically not binding in court. In fact, if they wanted, DNC attorney Bruce Spiva argued, they could choose their nominee in a smoke-filled back room and it still wouldn't be legally actionable. The transcription of the April 25 hearing quotes Spiva as follows:

"f you had a charity where somebody said, Hey, I'm gonna take this money and use it for a specific purpose, X, and they pocketed it and stole the money, of course that's different. But here, where you have a party that's saying, We're gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, and we're gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have — and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party politics to answer those questions."

This is probably a sound legal argument, but it's also probably not what Sanders' supporters want to hear right now, with a new chairman having taken the reins and promised a more inclusive process.

This isn't the only fun lawsuit going on right now against the DNC. Another, which might actually have some legs, has been brought by several campaign staff from the election that just ended. The lawsuit alleges that the DNC refuses the pay them overtime. That case is still quietly moving through the system, with new filings due this week.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dnc-argues-in-court-we-dont-owe-anyo
ne-a-fair-primary-process/article/2621767











NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2017 10:00 PM

DREAMTROVE


G,

No, not a chance. They knew HRC was toxic. He approval rating hasn't gone about 36% since her first day as first lady. She was the agenda they wanted. Bernie was not. But that wasn't the point, that we should have Bernie. Okay, I voted for Bernie, but that's in part because Chafee was no longer on the ticket when it came to New York. I know and respect Bernie, but he's a little far left for me.

The poll data was absolutely one-sided on showing that Bernie had more of a chance of winning than Hillary. The fact that he wasn't a Democrat was more of an issue. Trump of course wasn't a republican. I think this says a lot about the rejection of the two party system.

The thing is, the fact that the democratic party used as a defense "we're not democratic" automatically means the end of the "democratic" party, and the continuance of a tammany hall party.

1kiki, i didn't know they'd used it before.

Anyway, this is my point of why we need a third party. The democrats will only accept a democratic loyalist and have just said that they reserve the right to rig the primary against any liberal who is not loyal to the party of the agenda. That means there is now no party for a liberal to run in. The greens have no chance, and refuse to oppose the democrats in battleground states, which means high EC point states, and therefore can never win. Also, the greens have no one in govt after how many years? no senators, no congressmen, that's pretty pathetic.

Someone can maybe reform an existing party, or make a new one. I given up hope the dems can change because when they see change they executive order it out of existence.


T, acknowledged, all of that. However, it wasn't the point: They had an open contest* and he won. Then after the dems had their open contest, they then cheated to make sure their chosen candidate won, then it was leaked to wikileaks, and proven, and their response is "oh, we can have an open primary but it doesn't matter, we'll still pick who we want" which is not democratic or American. I'm not whining anymore that we (bernie folk) lost the primary or the election, (we might'a won that election, given a chance. polls say) But my point is that if no heads roll and this is a valid defense, then it ceases to be the democratic party, or its name just becomes ironic.

* The GOP had an open contest and the non-republican card carry rpusa member won, and is now president because the GOP didn't get rid of him, but that's a side issue

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2017 10:16 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Quote:

Originally posted by THGRRI:
A fact that gets lost due to ignorance, is that Bernie tried to hijack the Democratic party. He is not a "Democrat." He is a self described Socialist who is the longest serving independent in U.S. congressional history. The Democratic Party did, and does, owe him nothing.

In his 2016 presidential bid, Sanders seems to oscillate between labeling himself as a Democrat and being an independent. But that’s neither inaccurate nor particularly unusual, experts said.

Unlike elsewhere in the world, joining the two major parties isn’t contingent upon membership fees or an application process. Party leaders also don’t have the power to say someone isn’t a Democrat or a Republican.

So political affiliation in the United States is a matter of self-identification, in both the governing system and the party organizations, experts said. That allows Sanders and other elected officials to be flexible.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/feb/23/bernie-san
ders-democrat
/

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2017 3:12 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Both parties stand a more than good chance of contributing to their demise if they don't start actually serving the people of this country. I will go as far as saying that we may get a French-style revolt on our hands.

Les Miserables!


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Yes, the democratic Party has taken the defense of "we're not a democratic party." Still think I'm crazy when I say we need a new party?
Quote:


DNC argues in court: We don't owe anyone a fair primary process
by David Freddoso | May 1, 2017, 1:13 PM
The DNC argued it could choose their nominee in a smoke-filled back room and it still wouldn't be legally actionable.

The Democratic National Committee is currently defending itself in court against a lawsuit brought by Bernie Sanders supporters over the Democratic presidential primary process. And the proceedings, including an April 25 hearing in which the party argued the case should be dismissed, are already becoming quite amusing.

As Michael Sainato puts it in the Observer, "lawyers representing the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz double[d] down on arguments confirming the disdain the Democratic establishment has toward Bernie Sanders supporters and any entity challenging the party's status quo."

This lawsuit's merits are dubious, it should be noted from the outset. The courts would set an unfortunate precedent if they started dictating how the political parties are governed and how they choose their candidates — it veers dangerously close to the political question doctrine.

It would be even worse if they bought into Sanders' supporters arguments that the party has a "fiduciary duty" to its contributors. If the false appearance of a fair primary process represents some kind of fraud on Bernie Sanders supporters who contributed to the DNC, then surely we're going to see a rash of lawsuits against the RNC after Mexico fails to pay for the Trump border wall, or President Trump fails to fulfill any of the other unrealistic promises he made during the campaign.

Still, it's always fun to see lawyers make arguments in court hearings that are clearly at odds with what their clients are trying to project in real life. Recall, for example, when Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued before the Supreme Court that Obamacare is a tax — something President Obama and Democrats had repeatedly denied when they passed it. Or Alex Jones' child custody case, in which he argued that his highly lucrative conspiracy-mongering on-air persona is all just an act.

This is a bit like that. In this case, DNC lawyers argue that they don't owe anyone a fair process, and that the rules in their charter are basically not binding in court. In fact, if they wanted, DNC attorney Bruce Spiva argued, they could choose their nominee in a smoke-filled back room and it still wouldn't be legally actionable. The transcription of the April 25 hearing quotes Spiva as follows:

"f you had a charity where somebody said, Hey, I'm gonna take this money and use it for a specific purpose, X, and they pocketed it and stole the money, of course that's different. But here, where you have a party that's saying, We're gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, and we're gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have — and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party politics to answer those questions."

This is probably a sound legal argument, but it's also probably not what Sanders' supporters want to hear right now, with a new chairman having taken the reins and promised a more inclusive process.

This isn't the only fun lawsuit going on right now against the DNC. Another, which might actually have some legs, has been brought by several campaign staff from the election that just ended. The lawsuit alleges that the DNC refuses the pay them overtime. That case is still quietly moving through the system, with new filings due this week.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dnc-argues-in-court-we-dont-owe-anyo
ne-a-fair-primary-process/article/2621767





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 4, 2017 7:44 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Reasonable people everywhere can only hope that the Democrap Party comes to an end.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2017 4:41 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Really!? Reasonable people...the latest on the American Health Bill, or Trumpcare (an oxymoron) is that it will only benefit those banking $200,000 or more a year.
No pre-existing conditions (despite what Drumpf says, quelle surprise!)
Definite cut, 25%, in Medicaid for the poor, disabled and elderly, so if you're poor, sick and/or elderly you're FUCKED.

As a result, hospitals in rural areas and cash-strapped hospitals in the metro areas
will become non-existent in the near future because their patients will no longer be able to afford health insurance. Which will put more doctors and nurses on the unemployment line, not to mention the supporting staff. Now, didn't Trump promise not to cut Medicaid? Hmmmmmm

Guess where those people are going to move to? Oh yeah! the metro areas. Guess who they will blame for their change of scenery? Starts with an R.

Gee, I hope you have $200,000 laying around somewhere, otherwise brace yourself for a rude awakening. NOT KIDDING!!!


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Reasonable people everywhere can only hope that the Democrap Party comes to an end.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 5, 2017 9:04 AM

6STRINGJOKER


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Really!? Reasonable people...the latest on the American Health Bill, or Trumpcare (an oxymoron) is that it will only benefit those banking $200,000 or more a year.
No pre-existing conditions (despite what Drumpf says, quelle surprise!)
Definite cut, 25%, in Medicaid for the poor, disabled and elderly, so if you're poor, sick and/or elderly you're FUCKED.

As a result, hospitals in rural areas and cash-strapped hospitals in the metro areas
will become non-existent in the near future because their patients will no longer be able to afford health insurance. Which will put more doctors and nurses on the unemployment line, not to mention the supporting staff. Now, didn't Trump promise not to cut Medicaid? Hmmmmmm

Guess where those people are going to move to? Oh yeah! the metro areas. Guess who they will blame for their change of scenery? Starts with an R.

Gee, I hope you have $200,000 laying around somewhere, otherwise brace yourself for a rude awakening. NOT KIDDING!!!


SGG



LOL... put that one in the predictions thread.

Then right under it put me saying that everything in this post is never going to happen.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2017 1:30 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Quote:

Then right under it put me saying that everything in this post is never going to happen.


You know something, upon further review: You're Right!!!


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 7, 2017 4:01 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


There are a lot of reasons why the Democratic Party is going to end, and they tend to revolve around the fact that they no longer represent average Americans. In fact, they play to a hodge-podge of self-identified aggrieved victim-groups, but they REALLY work for the globalist elite, which has been benefiting all along.

What is sickening to me is the sight of House Democrats celebrating the vote to repeal Obamacare by singing http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/05/04/democrats-sing-na-na-goo
dbye-house-floor-ahca-mobile.cnn/video/playlists/health-care-fight
/ "Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye"

Really? They're so happy that the GOP stiffs the American people because it will cause Americans to run back into the toxic arms of the Dems? Is that the only thing Dems have to offer: There being literally no other choice for us Americans but to run from one noxious embrace to another? Because the GOP has gotten so rotten that the Dems are relieved that they don't have to clean up at all and still have a chance at 'winning" the next election?

Whatever happened to offering a better alternative? Obamacare IS in trouble, neither the Democraps not the Rethuglicans have any plans to do anything real about it, all they want to do is play political and ideological games.

Why do we pay these clowns anyway?


-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 8, 2017 3:43 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


You make some interesting points there siggy. Okay, I'll bite, the Dems are rapidly sinking in a pool of quicksand. Got it!

What I don't get is how you go from the serenade of the GOP house dogs to the celebration of the vote to repeal Obamacare. They were singing "goodbye" to the
GOP in the house because of Congress signing the AHCA Bill, NOT the repeal of Obamacare (contrary to popular belief, that hasn't taken place yet).

http://ew.com/news/2017/05/04/democrats-sing-hey-hey-goodbye-republica
ns-vote-obamacare-repeal
/

And I quote:

Quote:

The narrow, contentious passage of the American Health Care Act on the House floor Thursday put Democrats in a singing mood — not in celebration, but as a warning.
As the GOP effort to repeal and replace Obamacare passed by a slim 217-to-213 margin (with no votes from the minority party), House Democrats began chanting the chorus to the late-’60s rock song “Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye” while waving farewell to their Republican counterparts.



There's more...

Quote:

The serenade underscored Democrats’ assertion that Republicans who vote for the AHCA risk being voted out of office next year. The scene also illustrated how divisive the health care debate has become in the U.S. For their part, Republicans didn’t seem worried: Aides were spotted bringing beer into the Capitol to toast their victory. The AHCA now heads to the Senate, where it faces another heated battle.


So Dems, far from innocent here, were not rubbing it in to the poor American slobs.
They were actually rubbing it in to the republicans, which is like rubbing it in towards the poor American slobs because, after all, they were voted in fair and square by the American people. So, in a way, you're right! Damn, I didn't see that coming! Did you? I mean, I'm actually agreeing with you. Politics sure are funny.

Oh, by the way, in that All American/LMAGA Bill, 24 million Americans will be kicked off the health insurance coverage. Plus no pre-existing conditions. Not to mention an increase in premiums and health care costs. Fewer people covered will mean fewer paying customers for the hospitals to survive - particularly those in
financial straits and economic woes. In other words, hospitals in rural areas and
in poor metro areas. That affects the poor, the elderly and the sick. Speaking of which, Medicaid is being cut by 25%. And where would the doctors, nurses and staff
go to find work?

Yeah, the repubs have a dandy of a health bill there. The rich will get richer and the poor will go to H, E, double hockey sticks!!! But the Dems, oh they are going to burn...ya' know, I forget exactly the reason why. Well, like it says in the article. There's going to be a major battle regarding this great new health insurance bill.

P.S. The CBO haven't made their determination yet. It's due out this coming week.


Go Trump Go!!!


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
There are a lot of reasons why the Democratic Party is going to end, and they tend to revolve around the fact that they no longer represent average Americans. In fact, they play to a hodge-podge of self-identified aggrieved victim-groups, but they REALLY work for the globalist elite, which has been benefiting all along.

What is sickening to me is the sight of House Democrats celebrating the vote to repeal Obamacare by singing http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/05/04/democrats-sing-na-na-goo
dbye-house-floor-ahca-mobile.cnn/video/playlists/health-care-fight
/ "Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye"

Really? They're so happy that the GOP stiffs the American people because it will cause Americans to run back into the toxic arms of the Dems? Is that the only thing Dems have to offer: There being literally no other choice for us Americans but to run from one noxious embrace to another? Because the GOP has gotten so rotten that the Dems are relieved that they don't have to clean up at all and still have a chance at 'winning" the next election?

Whatever happened to offering a better alternative? Obamacare IS in trouble, neither the Democraps not the Rethuglicans have any plans to do anything real about it, all they want to do is play political and ideological games.

Why do we pay these clowns anyway?


-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 8, 2017 1:54 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


SGG ... apparently, I haven't made myself clear.

When I heard the Dems singing, my blood just went to insta-boil.

YES, I KNOW WHY THEY WERE SINGING.

But I found the Dem political stunt so triumphal about future "victories" they seemed to have completely lost sight of the importance of this issue to many average Americans, and reduced it to "my team versus your team", "winning and losing".

The appropriate response would have been to offer an ALTERNATIVE to both the GOP AND Obamacare, which was rapidly becoming hostage to monopolized insurances and pharmas which had NO competition built in at all.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE BUYING PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE A REQUIREMENT, you HAVE TO ENSURE HEALTHY COMPETITION. Absent that, all you've done is created a government-subsidized ass-raping monopoly.

So, what are the Dem's plans??? Wait until the average American is in such distress that they will swoop in and pick up the political pieces? And sing about it?

BTW SGG - you should have noticed that I had unkind words for the GOP too.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 8, 2017 4:57 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I have no idea what Dems plans are - G
Judging by their performance in the House, they plan to do exactly what the GOP has done about healthcare for the eight years under Obama, which was.... nothing.

It's easy for Hillary to say "fix it", but HOW? That's the hard part, the part Dems seem reluctant to commit to.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 11, 2017 2:48 AM

OONJERAH



O me, O my ...
I didn't realize our country
has become so politically dysfunctional.


... oooOO}{OOooo ...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 11, 2017 9:25 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Originally posted by Oonjerah:

O me, O my ...
I didn't realize our country
has become so politically dysfunctional.

Well, we've been living under an oligarchy for a long time, OONJ. Now that the middle class has been under economic decline for ten years, it makes a difference. People start to notice how they're being screwed, yanno?

Time to wake up and smell the coffee.


-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 12, 2017 4:35 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


I know that BOTH sides have been dragging their feet on fixing the ACA. I know that more than most. To be fair, the ACA was derived from a republican form of the idea (compiled by Romney while governor of Mass).

So you felt that they were being cruel. Perhaps! But throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not a solution. Both sides need to get down to brass tacks and fix what is broke with the ACA and move on. Or scrap the entire thing and model the new health care bill after the Universal Health Care in Canada or Australia, which even the dodo head Trump admits is tops.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SGG ... apparently, I haven't made myself clear.

When I heard the Dems singing, my blood just went to insta-boil.

YES, I KNOW WHY THEY WERE SINGING.

But I found the Dem political stunt so triumphal about future "victories" they seemed to have completely lost sight of the importance of this issue to many average Americans, and reduced it to "my team versus your team", "winning and losing".

The appropriate response would have been to offer an ALTERNATIVE to both the GOP AND Obamacare, which was rapidly becoming hostage to monopolized insurances and pharmas which had NO competition built in at all.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE BUYING PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE A REQUIREMENT, you HAVE TO ENSURE HEALTHY COMPETITION. Absent that, all you've done is created a government-subsidized ass-raping monopoly.

So, what are the Dem's plans??? Wait until the average American is in such distress that they will swoop in and pick up the political pieces? And sing about it?

BTW SGG - you should have noticed that I had unkind words for the GOP too.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 12, 2017 7:50 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

To be accurate, the Dems are not in "control" of Congress, so any adjustments or ideas to fix ACA in the face of Trump's promises, "I will dump Obamacare in the first week" would be a huge waste of time. So don't blame the Dems for not working too hard on that. It's in the GOP's/Trump's court and he's been clear on what he wants to do: give breaks to the rich and fund that by throwing millions of Americans into the streets. Basic math.- G


G, it doesn't take a lot of effort to put some staffers together on how to fix Obamacare and come up with a plan. The Dems shouldn't even try to pass it through Congress, because the effort would be DOA. What the Dems should do, if they want to win elections honestly (yanno, because they have better ideas) is to come up with a plan and then tell the public. IF they have a good, solid plan, they should KEEP telling the public. The problem is, they're not offering an alternative. Why is that?

Quote:

Bigger issues about this: like too many issues this is all about us versus them (agree with Siggy). It's not even really STUDIED for a solution. It was very clear by it being doomed before it hit the light of day, that Trump rushed the replacement out without much thought. You can't FIX something this broken and big without understanding it better. Instead, the pov is, "let's fix health care for 300,000,000 people this week." Unbelievable. Meanwhile, prices keep going up like a run away train. Fore! - G
The GOP COULD HAVE been studying the solution this entire time .... it's not like they needed to come up with something in two weeks ... but, like the Dems, nobody wants to handle this hot potato. Why is that?

Coming up with a workable plan would make the originating party a hero to most people, and would ensure party victory for at least ten years (barring anything else egregiously stupid). But despite all of the vote-getting incentive, both parties are running away from this issue like the plague. So if you follow the bunny-trail of WHY that is so, you will have discovered why our politics are such a clusterfuck.



-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 12, 2017 10:47 AM

RIVERLOVE


The GOP is working harder than Dems to undermine and sabotage Trump and his agenda. Healthcare, tax reform, immigration, etc. etc. ain't gonna happen any time soon as long as Ryan and McConnell are calling the shots in Congress.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 12, 2017 3:10 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

G, it doesn't take a lot of effort to put some staffers together on how to fix Obamacare and come up with a plan. The Dems shouldn't even try to pass it through Congress, because the effort would be DOA. What the Dems should do, if they want to win elections honestly (yanno, because they have better ideas) is to come up with a plan and then tell the public. IF they have a good, solid plan, they should KEEP telling the public. The problem is, they're not offering an alternative. Why is that? - SIGNY

There are a number of possibilities:
1. They don't want their great ideas hijacked by the republicans. They'll be happy to watch the good ship GOP sink like a stone. I love Trump calling the Dems "Obstructionists!" after 8 years of GOP obstruction. Tables turned, sad, unfortunate, but that's probably why. - G

So, they're more interested in playing politics than in helping the American people. check

Quote:

2. I imagine this is a lot harder than you think it is. I know, to you it's a snip here and there. I don't think that's even close to how hard it is to get something done in Congress. A great many clear-eyed, young enthusiastic polisci majors have gone to DC thinking they would save the world only to end up in a psych ward. The nature of the beast is inertia a lot of the time. We should be amazed we even got the start of Universal Health Care.- G


Nobody said it would be easy, so the time to start was two years ago, when the cost/participation trend started moving against Obamacare. OK, so, they didn't move two years ago. Well, they better get moving SOON on making a plan because Obamacare is falling apart rapidly, and by next election they may be in the same spot as the GOP is now.

OR... consider this, G ... the DEMS don't want to lose their big pharma contributions, or their health insurance contributions, just like the GOP doesn't want to lose theirs. Hillary was a HUGE recipient of speakers fees from big pharma .... even bigger than the banks speakers fees that she got. Maybe its just fair to say that they're constrained by their need for campaign contributions? Because I think it's fair to say that the REAL constituents of Congress are those who put $$$ in their pockets.

Quote:

The GOP COULD HAVE been studying the solution this entire time .... it's not like they needed to come up with something in two weeks ... but, like the Dems, nobody wants to handle this hot potato. Why is that? - SIGNY

You really think the GOP was studying this problem with Trump as their candidate???

Is reading comprehension not your thing? What did I just post? I said they COULD HAVE ... but they DIDN'T.

Quote:

I find that hard to believe. I find it even harder to believe they were studying it when they were trying to sabotage it during Obama. No, Ryan and the lot were surprised when they got the chance, caught with their pants down even. That's why their "solution" was so bad. "Ok, first, let's drop 24 million people from insurance, check...." They hadn't done anything but use it as a campaign slogan.- G
Well, we agree. The GOP problem is that not only are they hamstrung by their need for campaign contributions, they're ideologically blinded from considering anything other than a "free market" solution to the problem.

Quote:

Coming up with a workable plan would make the originating party a hero to most people, and would ensure party victory for at least ten years (barring anything else egregiously stupid). But despite all of the vote-getting incentive, both parties are running away from this issue like the plague. So if you follow the bunny-trail of WHY that is so, you will have discovered why our politics are such a clusterfuck.- SIGNY

Ok, now I know you don't know how hard it is to get things done in DC! That's what Obama wanted and tried! And look what it got him! A watered down Frankenstein ACA that a lot of people on both sides hate and rightly so, and want to change and rightly so. Yes, it is a clusterfuck! And you probably won't change it much with better ideas, and you certainly won't make it better with worse ones (Trump).- G

OK, G, but WHY is it so hard to "get anything done" in DC? I could point to several problems, but much of it revolves around the need for campaign contributions; and really, really uninformative media; and gerrymandering.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 15, 2017 1:21 AM

OONJERAH


Bernie Sanders BRILLIANT takedown of Trump's Lies and Hypocrisy
is the title of a pretty good film on YouTube.


... oooOO}{OOooo ...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 15, 2017 12:19 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

So, they're more interested in playing politics than in helping the American people. check - SIGNY

You are waaaay too obsidian black and arctic white. I would say it's more like 'playing politics' takes up too much of their time - that's Gridlock. I really don't think there are any representatives that don't think they are helping the American public, or their version of the Am public that is. I think playing politics can consume many of them. And because of the dynamics of Congress that means the ones with the most power become the most consumed and personally invested in their side winning. The Ryans and McConnells and their counterparts on the Dems. The more power and influence the more corrupted by ego. That's a long playing human tragedy.- G



Good point, I'll want to come back to that when I have more time.

Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM: Nobody said it would be easy, so the time to start was two years ago, when the cost/participation trend started moving against Obamacare. OK, so, they didn't move two years ago. Well, they better get moving SOON on making a plan because Obamacare is falling apart rapidly, and by next election they may be in the same spot as the GOP is now. - SIGNY

Everything looks easier from the sidelines.- G

Which is exactly why they need to start NOW. It's like global warming ... it's not going to get easier the longer you wait.

Quote:

OR... consider this, G ... the DEMS don't want to lose their big pharma contributions, or their health insurance contributions, just like the GOP doesn't want to lose theirs. Hillary was a HUGE recipient of speakers fees from big pharma .... even bigger than the banks speakers fees that she got. Maybe its just fair to say that they're constrained by their need for campaign contributions? Because I think it's fair to say that the REAL constituents of Congress are those who put $$$ in their pockets.- SIGNY

Money and greed - 2 more factors muddying the already muddy swamp making for more GRIDLOCK. (swamplock?) Lobbyists should have been removed decades ago - how are their efforts any different than the very influences that constitute the basis for the emoluments clause??? - G

It's not just lobbyists, G. Did you know that Congressmen are required (by their party) to get on the phone so many days per month and hustle contributions? There they are ... in a sweaty room, like a bunch of $10/hour cold-callers, asking for money.

So, why is money such a big problem? Well, they need money to run their campaigns. And why do they need money to run their campaigns? Well, because corporate media ... which BTW gets their licenses from the FCC, one requirement of which is that they operate IN THE PUBLIC GOOD, will not provide free air time to candidates who want to make their views known. I think you can see where I'm going with this ... Reduce the role of money in campaigns by reducing the amount of advertising money that candidates have to raise.

Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM: You really think the GOP was studying this problem with Trump as their candidate??? - G

Is reading comprehension not your thing? What did I just post? I said they COULD HAVE ... but they DIDN'T. - SIGNY

Is reading comprehension not your thing? I was so incredulous that you would suggest such a fantasy I had to ask again. See the 3 "???" That's me *really* wanting to make sure if you were smoking crack or just joking. - G

Haha. Not smoking crack. But it's not just the GOP avoiding the issue like the plague.

Cost-effective health care is SIMPLE. You simply take all of the money currently being paid to insurances, paid in Medicare tax, paid out of pocket, and use it to fund a single-payer government-run insurance program. Government negotiates prices with hospitals, doctors, and pharmas. Instead of an "overhead" of something like 30% for private insurances, Medicare runs with an overhead of about 6%. That's an extra FREE 25% right there.

Not enough money??? Reduce military spending, or eliminate some of the (many) corporate write-offs that allow corporations to pay far less tax than real people.

The problem isn't that the problem is so complex, the problem is that the 1% won't allow a solution to the problem where they can't make a profit.



-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 15, 2017 7:57 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


I've heard many people mention that a plan should have been in the making for years, but I don't see that as workable.
The elections change everything. With such a tight margin for votes, the realists in Congress must work with whichever candidate won the last race in each district, and the bill must in essence be tailored to the set of Congresspeople in office at the time of the bill's submittal.
And trying to conjure how to get around Mr. Elaine Chao (McConnell) is another headache - he has absolutely no interest in bettering America.
And if they really did start planning 2 years ago, they would have been working on the problem of getting around Johnny Boner - and then BOOOM, problem gone when Ryan takes over in October 2015 (a non-election year, and mid-session of Congress).

Getting a reasonable law passed in Congress is not easy, which is why it so seldom happens.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 16, 2017 8:52 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I want to take a step back from the very narrow focus that this discussion is getting into. Health care is just one of the critical real-world problems that the Democratic Party has been unable to solve. It's a good example, but not the only one. Blame also falls on the GOP, which has been similarly unable to offer anything to the American people except "trickle-down" (the American name for "austerity").

Unlike global warming or unemployment (which are world-wide system problems), providing universal healthcare is easy. It's been solved in many nations already, even poor ones; it's the USA which is a laggard. And since it's a critical real-world problem which is at the same time relatively easy to solve it serves as a great indicator of American political dysfunction. Not just PARTY dysfunction but also institutional dysfunction ... there is something inherent in the way we govern that prevents us from solving even simplest of problems: just funding Social Security and Medicare or getting the budget out every year becomes an exercise in hand-wringing and endless angst.

If you track back to the root cause of the health-care debacle, it isn't lack of popular support for single-payer or government option. It was the overweening influence of Big Money on Congressional deliberations: Insurance money, hospital money, big pharma money. Nobody was willing to cross the source of so much campaign contribution$. Certainly not Max Baucus, who crafted the bill and who was also THE LARGEST recipient of insurance and big pharma contributions for many years. And certainly not Obama, who didn't want to put his Congressional Dems in a bind.

If you want Congress to function, you HAVE to reduce the role of campaign contributions. And BTW, G, it's not just the vision of Congresspeople in shirtsleeves phone-banking for money, it's all of the breakfast meetings, lunchtime speaking engagements, brunch get-togethers, and thousand-dollar-a-plate dinners, as well as endless schmoozing with lobbyists which all together take up HALF OR MORE of each Congressional day. That leaves very little time to actually read bills and think about their consequences and propose amendments. Yanno, if I had to spend half of MY time hustling for money, I sure wouldn't be very effective at my job!

There are two solutions to this problem: One is to reduce the role of campaign money-raising in Congress.

Social media MIGHT offer a way around the advertising problem, but a lot of people still get their news from mainstream FCC-licensed broadcasters. I see no problem whatsoever to requiring that people campaigning for office get free airtime during near-prime hours (not at 2 AM). It is the simplest most cost effective solution to the problem, does not require all of the detailed monitoring and self-reporting required by other approaches, which are simply gotten around by having third=party nonprofits fund their own "public interest" campaigns. There are all kinds of ways to screen out minor candidates, such as eliminating people who don't poll over 5%-10%. There will still be political advertising ... you can't stop that, but at least third parties won't get shut out.

Quote:

You are waaaay too obsidian black and arctic white. I would say it's more like 'playing politics' takes up too much of their time - that's Gridlock. = G
Actually it's fundraising, as describe above.

But there IS a problem when you get a bunch of people together. they start getting all involved in who's with who and forming cliques (committees) and in-groups and out-groups. You could do away with ALL of that by going to direct democracy. But there are problems with that, too.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 16, 2017 10:32 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


OK, so there one solution to the problem of money influencing Congress. Why hasn't Congress considered it?


Here's another problem- Gerrymandering.

The vast majority of seats in Congress are considered "safe", and the reason why they're "safe" is because the district boundaries have been drawn in such a way as to protect the party in power. District boundaries are drawn by state legislatures after the Census is done, every ten years. Whichever party is in power creates these comfortable pockets for their candidates.

The reason why this is a problem in Congress because candidates no longer have to appeal to a wide variety of people in their District, they only need to appeal to their PARTY BASE.

That leads to two relatively intransigent parties who are 100% ideological, and can NEVER come to resolution. Can't boundaries be drawn in a politically-neutral way? What about by zip code, for example?

That's another relatively simple fix, and yet another one that most state legislatures fail to consider.


-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 16, 2017 11:55 AM

THGRRI


Wow, all the shit SIG posts about the Democrats being the problem with passing a good healthcare bill. The Republicans won't even the let the Dems see what is in their bill.

With the old bill it was the same. No way they were going to allow Obama to succeed. That was the biggest fail when it came to the ACA. The Republicans did all they could to make it fail, and they still are.

It's all to funny, well sad.








NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 16, 2017 12:08 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Nancy Pelosi DEMOCRAT

"...But we have to pass the bill [ACA] so you can find out what's in it"





-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 16, 2017 12:11 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

That was the biggest fail when it came to the ACA. The Republicans did all they could to make it fail, and they still are.


The biggest fail of the ACA bill was the way it was written. It was compromised from the very start, so as not to provoke a severe backlash from the healthcare industries, as happened when Hillary proposed her healthcare plan as First Lady. It depended on too many tings to go right, and was too borderline to be durable.

So as far as the ACA is concerned, there were many good provisions in it, a few fundamental weaknesses, and one GLARING omission which helped drive its costs of coverage up, which was the refusal by the Democratic party (the writers of the bill) to allow the Federal government to negotiate drug prices.

This is where the Dems and Repubs agree, because President GW Bush, when he pushed Medicare Part D, failed to get good pricing on Rx too.



-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 16, 2017 2:17 PM

THGRRI


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

That was the biggest fail when it came to the ACA. The Republicans did all they could to make it fail, and they still are.


The biggest fail of the ACA bill was the way it was written. It was compromised from the very start, so as not to provoke a severe backlash from the healthcare industries, as happened when Hillary proposed her healthcare plan as First Lady. It depended on too many tings to go right, and was too borderline to be durable.





Ideology and an agenda is why some can't see what others can. If the Republicans worked with Obama it wouldn't matter what the healthcare industry wanted.






NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 20, 2017 4:05 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Ideology and an agenda is why some can't see what others can. If the Republicans worked with Obama it wouldn't matter what the healthcare industry wanted.- THUGR
At the time the bill was written, Dems had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House. IF they had created a more durable healthcare system .... just negotiating for Rx prices might have been the "make or break" issue .... they would still be in power today.



-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 20, 2017 9:37 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I'll add that if "Trumpcare" turns out to be the nightmare that it promises to be, this might be the end of the GOP too.

And good riddance to both, I say. Neither one represents the American people.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
It should be titled "What Idiots Possibly Think"
Wed, July 17, 2019 02:23 - 79 posts
Can you prioritize?
Wed, July 17, 2019 02:13 - 28 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!!!
Wed, July 17, 2019 02:01 - 2324 posts
Work suks
Tue, July 16, 2019 22:36 - 38 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Tue, July 16, 2019 22:04 - 2545 posts
The Most Inane TV Shows
Tue, July 16, 2019 19:53 - 2 posts
Citizenship Question On Census
Tue, July 16, 2019 19:41 - 96 posts
Next Year Marks FIFTY YEARS yes 50 since Apollo Jul 16, 1969 – Jul 24, 1969 where are we now?
Tue, July 16, 2019 17:51 - 16 posts
Dow @ 20K. Time to jump off!
Tue, July 16, 2019 17:37 - 913 posts
Fascistic immigration policy continues to kill kids
Tue, July 16, 2019 14:08 - 326 posts
The Illegal Aliens Facts Thread
Tue, July 16, 2019 03:07 - 10 posts
Watching Porn Produces as Much Carbon Dioxide Emissions as Whole Countries
Mon, July 15, 2019 21:26 - 3 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL