A Very Serious Question For The American People! (Page 12): Trumps election could be seen as the roots of a new party. Many moderates fed up with both parties heard the message and...

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

thom w wrote:

Maybe you aren't saying what you would replace the two party system with, and how you propose to do it, because you have no idea. If so, that isn't a crime, and I'm not suggesting you hold your tongue. On the other hand, if you do have some ideas, what's wrong with sharing them?

Trumps election could be seen as the roots of a new party. Many moderates fed up with both parties heard the message and understood, a vote for Trump was a vote for changing the Stats Quo in DC.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

letmedance wrote:

Trumps election could be seen as the roots of a new party. Many moderates fed up with both parties heard the message and understood, a vote for Trump was a vote for changing the Stats Quo in DC.

Could be, but I'm pretty sure he's gotten his last moderate vote. I realize you think you are a moderate, but you simply aren't. No insult intended. You aren't required to be a moderate. Still, I think it's sad that you can't recognize that you aren't. You're generally polite, and that is to your credit. Many wingers on this site are never polite. Still your political/social beliefs are about the same. If he does split the party, it will split the vote, and give the Democrats much more power. I don't see that as a bad thing, but you probably do. I appreciate the response, and I am interested in your opinion, but I'd still like to hear from her. There are several possibilities as to why she hasn't answered, and I'm not going to judge.

Frosty Loc: Minnesota

cwp3420 wrote:

I guess you don't understand the electoral college system in the U.S. Look it up on Wikipedia, since that's your choice of news for you. I'll give you a hint. The popular vote doesn't count. Educate yourself, man.

You don't understand that the majority of Americans don't want the orange haired monster to be their president, but he is, and I'll give you a hint, they don't have to like it and are free to remind you all they want of the fact that he lost by nearly 3 million votes. It's in the Bill of Rights in the constitution. That document that many of you in law enforcement seem to be unfamiliar with.

Frosty Loc: Minnesota

Elaine2025 wrote:

Frosty, you see nothing wrong with what she has done? The emails, the uranium to Russia, the Clinton Foundation? That just names a couple of them, and you are fine with that? Her NAME is not the issue, her lies and criminal actions are the issue.

Prove even one of those allegations.

1. Uranium to Russia. Fake story. At least 7 US Departs. or agencies approved the deal. From NPR: Because uranium is considered an asset with national security implications, the 2010 sale to Rosatom was subject to approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an intragovernmental agency that includes input from the Departments of State, Treasury, Justice, Energy, Defense, Commerce and Homeland Security, as well as the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

Bottom line. The State Dept and several Depts and agencies O K'd the deal. In fact none of them had the authority to stop it.

2. Clinton foundation. See: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/sep/23/politifact-sheet-comparing-clinton-and-trump-found/

3. Lies. You have a problem with lies???? Have you no shame. Trump, the King of Lies, Liar in Chief. Over 6,000 confirmed lies according to those that track his lies.

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

thom w wrote:

Could be, but I'm pretty sure he's gotten his last... (show quote)

I am not a winger as you are Tom. I am moderately conservative and wish that I could avoid pointing out your errors but I have a problem with blind devotion to a party. Blind devotion is dangerous as it is what keeps the political parties in power. I will be voting again in 2020 for the candidate with a platform I believe in, your Candidate in 2016 had no platform. My mistake, she did have a platform which simply was being the first female president of the US. The first female president will be one that runs without a closet full of skeletons and Pant Suits.

Frosty Loc: Minnesota

letmedance wrote:

Hillary is still a public figure and the libel laws are very lax regarding her.

Comey gave us all the proof we need to know that she broke several laws but lacked intent. That my friend was not his job.

I knew about the libel laws. I was just trying to stir things up. You are right. They are different.

Comey did not provide any proof in his press conference. He presented a some allegations that made no sense. To start. 1. At the time he had no legal right to search Weiner's computer for State Dept emails. 2. The emails were on Weiner's computer but who sent them. Everyone assumed it was Hillary, but cannot explain why Hillary would send State Dept emails to the discredited ex-husband of one of her aides or was it someone else that sent them. It's totally illogical that Hillary would have sent them.

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa

Frosty wrote:

Prove even one of those allegations. br br 1. U... (show quote)

Your hatred of Trump stops you from seeing the truth. It isn't my job to convince you that the hildabeast shafted the US with Uranium one or that she is a crook and her husband is a serial rapist. And you lib fascist socialist dems need to get over this crap of "have you no shame" or " shame on you", that is just childish.

Frosty Loc: Minnesota

Elaine2025 wrote:

Your hatred of Trump stops you from seeing the truth. It isn't my job to convince you that the hildabeast shafted the US with Uranium one or that she is a crook and her husband is a serial rapist. And you lib fascist socialist dems need to get over this crap of "have you no shame" or " shame on you", that is just childish.

Listening to trump willl not get you to any truth and the truth would only get in the way of your delusions about him.

There is no point trying to communicate with you if you don't read that which is clearly presented to you. I told you why blaming Hillary for the uranium deal was utter bs. You choose to ignore it and prefer to believe commie right wing lies. That's your choice. Therefore, my choice, and advice to others, is to ignore you.

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa

Frosty wrote:

Listening to trump willl not get you to any truth and the truth would only get in the way of your delusions about him.

There is no point trying to communicate with you if you don't read that which is clearly presented to you. I told you why blaming Hillary for the uranium deal was utter bs. You choose to ignore it and prefer to believe commie right wing lies. That's your choice. Therefore, my choice, and advice to others, is to ignore you.

How utterly lib fascist socialist dem of you........agree with your BS, or you give the edict to ignore. Don't think you have a ton of followers. I'm not worried.

wooden_ships

Feiertag wrote:

I didn't ask who would have been a better option than Trump. Give me someone that would have been a lousier choice for the commander and chief position.

No one

wooden_ships

Elaine2025 wrote:

Your hatred of Trump stops you from seeing the truth. It isn't my job to convince you that the hildabeast shafted the US with Uranium one or that she is a crook and her husband is a serial rapist. And you lib fascist socialist dems need to get over this crap of "have you no shame" or " shame on you", that is just childish.

The “Truth”?, from or with trump?

Shirley you jest. (Apologies to Leslie Nielsen of “Airplane”)

Texcaster Loc: Queensland

wooden_ships wrote:

The “Truth”?, from or with trump?

Shirley you jest. (Apologies to Leslie Nielsen of “Airplane”)

Is she related to Shirley Knot, Cousin Huckabee's impending replacement?

cwp3420

Frosty wrote:

You don't understand that the majority of Americans don't want the orange haired monster to be their president, but he is, and I'll give you a hint, they don't have to like it and are free to remind you all they want of the fact that he lost by nearly 3 million votes. It's in the Bill of Rights in the constitution. That document that many of you in law enforcement seem to be unfamiliar with.

Yep, you got me Frosty. None of us in law enforcement have read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Only you Dims have and dismiss them when they don't suit your views, such as the Second amendment. You are quick to dismiss things said about Clinton and the things she did and will always give her a pass. It's getting a little tired , though, with you little libs crying your hearts out about the 3 million votes. Perhaps a quote from Hillary herself would help you. "At this point, what difference does it make". You, of course, have the freedom afforded by the Constitution to continue to cry and weep for the next 6 years. And, to be honest, it makes my day to hear you crybabies wail all the time.

Texcaster Loc: Queensland

cwp3420 wrote:

Yep, you got me Frosty. None of us in law enforce... (show quote)

Don't tell me, you were the the handcuffs and the cattle prod man down at the jailhouse?

hondo812 Loc: Massachusetts

Frosty wrote:

I knew about the libel laws. I was just trying to... (show quote)

Pretty sure that had been his wife's computer, Hillary's assistant Huma Abedin. I'm also pretty sure that it was on record that HRC would send/forward emails to Huma for printing. I'm not going to look it up. You are certainly free to or to decline to. At this point it seems that is ancient history.