Jump to content

The democrats


Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Don Lemon, talking to Cuomo. They were saying that Trump was a racist for "embracing" the Iowa politician who just made racist comments the other day. There was no proof offered of their serious accusation.

Don Lemon's show was a bad one to pick for evidence of lying, he just talks in generalities. 

I can try to watch some more of his show later to see if he tries to state any "facts" but honestly, he's just a hateful person and his show is hard to watch.

 

Here's the transcript. Where does he say that Trump was "embracing" King?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1901/15/cnnt.01.html

I get the impression you totally misunderstood and that you interpreted them talking about how Trump has failed to disavow King as saying Trump has embraced King. And you even put it in quotation marks. This is called "fake news". You were misrepresenting their words to try and make it seem like they were making accusations that weren't true. In the process, you were guilty of exactly what you claim they are guilty of.

This is what Alanis Morrissette would call "ironic."

Edited by BubberMiley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Here's the transcript. Where does he say that Trump was "embracing" King?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1901/15/cnnt.01.html

My PVR starts recording before the  show starts. It might be at the end of Cuomo's show, whatever that's called.

To paraphrase, Don Lemon came on and he was basically saying that Trump should be "embracing" Martin Luther King instead of the King in Iowa who was making the racist comments. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Here's the transcript. Where does he say that Trump was "embracing" King?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1901/15/cnnt.01.html

I get the impression you totally misunderstood and that you interpreted them talking about how Trump has failed to disavow King as saying Trump has embraced King. And you even put it in quotation marks. This is called "fake news". You were misrepresenting their words to try and make it seem like they were making accusations that weren't true. In the process, you were guilty of exactly what you claim they are guilty of.

This is what Alanis Morrissette would call "ironic."

Yeah I wasn't "guilty" of anything. I'll watch it again. I'm sure he talked about Trump "embracing" King, meaning philosophically and not literally wrapping his arms around him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Yeah I wasn't "guilty" of anything. I'll watch it again. I'm sure he talked about Trump "embracing" King, meaning philosophically and not literally wrapping his arms around him. 

Sure. Go watch it again. Maybe you'll be able to understand what they're really saying this time. :lol:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Boges said:

You've noted my Profile pic right? 

Even so, Trump is a special breed of liar. 

Your profile picture shows me a politician who could give a shit about Canada. To me Scheer is no true conservative at all. But he does appear to be quite the liberal looking politician in conservative clothing. While Canada burns Scheer sits back and watches as Trudeau and his Somali immigration minister try to destroy British/European Canada. If Scheer were to act and talk like Trump and less like a liberal he would be the next PM of Canada guaranteed. This is why the Peoples Party has been formed because of Scheer. Maxine Bernier talks more like a real and true conservative than your political correct scaredy cat  leader ever will. Maxine and his party are doing great and getting lots of support from Canadians. 

Here is an example of how your liberal leader reacts to a question when asked by some leftist liberal media outlet. He was asked as to whether he was a feminist like Trudeau had once said and called himself, and Scheers reply was, "yes. I am a feminist". What the hell? Scheers idle has to be Trudeau. If you are a real conservative then you need to take that profile picture down and put up a picture of Maxine Bernier instead. Otherwise, it is in my opinion that you are not a true conservative at all but more like a fake and phony one. Yes/no? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BubberMiley said:

Sure. Go watch it again. Maybe you'll be able to understand what they're really saying this time. :lol:

Ok, just watched it again. Right at the beginning of the PVR session it's the end of Cuomo's show. There's a HUGE WHITE BANNER with black letters at the bottom of the screen says in all caps "TRUMP EMBRACES WRONG KING ON MLK WEEKEND" and Cuomo is talking about back in the day when there was way too much racism.

Cuomo is basically man-splaining how CNN is in lock step with MLK's sentiments and then says "even if the President chooses to let us all know that he will not stand up against his fellow Republican's ugly message of bigotry he still represents a minority".... 

Don Lemon starts off with "Chris let's be honest, we're always honest" lol. 

So there you have it. The 1st second of CNN and they're blaring out in ALL CAPS that Trump embraced the wrong King on MLK weekend. I didn't see any signs of him espousing that guy's words, or standing up for his character, or hanging out with him, or excoriating McCallum for removing him from every group that he was in. 

CNN just went on a rant about Trump and they do it whether he does or doesn't do something.

"Trump will be the first President not to spend time with the troops on new year's day" or whatever. Then he shows up in Iraq and instead of apologizing they bitch because he signed some hats. That's CNN. Make whatever Trump does into a hatefest. Only idiots could watch that shit for more than a couple minutes at a time.

So go to hell Bubber. I didn't lie and I didn't miss the point.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jimwd said:

Gop lost the popular vote by 3 million in 2016. They lost by 12 million in midterms, I guess they didn’t buy into the  birther,pizza gate propaganda party.

I guess a lot of people must miss the burning cities and muslim terrorist attacks from the Obama years.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I guess a lot of people must miss the burning cities and muslim terrorist attacks from the Obama years.

 

“Isis is defeated” ooops 4 dead troops ..

 

Bone spurs to bone saws...Your kinda guy huh,?

Edited by Jimwd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Ok, just watched it again. Right at the beginning of the PVR session it's the end of Cuomo's show. There's a HUGE WHITE BANNER with black letters at the bottom of the screen says in all caps "TRUMP EMBRACES WRONG KING ON MLK WEEKEND" and Cuomo is talking about back in the day when there was way too much racism.

Cuomo is basically man-splaining how CNN is in lock step with MLK's sentiments and then says "even if the President chooses to let us all know that he will not stand up against his fellow Republican's ugly message of bigotry he still represents a minority".... 

Don Lemon starts off with "Chris let's be honest, we're always honest" lol. 

So there you have it. The 1st second of CNN and they're blaring out in ALL CAPS that Trump embraced the wrong King on MLK weekend. I didn't see any signs of him espousing that guy's words, or standing up for his character, or hanging out with him, or excoriating McCallum for removing him from every group that he was in. 

CNN just went on a rant about Trump and they do it whether he does or doesn't do something.

"Trump will be the first President not to spend time with the troops on new year's day" or whatever. Then he shows up in Iraq and instead of apologizing they bitch because he signed some hats. That's CNN. Make whatever Trump does into a hatefest. Only idiots could watch that shit for more than a couple minutes at a time.

So go to hell Bubber. I didn't lie and I didn't miss the point.

 

If he refused to disavow Steve King and doesn't do anything to kick him out of the party, then their words are completely and totally accurate. If that's the only example of them lying you can come up with, I rest my case. They are truthful, you are not. See you in hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

Actually the polls in 2016 were remarkably accurate in their projections, right down to identifying tiny areas that could go either way. This is why the Trump campaign fed the poll data to Russia so that they could illegally target those areas for them.

LOL!

It was the Russian's that suggested to the Hillary campaign not to campaign at all in Wisconsin, and next to nothing in Michigan and Pennsylvania too!  Then they had James Comey release a statement a few weeks before the election that Hillary was under investigation!  Damn Putin is good!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Truth Detector said:

LOL!

It was the Russian's that suggested to the Hillary campaign not to campaign at all in Wisconsin, and next to nothing in Michigan and Pennsylvania too!  Then they had James Comey release a statement a few weeks before the election that Hillary was under investigation!  Damn Putin is good!

Kind of playing both sides of the field there eh? 

You're essentially conceding that Hilary's shitty campaigning probably swung the contest and nothing special about Trump. I'll always go back to the fact that Romney received more votes than Trump. 

And Comey doing that would indicate he wasn't a Dem Hack like he was being portrayed as once he started looking into Trump's ties with Russia. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

If he refused to disavow Steve King and doesn't do anything to kick him out of the party, then their words are completely and totally accurate. If that's the only example of them lying you can come up with, I rest my case. They are truthful, you are not. See you in hell.

Remember the Jeremiah Wright thing? Hypocrisy runs strong in the GOP. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Boges said:

Kind of playing both sides of the field there eh? 

You're essentially conceding that Hilary's shitty campaigning probably swung the contest and nothing special about Trump. I'll always go back to the fact that Romney received more votes than Trump. 

And Comey doing that would indicate he wasn't a Dem Hack like he was being portrayed as once he started looking into Trump's ties with Russia. 

I agree with you mostly.  Trump did tap into voters unsatisfied with both parties, particularly in the rust belt that felt they’ve been ignored for a while by republicans and democrats.  The most important question the political class should be asking when it comes to the support Trump received in 2016, is how did both parties and a system fail so many people badly enough over the decades that they felt voting for Trump was their only recourse?  I haven’t seen much introspection from either party.  Just a lot of stereotyping and name calling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Truth Detector said:

  The most important question the political class should be asking when it comes to the support Trump received in 2016, is how did both parties and a system fail so many people badly enough over the decades that they felt voting for Trump was their only recourse?  

Most people didn’t vote for trump. The reason  soneone like trump could be elected  is because you strayed from the framers intent of the EC. 

HAMILTON in federalist 68 even warned if the masses were allowed to vote for president they could be subject to foreign influence. How’s that for a premonition?

You  failed your democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2019 at 2:03 PM, WestCanMan said:

My PVR starts recording before the  show starts. It might be at the end of Cuomo's show, whatever that's called.

To paraphrase, Don Lemon came on and he was basically saying that Trump should be "embracing" Martin Luther King instead of the King in Iowa who was making the racist comments. 

Of course  trump is a racist

settling  lawsuits for denying blacks rentals 

Central Park five

Birtherism 

Charlottesville 

Retweeting white supremacists  to Britain 

Mexicans are r*pists 

Sh^thole countries 

 

 

Etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Jimwd said:

Most people didn’t vote for trump. The reason  soneone like trump could be elected  is because you strayed from the framers intent of the EC. 

HAMILTON in federalist 68 even warned if the masses were allowed to vote for president they could be subject to foreign influence. How’s that for a premonition?

You  failed your democracy.

How have we strayed from the intent of the electoral college?

Most people didn't vote for Hillary either. When you get right down to it, nobody won a majority of popular votes, only a plurality.

Pretty sure it doesn't say that in Federalist 68. Can you quote where it says that? I've got the book right with me, and I can't find where he says that.

Edited by JamesHackerMP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JamesHackerMP said:

How have we strayed from the intent of the electoral college?

Most people didn't vote for Hillary either. When you get right down to it, nobody won a majority of popular votes, only a plurality.

The populace would vote for the electoral college. The electoral  college would in turn go to Washington and choose the most qualified person.

Here  are Hamilton’s words on who chooses the president from federalist 68. 

 

“..men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

The framers expected each state to elect well respected people not associated with any political office, those people were to be entrusted with choosing the president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jimwd said:

The populace would vote for the electoral college. The electoral  college would in turn go to Washington and choose the most qualified person.

Here  are Hamilton’s words on who chooses the president from federalist 68. 

 

“..men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

The framers expected each state to elect well respected people not associated with any political office, those people were to be entrusted with choosing the president.

That doesn't say anywhere that the people, if given a direct vote, would elect someone by foreign influence and meddling. What you quoted said nothing about that. Also, there is no evidence that the founding fathers (the convention) ever considered a direct, national popular vote. Because it wasn't possible to do something like that in 1789 (when Washington was elected).

Actually, what it says is that no member of Congress may be appointed elector by any state. It said nothing about someone who held a state office being debarred from being an elector (although these days I believe it is avoided). The convention wanted to free the presidency from congressional politics, so that the president would be able to do his job without having to "prostitute for votes" among the congressmen. That, in fact, is addressed in Federalist No. 68.

 

Edited by JamesHackerMP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JamesHackerMP said:

That doesn't say anywhere that the people, if given a direct vote, would elect someone by foreign influence and meddling. What you quoted said nothing about that. Also, there is no evidence that the founding fathers (the convention) ever considered a direct, national popular vote. Because it wasn't possible to do something like that in 1789 (when Washington was elected).

Corruption of an electoral process could most likely arise from the desire of "foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils." To minimize risk of foreign machinations and inducements, the electoral college would have only a "transient existence" and no elector could be a "senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States"; electors would make their choice in a "detached situation", whereas a preexisting body of federal office-holders "might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jimwd said:

Corruption of an electoral process could most likely arise from the desire of "foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils." To minimize risk of foreign machinations and inducements, the electoral college would have only a "transient existence" and no elector could be a "senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States"; electors would make their choice in a "detached situation", whereas a preexisting body of federal office-holders "might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes".

Yes, I know that. But Hamilton meant prostituting for votes among the members of CONGRESS, not foreign intervention. He mentions foreign influence, but not in the way you have suggested.

You might also consider that "the people" in 1789 meant the people who owned enough property to vote.

Edited by JamesHackerMP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jimwd said:

The populace would vote for the electoral college. The electoral  college would in turn go to Washington and choose the most qualified person.

Here  are Hamilton’s words on who chooses the president from federalist 68. 

 

“..men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

The framers expected each state to elect well respected people not associated with any political office, those people were to be entrusted with choosing the president.

P.S., the electoral college doesn't meet in Washington. They cast their votes in their state capitals. If they were brought together as one body, the vote prostitution he mentioned would be operative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Yes, I know that. But Hamilton meant prostituting for votes among the members of CONGRESS, not foreign intervention. He mentions foreign influence, but not in the way you have suggested.

You might also consider that "the people" in 1789 meant the people who owned enough property to vote.

Is that what Corruption of an electoral process could most likely arise from the desire of "foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils." To minimize risk of foreign machinations and inducements,”

means to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JamesHackerMP said:

I do believe you are taking that out of context. He said nothing about the people electing the president directly would cause the foreign powers to influence the presidential elections. You've almost got the right idea, but the details aren't quite correct.

With all due respect between the two of us I’m the only one who has read the federalist papers. Why are you trying to tell me what it says when you haven’t read it?

In all the federalist papers it’s very clear the masses were never intended to vote for the president,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me, but I've got the bloody thing right in front of me and I just read it. I've read a bunch of them, in fact, that's why I bought the book. I've read No. 68 before tonight, and I've just read it again.

Hamilton's worry about foreign powers meddling in the president's election was, not if the PEOPLE were to elect the president directly, but if a pre-existing body--by which he means CONGRESS--were to be empowered to make the choice.

The rough draft of the constitution (Report of the Committee of Detail, August 6, 1787) has no electoral college. Instead, the president is elected by Congress. That was what Hamilton was saying was dangerous; a congressional election, not a popular one. I have read that, too and have the thing in front of me as we speak.

Again, you have the right idea, and an impressive command of the facts, but I believe you've misinterpreted some of it.

Edited by JamesHackerMP
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...