Wait, so you just don't like them cause they want something? Something that with proper management is for the good of the US at large (better education).

 

Everyone wants a free-ride, it isn't just the snot-nosed children of this generation that got everything on a silverplatter frm there parents >_>

 

the government only has so much money, why should the rich get to send their kids to colleges for free? It's basically a flat tax then.

 

well, because you want to be "social", you make it a certain amount for everyone and just throw some corrections downwards for groups in need. The group you deem "filfthy rich" will get correction upwards on their taxes. Which doesn't stop them from being "filfthy rich" anyway, it just accumulates slower then in certain countries *cough*tax heavens*cough*

 

For instance, higher education in Belgium is like 900€ (1k $) per year (barring some studies that are excempt for obvious budget reasons). If you are from a group in need, or rather your parents usually, you can get about 750€ back (last I checked, unsure now), making it about 150€ or 170$ a year.

 

Offcourse you can't just sail thruw higher education with that, you get a certain amount of "credits", which you use each year and get back for furfilling courses in your year. Basically you can snooze 2 years, after that its all holds barred and the price can go up rather steeply if you aren't carefull.

Well I may have underestimated Bernie's ground game in Nevada... I just saw 4 of his robots combing my neighborhood, nagging registered Democrats to come caucus for Bernie. We may have a race here after all. Nate Silver now ranks Nevada as 50/50. I believe that guy... especially with Democrat elections.

I seem to have missed something? Hillary has 392 and Bernie has 44 delegates when the 2 primaries together had less than 100 for grabs. Can the delegates pledge w/o / b4 voting. Isn't that an anti-thesis of primaries.....

There are super-delegates who can cast votes in their own right and make up about 10% of the votes at the final conference. Hillary has the majority of these delegates. 

Democrats once nominated a far left, 'no where near as Sanders' Socialist, by the name of George McGovern... and Richard Nixon destroyed him.

 

The Democrats decided they would never nominate another lunatic Socialist to embarrass them in any future election... so they came up with this brilliant idea of "super delegates". These are delegates... the people charged with the responsibility to cast the votes for nomination... that are not tied to the results of the Primary or Caucus. So if the people vote to nominate another McGovern, a Grayson, a Castro, a Hitler, or a Sanders... they can void the people's vote with a party veto. They can support whoever they want... and most declare support long before primary voting even begins.

 

Hillary Clinton has long since bribed, blackmailed, or killed every super delegate to ensure she had them in her back pocket before she was even appointed Secretary of State. I have told you before... it's already rigged.

 

 

that are not tied to the results of the Primary or Caucus. So if the people vote to nominate another McGovern, a Grayson, a Castro, a Hitler, or a Sanders... they can void the people's vote with a party veto.

 

Well that's just mean. I mean then are they trying to fool the party workers and volunteers w/ fake party politics?

 

I'm not a fan of Republicans but at least they don't do stuff like this. 

To be fair, I don't mind a certain percentage being off-popular vote, basically when people who get a say this way are the ones who have to work with the nominee in the future. Now its like 700-ish for the Democrats (150-ish for the Republicans), thats just too high

With Trump in the race, many in the Republican Party wish they had super delegates in their pocket right now to kill his chance for nomination... and if Trump does not seal up enough delegates to clinch the nomination before the convention, they will try to take it from him and give it to someone else. If Trump does get the nomination, and he loses like many believe he will... I would not put it past the party elite to create a similar system to prevent it from happening again... but then you can just fold up the party because people like me would never go for that. I strongly believe in the people's choice... we just have to cope as best we can with our choices. We have 3 equal branches of government to do that... but some Presidents like to do everything in their power to make them not equal.

Wait, you strongly belief in the people's choice, just up until it infringes on YOUR choice right?

 

I don't want to put Trump as US President to screw us all over, but he can be Nevada Governor for all I care, should get us a few laughs

Wait, you strongly belief in the people's choice, just up until it infringes on YOUR choice right?

 

I don't want to put Trump as US President to screw us all over, but he can be Nevada Governor for all I care, should get us a few laughs

I really don't know what you mean by that... is there a point I'm missing? or are you just insulting me again?

It's funny Lys you have both parties switched in your head or your in another world, Republicans don't believe in women rights Democrats do, Republicans want to make it harder for voters but Democrats want to protect voters rights. Oh and the reason democrats don't go on FOX news isn't because they have secrets it's because FOX "news" is a far right nutty show that mostly reports false information. I'm surprised you created this thread since you are a republican and I find your reason for creating the thread "I want people to know what is going on" really funny and kind of insulting. 

Hello David! So nice to see you again.

 

I'm a Republican David... we believe in Constitutional rights for all Americans... not special rights carved out, or created, for specific people. We Republicans abolished slavery, David... because all Americans have the same rights. There are no special rights because you're a woman, a Greek, an Asian, a blonde, a Jew, or a man... just plain Constitutional rights... for all.

 

Rights are not something that has to be provided... you are confusing rights with entitlements and privileges. You didn't specify what "rights" for women you say we are against. Are you talking about abortion? The Supreme Court has ruled that it is within the law for a woman to seek, and have an abortion performed. It is not a "right".... in the eyes of the law... it's not murder. There are many that believe that abortion is murder... many of these people follow a religion... they have the "right" to believe that.

 

No one has a "right" to vote... it's a privilege. Like a driver license, it can be regulated and revoked. Your ability to vote requires you to register, qualify, and be "provided" with the proper license to exercise the legal action.

 

Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Food Stamps, Obamacare... and all the rest are "entitlements"... not "rights".

 

Democrats don't go on Fox News because they are scared to death of answering the hard questions. Bernie Sanders was on Chris Wallace's show this morning, and Chris confronted him on the fact that Fox News was boycotted from hosting a debate for them... he responded that he would be willing to do a Fox hosted debate if they had an agreement on the questions that would be asked, and if the DNC agreed to it. Your description of Fox News was not in his response whatsoever... they are frightened of any questions that Conservatives want to ask them.

 

I create these threads because politics is my hobby... like computer games, bowling, and Tacate fueled jacuzzi's with my wife. I have a passion for it... I also happen to be a Conservative. I really don't care if it bothers you, but if you learn something from it... even if you learn that you just hate me more... then I have succeeded in my objective.

Omg wow really another Republican taking created for ending slavery..Sorry but go to school and read up on American history of politics, the Republican party during Abe Lincoln was the LIBERAL party of the time. The names of the parties don't mean much throughout history. For example the republicans also call themselves the GOP the grand old party but actually the Democrats are the older party trancing themselves back to the original Democratic-Republican party of Thomas Jefferson. There are different periods of American politics and when at times some parties are created and others cease to exist or they are restructured to what the current culture of America is. Abe Lincoln would never be a Republican into days standers maybe the only thing the Republican party of that time has in similar to today's time would be the support for big business. Politics changes with the culture of the people who exhibit the practice of the politics. This is way I believe that a progressive stance is truly the only sensible outlook, things change so must the politics of the world. You can't be conservative for ever on every issue it just don't work. And also why our constitution and bill of rights can change, and why I believe that our founding fathers allowed these things to be put into the formation of our government. 

Sorry Sir Robert, the Democrats were a racist party when they were created, and stayed a racist party until Lyndon Johnson. It was then the Progressives decided to start buying the black vote with favors and entitlements. The first significant Democrat elected to President after the Civil War was the Progressive, Woodrow Wilson, and he was a complete, total, unabashed... racist.

 

The Republican Party was created for the purpose of the abolition of slavery. We created the Constitutional amendment, that Democrats refused to include, until they got the crap beat out of them. Freeing the slaves was not a liberal position... it was a moral position. Only a Democrat would claim that if they lived back in 1859... they would for sure be a Republican. You crack me up. Democrats have enslaved the blacks once again... with cheap table scraps. It's immoral.

 

Wait, you strongly belief in the people's choice, just up until it infringes on YOUR choice right?

 

I don't want to put Trump as US President to screw us all over, but he can be Nevada Governor for all I care, should get us a few laughs

I really don't know what you mean by that... is there a point I'm missing? or are you just insulting me again?

 

You were speaking about believing in "peoples choice", all the while you keep railing against Obama. Last I checked he was a "people's choice" aswell.

 

Heck I approve of people doing opposition to a vested power, its what keeps the process fresh. But railing against the powers that be just cause they are the powers you aren't for is stupid. Any opposition has a tendency to fall into "Lets badmouth all that the ruling side does" and its a fallacy that leads to just more bickering.

 

The US has long ago fallen into a "me vs him" story with the Reps vs Dems 2-party system. Heck even our dozen parties don't properly reflect our nations citizens but its atleast a better "spectrum of choices" then just being black or white. (Which is a double lunacy cause you guys usually are either all black or all white, just a different "flavor" in wording)

So because I believe in the people choosing the President... I'm supposed to support his agenda as well? You failed to continue reading... "we just have to cope the best we can with our choices". My opposition to Obama is me coping the best I can with the people's choice. If the people choose poorly, that doesn't mean I'm suddenly changing my position. Obama has been a complete failure to my country, and Republican opposition has prevented him from inflicting much more damage. Anyone has the right to disagree with me... but that's politics in America.

I am pointing out your apparant inability to see the other side of the argument. You can agree to disagree all the time, but I like to know what I am disagreeing with. The reasoning might be illogical but should be funded past a mere emotion of love/hate.

 

You dislike Obama, fine. You dislike the laws he put forth, fine. You can agree that a majority (of like what, 53%) wants something you dislike, fine. But can you stop and think that mere love/hate is whats driving your country is a bigger divide then ever healthy for a nation?

 

Debates should be about vocalizing your standpoint and getting to know your fellow debaters positions, not about badmouthing for the sake of appeasing realityTV standards of audience.

 

You don't fall for the whole farçe, and it suits you to notice that its turning into a farçe. But atleast stop using the farçe to continue the farçe itself. Eventually this will boil down to 4y of each sides president veto'ing every law the previous 4y got issued. That isn't governing, thats pre-school bullying.

Oh Lys you really have to pick on one word "rights" don't you? Have you ever heard of the Bill of "Rights"? Rights are something that has to be provided because they are rights!!! You have a voting right unless you are a felony then it can be provoked. I didn't say anything about  Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Food Stamps or Obamacare because I know those things are not rights. You know at the time of Abraham Lincoln the Republican party is actually the modern day Democrats, so don't take credit for that. Yes I'm talking about abortion along  with equal pay and equal treatment, just because the Supreme Court approved of it doesn't mean the Republican party does because they don't and they want to defund Plant Parenthood which is all about women's health. Democrats are not afraid of tough questions from FOX because if they were then Sanders wouldn't be willing to do a debate on FOX, they just don't want to waste time with a ridiculous "news" channel.  

 

Hello David! So nice to see you again.

 

I'm a Republican David... we believe in Constitutional rights for all Americans... not special rights carved out, or created, for specific people. We Republicans abolished slavery, David... because all Americans have the same rights. There are no special rights because you're a woman, a Greek, an Asian, a blonde, a Jew, or a man... just plain Constitutional rights... for all.

 

Rights are not something that has to be provided... you are confusing rights with entitlements and privileges. You didn't specify what "rights" for women you say we are against. Are you talking about abortion? The Supreme Court has ruled that it is within the law for a woman to seek, and have an abortion performed. It is not a "right".... in the eyes of the law... it's not murder. There are many that believe that abortion is murder... many of these people follow a religion... they have the "right" to believe that.

 

No one has a "right" to vote... it's a privilege. Like a driver license, it can be regulated and revoked. Your ability to vote requires you to register, qualify, and be "provided" with the proper license to exercise the legal action.

 

Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Food Stamps, Obamacare... and all the rest are "entitlements"... not "rights".

 

Democrats don't go on Fox News because they are scared to death of answering the hard questions. Bernie Sanders was on Chris Wallace's show this morning, and Chris confronted him on the fact that Fox News was boycotted from hosting a debate for them... he responded that he would be willing to do a Fox hosted debate if they had an agreement on the questions that would be asked, and if the DNC agreed to it. Your description of Fox News was not in his response whatsoever... they are frightened of any questions that Conservatives want to ask them.

 

I create these threads because politics is my hobby... like computer games, bowling, and Tacate fueled jacuzzi's with my wife. I have a passion for it... I also happen to be a Conservative. I really don't care if it bothers you, but if you learn something from it... even if you learn that you just hate me more... then I have succeeded in my objective.

Hello David!... The U. S. "Bill of Rights" are the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, they are not "provided" by anyone, all United States citizens are born with them... freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to petition the government, right to keep and bear arms, right to a speedy trial, right to have regulated search and seizure... you know? Stuff that doesn't cost money, and no one has to provide a service for them.

 

If you wish to continue believing that somewhere in time the Republican Party switched places with Democrats, then enjoy your ignorance. If I was a Democrat... I would want to run away from the past as well. In typical Democrat fashion, you refuse to take responsibility... and blame Republicans.

 

Planned Parenthood is a private business... they are not a government agency. They are in the business of abortion. It's illegal to use taxpayer money for abortions. They don't need to be subsidized by taxpayers. They don't need taxpayer money to conduct their business. I don't care how many abortions Planned Parenthood performs... it's not illegal. I care about who is paying for it, and this bullshit that they "use the money for other things", is a lie. It's illegal to continue government funding of Planned Parenthood. I can't help you see the difference more than that.

 

So you want equal pay? Does that mean you wish to do away with all employment contracts? I really can't see your problem.

Umm the Progressives were formed out of the Republican party.. wouldn't that there were liberals in the Republican party. Now yes the parties back then didn't used our modern terms of Liberal vs Conservatives.. Actually the term liberal was what was debated Classical vs what became neo-Liberalism, so really all parties have a liberal element in the broader definition of it. But if you just want to say which party by name only yea it was the republican party and yea most modern Democrats would be Republicans back then as many Democrats who were anti-slavery back then did join the Republican party when it was founded.

 

 

Umm the Progressives were formed out of the Republican party

YES! You are correct. Theodore Roosevelt was the first President to inject the U.S. Federal Government with a big government progressive platform. When Teddy left office, William Howard Taft rejected the Progressive movement and began reversing the damage. Progressives found a new home with the easily manipulated, and horribly dysfunctional, Democrat Party. Teddy didn't like that and came back to run against Taft with the new Progressive Party... nicknamed the Bull Moose Party. This split the Republican vote and Woodrow Wilson won with 43% of the vote. The Progressive Party dissolved shortly after, and they have been firmly encamped with Democrats, and destroying the Republic, ever since. Class dismissed.

 

Umm the Progressives were formed out of the Republican party

YES! You are correct. Theodore Roosevelt was the first President to inject the U.S. Federal Government with a big government progressive platform. When Teddy left office, William Howard Taft rejected the Progressive movement and began reversing the damage. Progressives found a new home with the easily manipulated, and horribly dysfunctional, Democratic Party. Teddy didn't like that and came back to run against Taft with the new Progressive Party... nicknamed the Bull Moose Party. This split the Republican vote and Woodrow Wilson won with 43% of the vote. The Progressive Party dissolved shortly after, and they have been firmly encamped with Democrats, and destroying the Republic, ever since. Class dismissed.

 

As I read the above, you'd like to repeal most of the results of the 20th century. Do you care to elaborate?

 

 

As I read the above, you'd like to repeal most of the results of the 20th century. Do you care to elaborate?

Wow... this is a cool question. I'll do my best.

 

The Libertarian in me wants to say, "Hello Congress!... if you wish to pass one new law, you must repeal 5 old ones first!"

 

The Federal Government is too big. This is the result of decades of Legislators, Presidents, and Supreme Courts allowing laws to stand that go outside the boundaries of the Constitution. Whenever Progressives pass some big law that further encumbers the people... Republicans have to come in and pass more laws to encumber the encumbering law, that never should have passed to begin with. Whenever Republicans pass some big law that further encumbers the people... I'm repeating myself, just the other way. So really the answer to your question, for the most part... is yes.

 

We have 50 states, and each one of them have the same government as the Federal Government. Each state elects a Governor, a Lieutenant Governor, an Attorney General... each have a House and a Senate... District, Superior, and Supreme Courts. They are all set up to be very strong, and to take care of their state. What has happened over the course of these decades, is more and more power has been shifted to the Federal Government, and it's pretty much made the state governments useless. Thus, the destruction of the Republic.

 

The Federal Government should, in all speed possible, let go of the power, let go of the money, stop playing mommy, stop playing daddy, stop playing social worker, and stop playing psychiatrist to the entire country, and allow these state governments to take care of themselves the way the Constitution, and our Republic, was crafted to operate. If we, the American people, do not change this path we are on... we will go bankrupt, we will separate once again, and the half that doesn't support the military, and the half that chooses to give up their guns, will lose.

The Federal Government is too big. This is the result of decades of Legislators, Presidents, and Supreme Courts allowing laws to stand that go outside the boundaries of the Constitution. Whenever Progressives pass some big law that further encumbers the people... Republicans have to come in and pass more laws to encumber the encumbering law, that

never should have passed to begin with. Whenever Republicans pass some big law that further encumbers the people... I'm repeating myself, just the other way. So really the answer to your question, for the most part... is yes.

 

 

According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the final say on which laws go outside the boundaries of the Constitution. Therefore, under your own standard the above assertion is incorrect.

 

 

 

 

The Federal Government should, in all speed possible, let go of the power, let go of the money, stop playing mommy, stop playing daddy, stop playing social worker, and stop playing psychiatrist to the entire country, and allow these state governments to take care of themselves the way the Constitution, and our Republic, was crafted to operate. If we, the American people, do not change this path we are on... we will go bankrupt, we will separate once again, and the half that doesn't support the military, and the half that chooses to give up their guns, will lose.

                   

 

You're describing a libertarian fantasy land. In the world of today, corporate oligarchy in the name of "ensuring shareholder value" would be the actual result of government abdicating its responsibility. Government is not the boogeyman. Management of the rules and regulations set up to minimize the negative effects of profit-at-all-cost capitalists is and should be the role of government.

 

 

That said, I certainly would like a line-item veto provision included on my 1040 form!

 

 

We have 50 states, and each one of them have the same government as the Federal Government. Each state elects a Governor, a Lieutenant Governor, an Attorney General... each have a House and a Senate... District, Superior, and Supreme Courts. They are all set up to be very strong, and to take care of their state. What has happened over the course of these decades, is more and more power has been shifted to the Federal Government, and it's pretty much made the state governments useless. Thus, the destruction of the Republic.

 

 

Setting aside the outlier of Nebraska's Unicameral Legislature (incidentally, a product of the Progressive Movement), I think we need only look to history to show us that states have certainly proven either unable or unwilling to  'take care of their state', as you suggest. Two easy examples are segregation and voting rights.

 

 

According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the final say on which laws go outside the boundaries of the Constitution.

That is why I included Supreme Courts in the list... it's my assertion that they have all broke the boundaries of the Constitution.

 

 

In the world of today, corporate oligarchy in the name of "ensuring shareholder value" would be the actual result of government abdicating its responsibility. Government is not the boogeyman. Management of the rules and regulations set up to minimize the negative effects of profit-at-all-cost capitalists is and should be the role of government.

Where in the Constitution is it the responsibility of the Federal Government to be against corporate oligarchy and limit shareholder value? Are you saying they would be abdicating a responsibility the people never gave them? If you want something like this, it should be done the right way... draw up a Constitutional Amendment, and get it passed... but that's just too hard, it's much easier to bullshit our way into super majorities and stack the courts with judges that refuse to stop it.

 

You asked me a question, and I did the best I could to explain my position. You still have the right to not like it.