Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
OverSword

Pelosi Picks on newly elected women of color

653 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Earl.Of.Trumps
1 hour ago, pixiii said:

I feel it needs fixing ASAP as I'm kinda shocked the USA hasn't clamped down on the ID issue way before now. :(  /rant

We here have this problem with fixing it, pixii. And the problem is the criminal democrats. Once they took the house in 2018, they had a bill (law?) up for passage about voting. I recall that one of the provisions was to make it illegal to purge the voter records of dead people. That is of course, because the democrats are notorious for having "activist" dems vote in the name of dead people. 

They had other eyebrow raising provisions in the bill, too. So as long as dems have power, many things concerning voting will be deliberately left ripe for corruption in the voting booths.

We'll never have voter IDs here. The dems won't know how to win an election if we do. And they complained so loudly about Trump stealing the 2016 election. Oy!

The "democrat" party. Now *there's* a twist of irony for ya! :tu:

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gwynbleidd
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

We here have this problem with fixing it, pixii.

We'll never have voter IDs here.  

It's such a shame imho.  I'm not sure how else you guys are going to clamp down on voter fraud without something like showing your ID to vote?   I'm guessing the USA will have to battle it out amongst yourselves, all the while leaving yourselves open to continuing corruption which is kinda sad imo.  People almost need to get behind some Democrats, encourage them and make them think it's their idea, only then will it go through. Kinda like reverse psychology!  I'm sure it's worked both ways over the years ie. Reps vs Dems and Dems vs Reps  :)    

Edited by pixiii
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle
3 minutes ago, pixiii said:

t's such a shame imho.  I'm not sure how else you guys are going to clamp down on voter fraud without something like showing your ID to vote? 

Yeah, you would think that would be kinda like a universal thing. Democrats have fought it every step of the way though.

It's RACIST...

I don't get it either.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
1 hour ago, Michelle said:

Yeah, you would think that would be kinda like a universal thing. Democrats have fought it every step of the way though.

It's RACIST...

I don't get it either.

It has some history, but maybe things are changing enough that Democrats might work something out.

Growing up in Texas in the 60's about the time LBJ was President it was customary for the election officials to put up some impediments to discourage black voters.

Voting always on a weekday, polls closing  by 7 or 8, making it harder for some working people to get to the polling stations.

Polling places not near bus routes, making it difficult for people without transportation

A two dollar poll tax in order to vote when the minimum wage was $1.25.

No voter registration card, but a driver's licence for ID, or birth certificate or SS card I think.

Those regulations combine to make it somewhat more difficult for low income people to get to a voting place.  For low income people at that time in Texas, the majority were Black or  Hispanic.

I think the issue of a poll tax at least went all the way to the supreme court and was struck down. 

Soon enough it appears we may have universal ID cards of some sort,   The insurance, medical, banking, and online commerce businesses will probably push for something, so maybe the government will use it too.. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
2 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

That is of course, because the democrats are notorious for having "activist" dems vote in the name of dead people. 

I think the latest absentee ballot offense in North Carolina was in a Republican Primary by a Republican political activist.  The race was between 3 Republicans..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
4 hours ago, pixiii said:

as we practice the Voter ID thing here

If we passed a law requiring a biometric ID to vote, the Democrats would instantly be against illegals.  If we also required a biometric ID to WORK in this country bothe Dems AND Republicans would bail out on supporting the madness we have today.  It's all about the benefits that their lack of citizenship accrues for their supporters in Congress.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
2 hours ago, and then said:

If we passed a law requiring a biometric ID to vote, the Democrats would instantly be against illegals.  If we also required a biometric ID to WORK in this country bothe Dems AND Republicans would bail out on supporting the madness we have today.  It's all about the benefits that their lack of citizenship accrues for their supporters in Congress.

And that is WHY congress would never pass the law. The Democracts know that they would lose a large voting block. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS
8 hours ago, pixiii said:

It's such a shame imho.  I'm not sure how else you guys are going to clamp down on voter fraud without something like showing your ID to vote?   I'm guessing the USA will have to battle it out amongst yourselves, all the while leaving yourselves open to continuing corruption which is kinda sad imo.  People almost need to get behind some Democrats, encourage them and make them think it's their idea, only then will it go through. Kinda like reverse psychology!  I'm sure it's worked both ways over the years ie. Reps vs Dems and Dems vs Reps  :)    

The answer is simple. Trump simply needs to come out against it.

IMG_21072019_101351_(600_x_773_pixel).thumb.jpg.d6a54716027bb4d163027ac6b673fa30.jpg

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
On 7/20/2019 at 8:07 PM, and then said:

The purpose of primaries is for ONE PARTY to select its choice as a representative for that election.  How does allowing all comers to make that choice accomplish the goal of the primary?  What is difficult to understand about this?  If you want to negate primaries, say so.  Otherwise, having the opposition meddle in intra-party decisions is just THAT- meddling or attempting to subvert them.  I'm not trying to accuse you of anything, just explaining the logic of the primary system.  It isn't unfair because BOTH sides use them to choose the most popular candidates in any given election.  

You totally miss my point.  My point is the democrats and republicans together do not represent more than 53% of the actual voters and they get to choose who runs in the general election.  47% of us have to choose the "lesser of two evils" or vote for the third choice if there is one.   That is not fair voting practice.  You support a system that supports the corporations over the people.  The primaries are a dysfunctional bastardization of the original design that keeps certain people in control and caters to big money.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

I disagree. The 47% of you, assuming that is correct, aren't doing your job then. Third parties and independents throw their hat in the ring all the time but if they don't get the support they need they can't primary. Bernie Sanders is an independent. He gained steam but besides you not drumming up enough enthusiasm for your candidates the other part is that there is no reason to because many third party options end up sucking. Dumbass Gary Johnson comes to mind. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
15 minutes ago, F3SS said:

I disagree. The 47% of you, assuming that is correct, aren't doing your job then. Third parties and independents throw their hat in the ring all the time but if they don't get the support they need they can't primary. Bernie Sanders is an independent. He gained steam but besides you not drumming up enough enthusiasm for your candidates the other part is that there is no reason to because many third party options end up sucking. Dumbass Gary Johnson comes to mind. 

No, there are no primaries for independents in my state, we get primaries for democrats, republicans and libertarians.  (and the libertarians are new to most of the U.S, though they have had primaries for 20 years or so in Texas).   So, how do we support a candidate when the voting system does not support them?  It is rigged from the beginning anyway, the democrats and republics decide who will run in the general election before the primaries are started.  If you think that is not true, then watch the democratic convention in 1973, and in the 80's when Dukakus ran with Geraldine Ferraro.  They were not chose by the delegates, they were shoved down the delegates throats and nothing has changed since then.  When Clinton ran the first time he and old George was put out to pasture.  That was not the voters, that was the party leaders from both sides.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

Maybe you're right. What do I know? I would almost agree with the rest except I think Trump proves that the right guy with enough money can do just fine on his own. You really think the Republicans chose him to run?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrimsonKing
14 minutes ago, F3SS said:

Maybe you're right. What do I know? I would almost agree with the rest except I think Trump proves that the right guy with enough money can do just fine on his own. You really think the Republicans chose him to run?

Only crappy part being..."with enough money" but point made.

Perrot did pretty damn good before handing Clinton the election by dropping out 5-6 months before the election...

Ron Paul just didn't have the cash or recognition needed to put a dent in the numbers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
48 minutes ago, F3SS said:

Maybe you're right. What do I know? I would almost agree with the rest except I think Trump proves that the right guy with enough money can do just fine on his own. You really think the Republicans chose him to run?

No, I think who ever runs both parties (think of a pyramid, one boss or group at the apex). chose him.  He is a puppet just like any one either party supports.  There is an agenda and the puppets usually make sure the agenda is followed.  Nixon and maybe old George Bush cut some of the strings and one was taken down, the other put out to pastrue.  Reagan is proof of this as he was already suffering from alzheimers the first time he ran.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS
58 minutes ago, CrimsonKing said:

Only crappy part being..."with enough money" but point made.

Perrot did pretty damn good before handing Clinton the election by dropping out 5-6 months before the election...

Ron Paul just didn't have the cash or recognition needed to put a dent in the numbers.

Can't run a campaign without it though. Staff and travel are a must NTM advertising. 

27 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

No, I think who ever runs both parties (think of a pyramid, one boss or group at the apex). chose him.  He is a puppet just like any one either party supports.  There is an agenda and the puppets usually make sure the agenda is followed.  Nixon and maybe old George Bush cut some of the strings and one was taken down, the other put out to pastrue.  Reagan is proof of this as he was already suffering from alzheimers the first time he ran.

Trump is no puppet. He's hated by the establishment because he won't conform.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
2 minutes ago, F3SS said:

Can't run a campaign without it though. Staff and travel are a must NTM advertising. 

Trump is no puppet. He's hated by the establishment because he won't conform.

If Trump were hated by "the establishment" then he would have never been allowed to run, much less win.  He is the ultimate "conformist" as he has no real opinion of his own, just sound bites and incendiary remarks to  keep people emotionally off balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
4 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

If Trump were hated by "the establishment" then he would have never been allowed to run, much less win.  He is the ultimate "conformist" as he has no real opinion of his own, just sound bites and incendiary remarks to  keep people emotionally off balance.

See and that's why no one can take what you say seriously...that's your emotional opinion of Trump and not reality. F3SS is right. Trump took them all by surprise and is managing to get things done because he doesn't follow the well laid out procedures of kowtowing and submission. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, skliss said:

See and that's why no one can take what you say seriously...that's your emotional opinion of Trump and not reality. F3SS is right. Trump took them all by surprise and is managing to get things done because he doesn't follow the well laid out procedures of kowtowing and submission. 

It's ok if you believe that.  I have been watching it a lot longer than you have.  Don't worry about me.

And you can only speak for yourself, it is your opinion that "no one can" take me seriously. 

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS
1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

If Trump were hated by "the establishment" then he would have never been allowed to run, much less win.  He is the ultimate "conformist" as he has no real opinion of his own, just sound bites and incendiary remarks to  keep people emotionally off balance.

Quote

 

He's not a b-grade politician making decent money. He's a well known billionaire with the attitude, money and resources to fight back and buy security for himself and his family.

They couldn't stop him. The people weren't going to allow it. He became way too popular way too fast and besides who's going to push him around without him telling the world about it? That's why they, the establishment, came up with the insurance policy. Hillary was the chosen one and he screwed it all up for them. I digress on that and you're wrong about being a conformist.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

It's ok if you believe that.  I have been watching it a lot longer than you have.  Don't worry about me.

And you can only speak for yourself, it is your opinion that "no one can" take me seriously. 

What have you been watching a lot longer than I have?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
On ‎7‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 10:26 PM, pixiii said:

I'm not sure how else you guys are going to clamp down on voter fraud without something like showing your ID to vote? 

:lol: In my state you are mailed a ballot, fill it out and mail it back.  They don't see you once during the whole process.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
11 minutes ago, F3SS said:

He's not a b-grade politician making decent money. He's a well known billionaire with the attitude, money and resources to fight back and buy security for himself and his family.

They couldn't stop him. The people weren't going to allow it. He became way too popular way too fast and besides who's going to push him around without him telling the world about it? That's why they, the establishment, came up with the insurance policy. Hillary was the chosen one and he screwed it all up for them. I digress on that and you're wrong about being a conformist.

He's a media personality.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gwynbleidd
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

He's a media personality.

I find it funny that there's quite a lot of American's that see Trump as a media personality.  I must be getting too old as I've only ever seen him as a rich playboy businessman who's always liked to have beautiful ladies on his arm.  He's always been someone to brag about what he has, and I get that.  I don't even find that offensive because some people are just like that.  They need to boost themselves up to feel better or keep their confidence up and I guess I just see him as one of those types.

Do you feel that the tv show he had in the US contributes as to the reason why some people see him as a media personality rather than a politician?  I might not see him as a media personality because I never watched that tv show either.   

I see him as a politician now, only because he was voted in and is now the president.   At worst, imo, Dems should be joyously thinking they only have to wait 8 years at a maximum to be rid of Trump and be ready for the next leader.  At least you guys have that in your favour as opposed to living in most other countries where we don't have that time limit of a max of 2 terms of 4 years.  To give you an example, I think we had some priminister for 15 years straight at one stage here!!! :lol: 

There are positives to each side, no matter which way you look at it, so that's always a good thing.  :) 

Edited by pixiii
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

They like to call him a game show host as if he had nothing going on before that.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gwynbleidd
2 hours ago, F3SS said:

Hillary was the chosen one and he screwed it all up for them. 

I remember at the time, there were a stack of my friends online that were Democrats (from Cali and Hawaii in particular) and they were incredibly worried that Hillary would get in, even though they were Democrat!?!.  Meanwhile my Republican in-laws (who live in Scottsdale AZ) in particular were very worried about having to vote for Trump. 

I think perhaps a lot of people were stuck between a rock and a hard place.  Which one to choose?  Hillary who people knew was a career politician with some sketchy decision-making she'd made previously vs the rich playboy businessman with crude humour and had no problem calling out those he disagreed with? What a dilemma right! :lol:   

Personally, I think the media and the internet gods (the silicon valley ones :lol: )  have a lot to answer for with regards to getting people's hopes up during that time, especially for the Dems.  I have no doubt in my mind that it wouldn't have been such an outright disappointment for them if there hadn't been such hype created by the media re Clinton in the first place imo. 

Do you guys that are both Dems and Reps feel this way too?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.