If you’re so deep in the muh polls meme that even Pew isn’t reputable to you, there’s nothing more to say.

How is what not racist? Analyzing data and recognizing trends? Is the assumption if not foregone conclusion by many analysts that Texas will go blue by 2028, “racist”? Is the Republicans opposition to granting amnesty and voting rights to illegal immigrants? Why is it assumed they would vote overwhelmingly for democrats?

So. Obviously Pew doesn't think the world will be ending in less than 12 years?

(06-24-2019 04:48 PM)Kronke Wrote:  If you’re so deep in the muh polls meme that even Pew isn’t reputable to you, there’s nothing more to say.

How is what not racist? Analyzing data and recognizing trends? Is the assumption if not foregone conclusion by many analysts that Texas will go blue by 2028, “racist”? Is the Republicans opposition to granting amnesty and voting rights to illegal immigrants? Why is it assumed they would vote overwhelmingly for democrats?

Pew didn't do the research. Look if your name is Martinez, you live in Texas, and your roots go back there to 1875 you are not Hispanic either. There are people with Spanish surnames that does't make them "Hispanic". Big difference among Cali, Texas and Florida (Cuban vs PR also).

What people that are so into polls don't realize is that "SAYING" you'll vote for someone is not equivalent to someone "GOING" to the polls to vote. Heck, think about it, how many millennials that say that they want a particular candidate "ACTUALLY" go and vote for them? They're too busy texting and hanging out to go vote, and to that I say, "THANK GOD!"

We know most of them are pretty stupid when it comes to government and politicians.

(06-24-2019 04:01 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 04:00 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 02:30 PM)Kronke Wrote:  A: Not bleak at all.

I know African-Americans are hardest hit by the abortion industry, but they are being outbred by Asians? I find that hard to believe.

Immigration

Immigration to where? Certainly not here or anywhere I have been. They must be counting muslims as Asians. That's why I still use the term oriental.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(06-24-2019 07:27 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 04:01 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 04:00 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 02:30 PM)Kronke Wrote:  A: Not bleak at all.

I know African-Americans are hardest hit by the abortion industry, but they are being outbred by Asians? I find that hard to believe.

Immigration

Immigration to where? Certainly not here or anywhere I have been. They must be counting muslims as Asians. That's why I still use the term oriental.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I thought we were all supposed to be Muslims by 2050.

(06-24-2019 08:24 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 07:27 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 04:01 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 04:00 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 02:30 PM)Kronke Wrote:  A: Not bleak at all.

I know African-Americans are hardest hit by the abortion industry, but they are being outbred by Asians? I find that hard to believe.

Immigration

Immigration to where? Certainly not here or anywhere I have been. They must be counting muslims as Asians. That's why I still use the term oriental.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I thought we were all supposed to be Muslims by 2050.

Some places in Europe will be 25%. The difference in the USA is Muslims are secular, and not ghettoized like Europe.

(06-24-2019 09:31 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 08:24 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 07:27 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 04:01 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 04:00 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  I know African-Americans are hardest hit by the abortion industry, but they are being outbred by Asians? I find that hard to believe.

Immigration

Immigration to where? Certainly not here or anywhere I have been. They must be counting muslims as Asians. That's why I still use the term oriental.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I thought we were all supposed to be Muslims by 2050.

Some places in Europe will be 25%. The difference in the USA is Muslims are secular, and not ghettoized like Europe.

That was the case, but there are some in areas of the country that seem to me to be more radicalized. Ilhan certainly shows signs of it with her ideology. And much of our domestic terrorists who have caused harm are either children of secular Muslims or converts both Anglo and African American.

(06-24-2019 09:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 09:31 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 08:24 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 07:27 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 04:01 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Immigration

Immigration to where? Certainly not here or anywhere I have been. They must be counting muslims as Asians. That's why I still use the term oriental.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I thought we were all supposed to be Muslims by 2050.

Some places in Europe will be 25%. The difference in the USA is Muslims are secular, and not ghettoized like Europe.

That was the case, but there are some in areas of the country that seem to me to be more radicalized. Ilhan certainly shows signs of it with her ideology. And much of our domestic terrorists who have caused harm are either children of secular Muslims or converts both Anglo and African American.

Oh yeah for sure, but nothing like Europe. Those countries have never been mass immigration like the USA. The Somali clowns are a different breed.

(06-24-2019 10:10 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 09:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 09:31 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 08:24 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 07:27 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Immigration to where? Certainly not here or anywhere I have been. They must be counting muslims as Asians. That's why I still use the term oriental.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I thought we were all supposed to be Muslims by 2050.

Some places in Europe will be 25%. The difference in the USA is Muslims are secular, and not ghettoized like Europe.

That was the case, but there are some in areas of the country that seem to me to be more radicalized. Ilhan certainly shows signs of it with her ideology. And much of our domestic terrorists who have caused harm are either children of secular Muslims or converts both Anglo and African American.

Oh yeah for sure, but nothing like Europe. Those countries have never been mass immigration like the USA. The Somali clowns are a different breed.

But the dems need low IQ voters...

So, what I get from this is that the left is banking 100% on race/ethnicity to gain/hold onto power. No polices, etc. just race/ethnicity.

Do you know what happens to the grandchildren of Hispanic people that marry white people?

They become white people with Spanish names. I met the whitest guy who's last name was Chavis just last Thursday.

(06-25-2019 08:11 AM)VA49er Wrote:  So, what I get from this is that the left is banking 100% on race/ethnicity to gain/hold onto power. No polices, etc. just race/ethnicity.

exactly

How is this anything but the very definition of racism?

(06-25-2019 11:05 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 08:11 AM)VA49er Wrote:  So, what I get from this is that the left is banking 100% on race/ethnicity to gain/hold onto power. No polices, etc. just race/ethnicity.

exactly

How is this anything but the very definition of racism?

It is racism defined. I was just pointing that out to those that always bring up the "changing demographics" bit. Sure, it's gonna happen, but if that's all the party is banking on then that party is going to be disappointed. People are waking up to the pitfalls of supporting a party that had decimated their cities and done nothing but offer promises for decades. There will always be those that fall for the "free" tagline.

(06-25-2019 08:11 AM)VA49er Wrote:  So, what I get from this is that the left is banking 100% on race/ethnicity to gain/hold onto power. No polices, etc. just race/ethnicity.

They want a civil insurrection based upon ethnicity. It has destroyed many European countries in the past leading to partition. Here it would be justification for Martial Law and the confiscation of weapons and it would weaken the universal participation of the defense of the nation due to internal division. We are watching the unfolding of our adversaries strategy for preparing the downfall of the U.S.. And what pisses me off the most is that it's the education system highlighting and twisting things from the past which taken out of the context of their eras only seem wrong or horrible by today's standards because the circumstances out of which they occurred are removed.

We've lost our ability to discern friend from foe and we permit our enemies to espouse their propaganda unchecked. In the 1950's and 60's networks were owned by news services. Today networks are owned by multinational corporations who have agendas alien to well being of the United States and to our global policy.

Treason, espionage, and propaganda are now treated lightly in our nation and that is wholly unacceptable, as is the PAC money which permits these same multinational corporations to give us the Ilhan Omar's of the world to criticize our way of life from inside our own government.

We must return the elective process to the support of the people and refuse to let th wealth of multinationals manipulate our candidates. What's more is they lose nothing by contributing. They get their tax write off, drive up the cost of elections so that only they can control them, and then they charge the candidates they contributed too for the cost of the political adds run on the multinational's network.

So in the end they make your contribution insignificant, control the process, and lose not one dime in the process.

To take back our country the citizens (liberal and conservative) need to:
1. Take back our classrooms.
2. Eliminate all PAC money from elections and eliminate corporate sponsorship.
3. Require all media outlets to provide free space to cover all candidates and their ideas (as was the practice prior to radio and TV since election news sold papers).
4. Invite all official candidates to debates rather than just those the network picks.
5. Make all candidates that qualify for a national election appear on ballots in all 50 states instead of giving that privilege only to Republicans and Democrats (an undemocratic procedure only instituted within the last 30 years by the members of those 2 parties).

Got a real simple answer to the PAC money issue.

Set 'budgets' for every position.
I haven't done the detailed math, but let's say we set a budget for a Presidential campaign at $100mm. (that sounds insane but let's start with something). Step 1 is to accomplish the goal within a predefined budget. No augmenting the budget and coming in under budget should be worth something... IF you win (like it can be added to your re-election fund or even a portion to your retirement? details to be negotiated)

It's ridiculous that we encourage politicians to collect and spend every dime they can to get elected, and then we expect them to be fiscally responsible once they get elected?

(06-25-2019 12:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Got a real simple answer to the PAC money issue.
Set 'budgets' for every position.
I haven't done the detailed math, but let's say we set a budget for a Presidential campaign at $100mm. (that sounds insane but let's start with something). Step 1 is to accomplish the goal within a predefined budget. No augmenting the budget and coming in under budget should be worth something... IF you win (like it can be added to your re-election fund or even a portion to your retirement? details to be negotiated)
It's ridiculous that we encourage politicians to collect and spend every dime they can to get elected, and then we expect them to be fiscally responsible once they get elected?

My thoughts.

Set the budget as $X for each vote in the most recent election for the position (or maybe an average for the last 3). For new positions, look at the average for positions having similar jurisdiction. Those are details that can be worked out, Any $$$ raised over the limit goes to reduce the debt.

And I like the Barry Goldwater idea of only individuals can make political contributions. No corporations, no unions, no 501© whatever, no PACs, no bundlers. And I would add that every contribution must be posted on the Internet within 10 minutes of receipt. If it's good enough for natural gas trades, it's good enough for politics.

(06-25-2019 12:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 12:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Got a real simple answer to the PAC money issue.
Set 'budgets' for every position.
I haven't done the detailed math, but let's say we set a budget for a Presidential campaign at $100mm. (that sounds insane but let's start with something). Step 1 is to accomplish the goal within a predefined budget. No augmenting the budget and coming in under budget should be worth something... IF you win (like it can be added to your re-election fund or even a portion to your retirement? details to be negotiated)
It's ridiculous that we encourage politicians to collect and spend every dime they can to get elected, and then we expect them to be fiscally responsible once they get elected?

My thoughts.

Set the budget as $X for each vote in the most recent election for the position (or maybe an average for the last 3). For new positions, look at the average for positions having similar jurisdiction. Those are details that can be worked out, Any $$$ raised over the limit goes to reduce the debt.

And I like the Barry Goldwater idea of only individuals can make political contributions. No corporations, no unions, no 501© whatever, no PACs, no bundlers. And I would add that every contribution must be posted on the Internet within 10 minutes of receipt. If it's good enough for natural gas trades, it's good enough for politics.

Some good ideas in here... I just want to take 'donations' out of the equation completely. Maybe do something like this for the primaries, and then something like my suggestion for the final vote. If you level the playing field, some of these minority opinions will actually be heard rather than just pandered to.