Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ocasio-Ortiz, darling of the MSM and Left...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Half Pint John
    replied
    Trump, they both share in many things.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jose50
    replied
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post

    BINGO
    Did you win anything?

    I think that someone told this woman something like..."Go ahead and put your name in for Congress. I'LL tell you EXACTLY what to say. You don't need any experience...you're a woman, a "minority", you're fairly young and you're good-looking. You're a shoe-in."

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post
    Wait, Trump supporters are getting upset about someone being elected to office who is unqualified and says things that don't match reality....

    Really?
    BINGO

    Leave a comment:


  • 17thfabn
    replied
    Originally posted by JustAGuy View Post

    What a sorry, hate filled diatribe against a young woman who is still finding her way in the world.
    Finding her way in the world is all well and good. It is a part of maturing.

    However, I would expect more maturity and intelligence in a U.S. congress member.

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    It's Right when they do it and Left when others do it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paddybhoy
    replied
    Wait, Trump supporters are getting upset about someone being elected to office who is unqualified and says things that don't match reality....

    Really?

    Leave a comment:


  • JustAGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by Emtos View Post
    It's called Fascism. As simple as that.
    Well, some of us remember how to handle Fascists.

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    It's called Fascism. As simple as that.

    Leave a comment:


  • JustAGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    A better way is to limit who can vote. Instead of giving the vote to everyone, it should be given to those with a vested interest in society and the nation. This would be persons who are landowners (because they have property to protect), persons in current full employment, business owners, and the like. People on welfare or receiving government subsidies who do not also fit the above would be excluded. Therefore, if you live in section 8 housing, and get a welfare check, you don't vote. Why? Because you have zero invested in society and the nation. You live at off the generosity of others. Why should you be able to vote yourself more benefits?

    That's a rough outline of how it should be. Oh, if you can't buy a firearm until you're 21, can't drink until you're 21, I think you shouldn't be voting until you're 21.
    Oligarchy. You are describing an Oligarchy. A Constitutional Oligarchy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    You live at off the generosity of others. Why should you be able to vote yourself more benefits?

    Well, TAG, that is the very essence of being a Congress creature.

    Leave a comment:


  • American87
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    A better way is to limit who can vote. Instead of giving the vote to everyone, it should be given to those with a vested interest in society and the nation. This would be persons who are landowners (because they have property to protect), persons in current full employment, business owners, and the like. People on welfare or receiving government subsidies who do not also fit the above would be excluded. Therefore, if you live in section 8 housing, and get a welfare check, you don't vote. Why? Because you have zero invested in society and the nation. You live at off the generosity of others. Why should you be able to vote yourself more benefits?

    That's a rough outline of how it should be. Oh, if you can't buy a firearm until you're 21, can't drink until you're 21, I think you shouldn't be voting until you're 21.
    I always thought this was interesting. I don't think protecting land has as much to do with the landowner vote,at least in this day and age, as that landowners typically are older (presumably wiser) and are responsible enough to maintain an income and their estate. In Ancient Greece this was called a timocracy and it was highly respected.

    Also, prohibiting the vote to those on welfare would make sense because one party is devoted to paying those people more, while the other is against it. However, I wouldn't support doing this willy nilly because I think repealing suffrage is a big no-no. Perhaps there can be a qualification, e.g. if you are on welfare for 3 years you can't vote for federal officials.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by JustAGuy View Post

    Indeed, and it is one of the reasons Adams and Washington were so dead set against the creation of political parties. They were concerned, and rightly so, that poorly educated, poorly informed individuals would be influenced to follow persons and causes that were antithetical to the heath of the Republic.

    And this is one of my reasons for not joining a political party or being swayed by political propaganda.
    A better way is to limit who can vote. Instead of giving the vote to everyone, it should be given to those with a vested interest in society and the nation. This would be persons who are landowners (because they have property to protect), persons in current full employment, business owners, and the like. People on welfare or receiving government subsidies who do not also fit the above would be excluded. Therefore, if you live in section 8 housing, and get a welfare check, you don't vote. Why? Because you have zero invested in society and the nation. You live at off the generosity of others. Why should you be able to vote yourself more benefits?

    That's a rough outline of how it should be. Oh, if you can't buy a firearm until you're 21, can't drink until you're 21, I think you shouldn't be voting until you're 21.

    Leave a comment:


  • JustAGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    Idiots get a vote too. That's one of the problems you have to accept in a democracy.
    Indeed, and it is one of the reasons Adams and Washington were so dead set against the creation of political parties. They were concerned, and rightly so, that poorly educated, poorly informed individuals would be influenced to follow persons and causes that were antithetical to the heath of the Republic.

    And this is one of my reasons for not joining a political party or being swayed by political propaganda.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    He also is comparing California to Finland regarding the fires. Most of them in California, if anyone bothers to watch film of the fires and the heroic efforts to extinguish them, are not forest fires. I'm from Southern California and they happened on a yearly basis.

    California has a Mediterranean climate and has been in a drought for the last seven years. Finland is in northern Europe and has a wet climate. Trump doesn't know diddly squat about geography, climate, and a host of other subjects. He's just an ignorant person. He also thought the Baltics were the Balkans...
    While it's a bit small, this is a map of the California Coastal Commission's area of responsibility:



    Anyone that knows even a little about the Coastal Commission knows they won't let you plant a tree in your yard without a permit. They won't approve brush clearing, or fire mitigation without months of debate and thousands of dollars on experts and paperwork. They are largely responsible for keeping much of the region burning to the ground in a state where it can do that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post

    They even vote for one, Trump

    Stable genius tells use we need to go rake our forest to prevent fires. Does he think the world is made up of golf courses?
    He also is comparing California to Finland regarding the fires. Most of them in California, if anyone bothers to watch film of the fires and the heroic efforts to extinguish them, are not forest fires. I'm from Southern California and they happened on a yearly basis.

    California has a Mediterranean climate and has been in a drought for the last seven years. Finland is in northern Europe and has a wet climate. Trump doesn't know diddly squat about geography, climate, and a host of other subjects. He's just an ignorant person. He also thought the Baltics were the Balkans...

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X