Russia Already Interfering With 2020 Election: Seeks to Re-Elect Trump

#601
#601
Rickyvol77 said:
Yes even expanding it to illegals, dead people, people voting twice etc. but in reality Voter ID would prevent any fraud but that is the reason Dems don’t want it
Click to expand...

One of the most incredible things regarding elections is that there is no attempt to crosscheck voter rolls to ensure that a voter is registered in just one location or when a voter moves and registers that his/her previous registration is cancelled. If voters are purged because they haven't voted in a certain length of time (a poor way to account for those who have moved ... or died) dims whine and sue to block the purge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#606
#606
luthervol said:
I don't remember the record turnover. I don't remember Obama publicly insulting the very people he had appointed whenever they dared to have a different opinion, so they weren't that alike. I don't remember the ones he fired saying they tried to keep him in line and it cost them their job. I don't remember the books and the legal battles to keep them from being published.
I'll stick with opposite.
Click to expand...

Obama was better at hiring minions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#608
#608
hog88 said:
Obama was better at hiring minions.
Click to expand...
Not even you believe that.
Obama was better at pretty much everything, hiring minions wasn't one.
Now hiring qualified people, he's got that one walking away.
 
#613
#613
lawgator1 said:
Have you ever noticed that Dems support policies that expand voting and make it as inclusive as possible whereas the GOP works tirelessly to reduce the opportunities to vote?

Why is that?
Click to expand...

Voting shouldn’t be easy. Just like getting a drivers license or a a passport or concealed carry permit. I bet if you give one of these “oppressed” folks a damn check and they’ll get a photo ID no problem to get it cashed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and SpaceCoastVol
#616
#616
luthervol said:
Oh there are certainly gullible on both sides. Of course they changed the rules to let him in.
The point is THEY SHOULD HAVE CHANGED THE RULES TO LET HIM IN.
The rules were made obsolete by him funding his own campaign.
If funding your own campaign is not illegal, then rules should not be in place that prohibit someone who is legally funding their campaign from participating in debates. That would make absolutely zero sense.
Click to expand...
That rule existed because you have to have public support to become the nominee. If you use your own money you can run with zero to little support yet take time and focus away from other candidates. The rule existed for a good reason. Using an obviously extreme example, what if Bloomberg couldn’t raise one penny from Democratic voters? That would be like saying a basketball team who went 0-30 could jump straight into the Sweet 16 just because they paid their way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#617
#617
hUTch2002 said:
That rule existed because you have to have public support to become the nominee. If you use your own money you can run with zero to little support yet take time and focus away from other candidates. The rule existed for a good reason. Using an obviously extreme example, what if Bloomberg couldn’t raise one penny from Democratic voters? That would be like saying a basketball team who went 0-30 could jump straight into the Sweet 16 just because they paid their way.
Click to expand...
You still have to have public support, it's now measured by polls and not campaign contributions.
 
#618
#618
luthervol said:
You still have to have public support, it's now measured by polls and not campaign contributions.
Click to expand...
Polling 1K people vs generating millions of donations. The phrase put your money where your mouth is comes to mind. I’d think contributions would be a somewhat better indicator than polls but neither are even close to infallible. A combo makes more sense than just using one though. I really don’t care what they do but I understand why the rule existed and to take it out mid-campaign is a big FU to the other candidates, which is pretty funny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#619
#619
AM64 said:
Unfortunately the dem lunatics still won't appreciate Gabbard after a loss by one of their resident socialists and four more years out of power. If I were betting, it would be that they will double down on their socialist nuttiness.
Click to expand...

I would have actually crossed lines and voted Gabbard. But they have no one else to vote for to cross parties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#620
#620
luthervol said:
Sure they have a message and platform. It's just not as simplistic as "build that wall", "lock her up", "MAGA", and "anti-Obama".
That type of catch phrase non-sense plays well to the masses. A dem would probably benefit from something equally silly that people can latch onto, chant at rallies, and put on a hat. I'm sure as the field narrows that will happen. One phrase they all do have going for them that they should and will play to the hilt is "I'm not Trump". There will undoubtedly be catastrophic darkness following the 2020 election, it's just a matter of which side will be in the dark.
Again, that is a natural, predictable, and now unavoidable extension of Trumpism. Division.....MAGA
Click to expand...

Nope. Have to disagree. There has not been even a remote sign of a message other than Trump Bad. That’s why I’m still voting Trump. They screwed Gabbard. She was only one with a platform and a message that was not 90% Boo Trump and 10% BS.
 
#621
#621
lawgator1 said:
How does a voter id law stop Russian computer hacking of election results or prevent Russian fake propaganda in the internet? If it stopped gullible GOP voters from showing up at the polls I might agree. Otherwise it makes no sense.
Click to expand...
I don’t think a voter id law does stop stuff like the Steele dossier from being spread on the internet. Is that what you all mean by Russian election meddling?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#622
#622
lawgator1 said:
Have you ever noticed that Dems support policies that expand voting and make it as inclusive as possible whereas the GOP works tirelessly to reduce the opportunities to vote?

Why is that?
Click to expand...
Because they lost. Who else needs to vote besides legal, law abiding citizens age 18 and up? I’m pretty sure that covers everyone needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JOEY'S ALL VOL !!! and AM64
#623
#623
hUTch2002 said:
I don’t think a voter id law does stop stuff like the Steele dossier from being spread on the internet. Is that what you all mean by Russian election meddling?
Click to expand...

Nice shot; that should leave a mark ... probably won't though ... lefties are more deplorable than us deplorables, so they'll just absorb or deflect it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanjustin and hUTch2002
#624
#624
hUTch2002 said:
Because they lost. Who else needs to vote besides legal, law abiding citizens age 18 and up? I’m pretty sure that covers everyone needed.
Click to expand...

Actually by lowering the voting age to 18, we stupidly helped the libs considerably. It sounded like the right thing ... old enough for dying in a war but not old enough to vote and all. It was really just a good lefty campaign slogan to include a lot of wild eyed, naive kids sold on the liberal what should be but without life experience and the thrill of having had to pay taxes to fund all those "do good" things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#625
#625
AM64 said:
Actually by lowering the voting age to 18, we stupidly helped the libs considerably. It sounded like the right thing ... old enough for dying in a war but not old enough to vote and all. It was really just a good lefty campaign slogan to include a lot of wild eyed, naive kids sold on the liberal what should be but without life experience and the thrill of having had to pay taxes to fund all those "do good" things.
Click to expand...
Do you smoke crack?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top