Fun to watch Dems p*** away their own money

[CitizenBBN]

Despite obvious efforts to inappropriately influence an election with massive amounts of foreign involvement and money (California seems to think it's a separate country), the GOP holds onto the 6th District Ga seat apparently. Close but AP is calling it, seems to be wide enough to give her the race.

Apparently Ossoff got donations from about 800 people in that district, and donations from about 7,000 Californians alone.

He's used a lot of new techniques like "ActBlue" to raise money, where small donors go to websites and click to donate small amounts to funds that then go to Dem candidates, but of course the vast majority of those clicks come from Cali and New York, who both came close separately to his Georgia money overall even before the runoff with the GOP. By now he's probably raised more in those states than in Georgia, but that's not available yet I don't think.

So isn't this some kind of corrupt interference? Trying to override the decision of the voters of Georgia by just throwing money from thousands of miles away at the race? Just askin'.

So when Ossoff was going to win, this race was billed as a huge referendum on Trump. Now that a mainstream GOP candidate with Trump and Newt endorsements has won despite being outspent, is it still a referendum or will tomorrow's lead story go back to Kushner's hairdresser once ordering a salad with Russian dressing?

[Doc]

WOW, they held that seat? They were dumping unprecedented money to the tune of 50 million into that election, nearly doubling the previous highest ever single congressional price tag ever....and they still lost despite a 7 to 1 spending advantage. Incredible

[Doc]

Its a bit ironic too that the left is so pissed off about Russia sticking their nose into our election yet they don't mind stick when California liberals stick their nose into the Georgia election. Sure, they will justify it as saying GA is part of the US etc... but the GA congressional seat represents the people of GEORGIA, not the people of California, or anywhere else. I'm sure the people in GA were just sick of the bombardment of the advertisements. Heck, it was bad here in FL during the presidential election because we were a big swing state.

[UKgrad02]

Despite earlier launching a "transparency in government" campaign against congressman Wiles of Georgia 8 years ago, Handel went against her earlier statements and used anonymous mailers to influence voters. Handel herself took millions in "dark money" from Ending Spending, a PAC run by the owners of the Chicago Cubs, Save the American Way, that included the aforementioned anonymous mailers which stated that she would end Muslim immigration, and the Congressional Leadership fund in Washington.

Because of the Citizens United ruling, this type of "corrupt interference" as you stated above is now legal--the funds remain unlimited as long as the now legal Super PACs can raise it. This case is directly related to a conservative group that lobbied the supreme court to allow federal state and local elections to be swamped by millions in outside money.

As for this election--it's largely irrelevant. What is more relevant is the continuing corruption and collusion that continues unabated at the White House, and the lengths to which the executive tries to cover it up. Will he have to answer to the law for all the lying? His privileged status has shielded him before. Will it still? We shall see.

[CitizenBBN]

Oh both sides spent a lot of money, and Handel got money from PACs like they all do.

And it's not b/c of Citizen's United. This has been going on since the end of WWII, and in fact PACs were a 1970s reform to try to deal with it. The simple truth is the courts have held consistently that if people want to get together to support a candidate they can, and they are protected by the 1st and 4th Amendments in doing so. What the Left wanted in Citizen's United was to cut off a method used more by conservatives but leave in place things like big union spending where dues are forcibly collected from people whether they like it or not. Both sides play this game all the time, that's just politics.

As for the "collusion and corruption", that rings hollow with what is coming up on a year of investigating with nothing there. that's just a political slogan at this point, all part of the "resist" movement to try to prevent any movement on actual policy issues. If this were Hillary in office the GOP would be screaming about indictments and the Democrats and media would be screaming about obstruction and diversions b/c the GOP wants kids to starve.

I'm not much bemused by either side, but I do think it's interesting to watch the reactions, thus my post. Had the DNC won this seat it would be heralded ad a referendum on Trump, but since the GOP held on it's going to be downplayed as meaningless.

I'm not really interested in either party, they are the liars they are, but the media is supposed to be separate and independent, so their reactions (and their bias) interests me.

[KeithKSR]

The race didn't turn out to be very close. A five point win in a special election where the polls had the loser winning is substantial.

[Doc]

Despite earlier launching a "transparency in government" campaign against congressman Wiles of Georgia 8 years ago, Handel went against her earlier statements and used anonymous mailers to influence voters. Handel herself took millions in "dark money" from Ending Spending, a PAC run by the owners of the Chicago Cubs, Save the American Way, that included the aforementioned anonymous mailers which stated that she would end Muslim immigration, and the Congressional Leadership fund in Washington.

Because of the Citizens United ruling, this type of "corrupt interference" as you stated above is now legal--the funds remain unlimited as long as the now legal Super PACs can raise it. This case is directly related to a conservative group that lobbied the supreme court to allow federal state and local elections to be swamped by millions in outside money.

Prior to the results is was of major relevance because it was a referendum on Trump but post results its irrelevant because the democrat lost... or at least that is how I read it. Had Ossoff won it would have been of MAJOR relevance and signaled the fall of Trump, at least according to the left and the media. Now its an insignificant trivial matter. So trivial that the $50,000,000 the democrats threw at it was an afterthought. Shocking that even with that amount of money and a President who is so incredibly bad as the representative of the GOP, that the democrats STILL can't win.

As for this election--it's largely irrelevant. What is more relevant is the continuing corruption and collusion that continues unabated at the White House, and the lengths to which the executive tries to cover it up. Will he have to answer to the law for all the lying? His privileged status has shielded him before. Will it still? We shall see.

Yeah, we should have voted for Hillary in November. That would have solved that problem because when it comes to lying, privileged status, following the rule of law and having it applied to all and cover up, nobody knows more about that than a Clinton. However that would have meant electing somebody who was openly in cahoots with Russia.

[KeithKSR]

Prior to the results is was of major relevance because it was a referendum on Trump but post results its irrelevant because the democrat lost... or at least that is how I read it. Had Ossoff won it would have been of MAJOR relevance and signaled the fall of Trump, at least according to the left and the media. Now its an insignificant trivial matter. So trivial that the $70,000,000 the democrats threw at it was an afterthought. Shocking that even with that amount of money and a President who is so incredibly bad as the representative of the GOP, that the democrats STILL can't win.



Yeah, we should have voted for Hillary in November. That would have solved that problem because when it comes to lying, privileged status, following the rule of law and having it applied to all and cover up, nobody knows more about that than a Clinton. However that would have meant electing somebody who was openly in cahoots with Russia.

The major problem the Dems have is that they lack any meaningful message. When the GOP was railing against Obama they had budget concerns, Obamacare, jobs and other issues to pounce on. The Russia collusion tune isn't resonating.

[UKgrad02]

"Obviously too much MSNBC is detrimental to brain cells."

I don't watch news/political television at all, in fact. Don't even have cable.

It's sad to think that one's opinion must be attributed to the programming of a television program or radio host (Rush Limbaugh, maddow, etc) and not the sum of that person's education, upbringing and worldview. As far as my opinion goes, I would attribute my worldview to my time spent overseas in the Navy, the fine professors at the University of Kentucky, and my graduate studies at Wayne State--not to mention the values of truth, honesty and integrity that those institutions and my parents instilled in me---values that are not important to the current administration, as we are finding out. I appreciate your snap judgment, and hope my response has offered some context to rethink your bias.

[UKgrad02]

Prior to the results is was of major relevance because it was a referendum on Trump but post results its irrelevant because the democrat lost... or at least that is how I read it. Had Ossoff won it would have been of MAJOR relevance and signaled the fall of Trump, at least according to the left and the media. Now its an insignificant trivial matter. So trivial that the $70,000,000 the democrats threw at it was an afterthought. Shocking that even with that amount of money and a President who is so incredibly bad as the representative of the GOP, that the democrats STILL can't win.



Yeah, we should have voted for Hillary in November. That would have solved that problem because when it comes to lying, privileged status, following the rule of law and having it applied to all and cover up, nobody knows more about that than a Clinton. However that would have meant electing somebody who was openly in cahoots with Russia.

It seems to be a big deal, because these close elections and runoffs in southern states, where Nixon's racist strategy still holds sway, is relevant in the terms of the demographic shift away from rural uneducated whites to urban, educated minorities and millennials---demographics that represent the future. While certainly disheartening to those that lost, and almost certainly to the electorate that will suffer in the near future, these kinds of elections that are taken as victories in the culture war are the bellwether of a future not associated with the idyllic past that the elderly rural voters so desperately want to return to.

in my opinion, It would seem logical to vote for the individual who is most qualified for the job. Or at the very least, the person most equipped with the intellectual acumen, knowledge of policy, government, and the constitution, and who possess the maturity and tact to handle the duties of POTUS. I'm not sure who would argue that our current executive possesses or even cares to possess any of those things. But that is our reality.

[Doc]

So we're going to pull that card again?


When in doubt, pull it out.

[CitizenBBN]

in my opinion, It would seem logical to vote for the individual who is most qualified for the job. Or at the very least, the person most equipped with the intellectual acumen, knowledge of policy, government, and the constitution, and who possess the maturity and tact to handle the duties of POTUS. I'm not sure who would argue that our current executive possesses or even cares to possess any of those things. But that is our reality.

Neither party nominated one of those people, making it a tough option. The GOP nominated an outsider bent on wreaking havoc, and the Dems would have if not for Super delegates, so they ended up with a corrupt establishment hack bent on her own power. The people narrowly chose the completely unappealing outsider over a return to smoke filled back room politics, but the people weren't given any really good options.

[UKgrad02]

So we're going to pull that card again?


When in doubt, pull it out.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, specifically. Are you saying that people don't base their cultural identities on their race, or that racial identity doesn't factor into their voting, or that electioneering doesn't involve racial cues to motivate people to vote, or that America is free of racism as of November 5, 2008? Please clarify your meme, if possible.

[UKgrad02]

Neither party nominated one of those people, making it a tough option. The GOP nominated an outsider bent on wreaking havoc, and the Dems would have if not for Super delegates, so they ended up with a corrupt establishment hack bent on her own power. The people narrowly chose the completely unappealing outsider over a return to smoke filled back room politics, but the people weren't given any really good options.

Hmm. I like to think of it like this: Would you let your plumber perform open heart surgery on you--simply because you guys had beers while fishing once, and he might be a breath of fresh air in the operating room with a new perspective on repairing an aortal aneurysm? Or would you want the surgeon that has performed hundreds of heart surgeries, practiced medicine for 40 years, but swore too much, never went to church, and had a gambling problem? Again, as far as the actual qualifications for doing a government job as important as POTUS, there is no real contest as far as who was more qualified. But we all know that presidential politics, or at least getting elected, goes far beyond job qualifications. Some of the folks I talked to simply wanted to "burn it all down" just to see what would happen. Seems shortsighted, in my opinion.

[dan_bgblue]

Again, as far as the actual qualifications for doing a government job as important as POTUS, there is no real contest as far as who was more qualified.

I am not sure if anyone really knows what the qualifications for President are. Presidents have come from varied backgrounds, have brought different educational resumes, and some have been career politicians. Some have been good and some bad, but I am not sure a correlation can be drawn between the previous experiences and future success

[UKgrad02]

I am not sure if anyone really knows what the qualifications for President are. Presidents have come from varied backgrounds, have brought different educational resumes, and some have been career politicians. Some have been good and some bad, but I am not sure a correlation can be drawn between the previous experiences and future success

There's truth to that, indeed--Eisenhower was serviceable as president, with no real experience other than leading men in the military, as well as U.S. Grant. I don't mean to suggest there is a correlation, but it seems to me there should be, in this modern age, a baseline for competence, intelligence and experience that wasn't reached this time around. Just my opinion.

[Doc]

I'm not sure what you're referring to, specifically. Are you saying that people don't base their cultural identities on their race, or that racial identity doesn't factor into their voting, or that electioneering doesn't involve racial cues to motivate people to vote, or that America is free of racism as of November 5, 2008? Please clarify your meme, if possible.

To quote you .... "It seems to be a big deal, because these close elections and runoffs in southern states, where Nixon's racist strategy still holds sway"

Me, I tend to believe that people are sick and tired of the leftist divide the nation policies where those who work hard are attacked for being successful. Where those who enforce the laws are attacked and not supported. Where those who legally own guns are attacked (and I'm not a gun advocate but am one who is able to see it), where people who disagree with policies of the last administration were automatically labelled as racist. So no, I don't believe those racist strategies still hold true. In a myopic view of the world, there is always a segment that will vote along ethnic lines (in ALL directions...IMO voting for Obama because he was black was every bit as racist as voting against him because he was black) but no more than a segment of Catholics or Jews that might vote on religious lines, or the women who might have voted for Hillary simple because she had a uterus rather than because of what she actually stood for and what her politics were. Of course touting "vote for Hillary because she is a woman" is hardly as offensive (or effective) as calling your opponent a racist for voting for Trump or the GOP because the only reason a southerner would vote for the republican is because they wouldn't want "them black folks" to be gettin any power.

So what I'm saying is people vote based on a MULTITUDE of factors. On might be race but that does not make them racist, aka part of the "Nixon Racist strategy"

[Doc]

Hmm. I like to think of it like this: Would you let your plumber perform open heart surgery on you--simply because you guys had beers while fishing once, and he might be a breath of fresh air in the operating room with a new perspective on repairing an aortal aneurysm? Or would you want the surgeon that has performed hundreds of heart surgeries, practiced medicine for 40 years, but swore too much, never went to church, and had a gambling problem? Again, as far as the actual qualifications for doing a government job as important as POTUS, there is no real contest as far as who was more qualified. But we all know that presidential politics, or at least getting elected, goes far beyond job qualifications. Some of the folks I talked to simply wanted to "burn it all down" just to see what would happen. Seems shortsighted, in my opinion.

I sure wouldn't want the person who lied, cheated and did everything unethical to get there. I sure wouldn't want the person who was featured on the last episode of "Botched" because she had no idea what how to handle records. Nor would I want somebody who was responsible for the death of 4 people in a screwed up surgery in Bengazi because she failed to supply the needed instruments for successful surgery despite them being requested, then lied about it. I guess our definitions of qualified differ.

[jazyd]

I sure wouldn't want the person who lied, cheated and did everything unethical to get there. I sure wouldn't want the person who was featured on the last episode of "Botched" because she had no idea what how to handle records. Nor would I want somebody who was responsible for the death of 4 people in a screwed up surgery in Bengazi because she failed to supply the needed instruments for successful surgery despite them being requested, then lied about it. I guess our definitions of qualified differ.

UKgrad is really more like a UL dirty bird. He and his fellow leftists feel it is ok for them to lie, cheat, steal, be corrupt, obstruct, screw everyone, as long as they are doing it and then they are outstanding at accusing everyone on the other side...Cal...of doing everything they themselves do w/O any proof

Radical leftists =UL dirty birds

[Doc]

UKgrad is really more like a UL dirty bird. He and his fellow leftists feel it is ok for them to lie, cheat, steal, be corrupt, obstruct, screw everyone, as long as they are doing it and then they are outstanding at accusing everyone on the other side...Cal...of doing everything they themselves do w/O any proof

Radical leftists =UL dirty birds

I think that's pretty unfair. Just because somebody holds a different political view than ourselves, assuming he/she does, does not make them a liar or cheat or corrupt. I see many Republicans who are liars, cheaters and corrupt. I disagree with leftist policies. I take responsibility for myself and my family, nobody else. I can make my own decisions about my health care and how I pay for it. I don't want or need a govt that takes care of me. Liberals believe otherwise. They believe the government can do a better job. That does not make the corrupt or liars. Sure, there are corrupt liars within the democratic party. Hillary is one such person IMO. There are ones in the GOP as well. Ask a liberal and they will likely name Trump. I'd lean more toward McConnell but that is opinion. Regardless, I think labelling a poster as a liar etc based on political beliefs is a dangerous precedent and should be avoided for the sake of good discussion

[UKgrad02]

UKgrad is really more like a UL dirty bird. He and his fellow leftists feel it is ok for them to lie, cheat, steal, be corrupt, obstruct, screw everyone, as long as they are doing it and then they are outstanding at accusing everyone on the other side...Cal...of doing everything they themselves do w/O any proof

Radical leftists =UL dirty birds

And here is a perfect example of the divide that is created when people use tribal cues to label a fellow citizen with a differing viewpoint as "the other" or "the enemy."

[UKgrad02]

To quote you .... "It seems to be a big deal, because these close elections and runoffs in southern states, where Nixon's racist strategy still holds sway"

Me, I tend to believe that people are sick and tired of the leftist divide the nation policies where those who work hard are attacked for being successful. Where those who enforce the laws are attacked and not supported. Where those who legally own guns are attacked (and I'm not a gun advocate but am one who is able to see it), where people who disagree with policies of the last administration were automatically labelled as racist. So no, I don't believe those racist strategies still hold true. In a myopic view of the world, there is always a segment that will vote along ethnic lines (in ALL directions...IMO voting for Obama because he was black was every bit as racist as voting against him because he was black) but no more than a segment of Catholics or Jews that might vote on religious lines, or the women who might have voted for Hillary simple because she had a uterus rather than because of what she actually stood for and what her politics were. Of course touting "vote for Hillary because she is a woman" is hardly as offensive (or effective) as calling your opponent a racist for voting for Trump or the GOP because the only reason a southerner would vote for the republican is because they wouldn't want "them black folks" to be gettin any power.

So what I'm saying is people vote based on a MULTITUDE of factors. On might be race but that does not make them racist, aka part of the "Nixon Racist strategy"

But you didn't state initially that people also vote on race--you simply posted a racial meme, without any correlating comments as to why you think I was using the race issue as a defining factor in voting preferences. The history is accurate--Nixon used the Southern Strategy to garner the white votes of southern democrats who fled the party after the 64 Civil rights act---that is not in question. Much like the carpetbaggers of the north after reconstruction, the northern and southern democrats split, not over slavery---but of the place the African american held in southern society. As a white guy from Michigan who also spent summers as a kid in Mississippi, i have seen firsthand the remnants of these and Nixon's policies.

Just as folks voted for Obama because he was black, so too did people vote against him because of it, and against Hillary because she was a woman. However, one of the main reasons that Trump won was NOT because of southern whites---most were already in the bag for Trump--but because northern working class union democrats that had voted previously for Obama switched their vote due to the emergence of the racial aftermath of Black Lives Matter, Islamic terrorism, and the feeling that they were on the decline. Trump and his team KNEW this, which is why they exploited these tribal fears for political gain. And they won, by about 80k votes in 3 states, simply by appealing to the worst of our natures. We are seeing quite a bit of buyers remorse from these voters now, as the emotions have worn off. Mr. trump is still trying to keep those fears and emotions stoked to feed his need for validation and popularity--which is why he is still holding campaign rallies 8 months after the election.

[UKgrad02]

I sure wouldn't want the person who lied, cheated and did everything unethical to get there. I sure wouldn't want the person who was featured on the last episode of "Botched" because she had no idea what how to handle records. Nor would I want somebody who was responsible for the death of 4 people in a screwed up surgery in Bengazi because she failed to supply the needed instruments for successful surgery despite them being requested, then lied about it. I guess our definitions of qualified differ.

I understand your concerns. However, with Mr. trump's record going back to his days of denying rent to blacks because they brought down the property values of his holdings, to accusing the Mr. Obama of not even being a citizen, to trying to enact a complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states--not to mention his consistent dishonesty. Do you feel he is more honest than Hillary Clinton? Benghazi, lol. There were 9 republican led investigations that found nothing, always nothing---but wasted over 10 million of our tax dollars. Mr. Trump is an individual who was a democrat less than 10 years ago---and has lied and settled lawsuits repeatedly rather than given a sworn deposition. He did so just 3 months ago. He stole from poor people through a fake university scam--he cheated on his former wife---he declared bankruptcy after squandering the millions he inherited, not earned, inherited, from his father. Is this a person you would want in your house, dating your daughter, or handling your money, let alone running the country? In my opinion, no. His actions are not that of an honest person with integrity. Indeed, in his own book, he has stated that he values loyalty over integrity. What a shameful organization the republican party has become. And McConnell is no different--During my years at UK I worked hard on campaigns to unseat him, and his tactics and arrogance are just despicable. He has done NOTHING for the average Kentuckian, except exploit their ignorance of politics and government to serve himself.

[jazyd]

I understand your concerns. However, with Mr. trump's record going back to his days of denying rent to blacks because they brought down the property values of his holdings, to accusing the Mr. Obama of not even being a citizen, to trying to enact a complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states--not to mention his consistent dishonesty. Do you feel he is more honest than Hillary Clinton? Benghazi, lol. There were 9 republican led investigations that found nothing, always nothing---but wasted over 10 million of our tax dollars. Mr. Trump is an individual who was a democrat less than 10 years ago---and has lied and settled lawsuits repeatedly rather than given a sworn deposition. He did so just 3 months ago. He stole from poor people through a fake university scam--he cheated on his former wife---he declared bankruptcy after squandering the millions he inherited, not earned, inherited, from his father. Is this a person you would want in your house, dating your daughter, or handling your money, let alone running the country? In my opinion, no. His actions are not that of an honest person with integrity. Indeed, in his own book, he has stated that he values loyalty over integrity. What a shameful organization the republican party has become. And McConnell is no different--During my years at UK I worked hard on campaigns to unseat him, and his tactics and arrogance are just despicable. He has done NOTHING for the average Kentuckian, except exploit their ignorance of politics and government to serve himself.

you are so easily fooled, maybe you will grow up one day and see the truth. I bet you think George Soros is an angel.

I hate to tell you but Bill Clinton also cheated on his wife, openly and with many many women. and Hillary, she isn't an angel in that department, anyone who is anyone in Ark knew what she did and who she did it with before he ever ran for office. I bet you think that guy from Ark really did commit suicide.

Obama the gun runner, the liar, have you ever asked why he sealed all his records. If he has nothing to hide and is so great then why seal them. But he is a democrat...remember the DNC would not let the FBI see their server after they got hacked, what did they want to hide? .....

Benghazi, you believed all those lies, and they were lies from the minute it happened, and they were caught but you actually believed them. Bet you believe ole Bill and Lynch really talked about golf and the grandkids in that plane...and why was everyone told to get off the plane during this conversation.

Instead of spouting all your garbage, why don't you start looking for the truth from both sides, you could start here with Citizen, Doc and a few others, you might actually learn something instead of being so closed minded and so far left that you stink.

In other words, grow up

[Doc]

Richard Nixon has been dead for 22 years. His policies are irrelevant.

Those who voted against the democratic party because of the racial tensions that are a result of the policies of the previous administration are not doing so because they are racist. They are doing so because they disagree with the RESULT OF THE POLICIES. Liberials don't seem to get that. When people see the result of a policy and subsequently vote against it because they don't like it, its not always because they are racist. My daughter is in law enforcement and it sickens me to see the previous president of this country fail to support them. The color of his skin didn't matter. There is no way I would ever or could ever support any political party or movement that increase the likelihood that harm could come to my child. It was you that brought the entire racial aspect into the conversation, not I. That is strictly a strategy I don't use.

As for Hilary and her qualification, you might believe she is more qualified that Trump. I don't. I certainly don't believe he is all that great or all that qualified but compared to her, he is a better choice. Lets start from the beginning. While I tend to not put a lot of value on ones personal life, I do consider some aspect of it as far as character. This is a woman who showed to be spineless. A women who would remain married to a low life lying scumbag who has zero respect for women and honesty. A person who would lie to the nation and use any method to scheme out of responsibility, including "it depends on your definition of what "is" is". This is also the woman who ran the state department when one of the most embarrassing moments of nation diplomatic personal safety occurred (second only to the Iranian hostage crisis) in Benghazi, then she lied to the nation about it. This is a woman who if president would be responsible for the national security yet isn't able to grasp even the most basic concepts of how to and not to handle classified information, then when caught has the audacity to destroy the evidence. This is the person who as SOS saw the rise of ISIS and did nothing to stop it, failed to see the significance of it. Also the woman who oversaw the sale of nuclear fuel to Russia to her financial gain, then feigns outrage over Trumps dealing with Russia. The woman who while not the Sec of State when the Iran deal was finalized, she certain was there when the seeds were planted. So while she has experience in foreign affairs, I don't think its GOOD experience. IMO, no experience is better than bad experience. Of course that is assuming Trump has none which is a false assumption. As an international business person, he has plenty of interaction in dealing with foreign countries. And I'd add that personally I'm tired of the status quo.

What Hillary lacks is domestic economic experience. She has no idea how to run an economy. The reason the economy was sluggish for the last 8 years is because a bunch of politicians were trying to stimulate it. The approach of taking money from the rich and giving it the poor, encouraging people onto entitlements, creating more handouts like cash for clunkers, etc don't stimulate long term prosperity.

Personally I have zero expectation that you agree with me nor do I expect to change your mind. That won't happen. Likewise you won't change my mind. You will believe that dumb, sorry, uneducated southern white people voted for Trump because they know no better. They want their guns and bibles because they know no better. That the rich don't care about the poor. Trump hate Muslims and Mexicans...yada yada yada. And I will believe Hillary has horns and a pitchfork. Makes us even.

[jazyd]

Great post a doc as usual, you remind me of Trump. You speak your mind so there is no doubt what you are thinking. No spin

Didn't know your daughter was in law enforcement or my older mind forgot. Who us she with

And I especially agree on how the last administration treated the law enforcement and it sickens me how many have been murdered because of Obama and his administration

[jazyd]

I think that's pretty unfair. Just because somebody holds a different political view than ourselves, assuming he/she does, does not make them a liar or cheat or corrupt. I see many Republicans who are liars, cheaters and corrupt. I disagree with leftist policies. I take responsibility for myself and my family, nobody else. I can make my own decisions about my health care and how I pay for it. I don't want or need a govt that takes care of me. Liberals believe otherwise. They believe the government can do a better job. That does not make the corrupt or liars. Sure, there are corrupt liars within the democratic party. Hillary is one such person IMO. There are ones in the GOP as well. Ask a liberal and they will likely name Trump. I'd lean more toward McConnell but that is opinion. Regardless, I think labelling a poster as a liar etc based on political beliefs is a dangerous precedent and should be avoided for the sake of good discussion

As I have said in another post, as conservatives here we often criticize republicans from Bush on down with things we disagree with. We have called many on the Hill liars, corrupt and frauds. Personally I do not like or trust Mitch M. There are very few republican politicians I trust but they often, not always, vote the way I believe.

But many, many of the top democrats on the Hill are very corrupt, liars, and cheats. And they do remind me of UL and their fan base. And in some cases many UK fans when they, UK fans, criticize or make fun of other schools for the cheating they do while totally forgetting our past history in basketball and football. . Whenever I talk to Ole Miss fans here about their current football program the first thing I say is we have been caught in basketball and football and what great cars I saw basketball players driving when I was at UK...Corvettes, Supersports etc

[jazyd]

Lies

I never had sex with that women

You can keep your Dr

You can keep your insurance

Your premiums will go down by $2500 per family

This attack was started by a video..Obama for ten days

This attack was started by a video...Clinton for ten days

This attack was started by a video....Rice for ten days

I only had one device

Her server was not hacked

And they call Trump a liar!!!!!!!

[UKgrad02]

you are so easily fooled, maybe you will grow up one day and see the truth. I bet you think George Soros is an angel.

I hate to tell you but Bill Clinton also cheated on his wife, openly and with many many women. and Hillary, she isn't an angel in that department, anyone who is anyone in Ark knew what she did and who she did it with before he ever ran for office. I bet you think that guy from Ark really did commit suicide.

Obama the gun runner, the liar, have you ever asked why he sealed all his records. If he has nothing to hide and is so great then why seal them. But he is a democrat...remember the DNC would not let the FBI see their server after they got hacked, what did they want to hide? .....

Benghazi, you believed all those lies, and they were lies from the minute it happened, and they were caught but you actually believed them. Bet you believe ole Bill and Lynch really talked about golf and the grandkids in that plane...and why was everyone told to get off the plane during this conversation.

Instead of spouting all your garbage, why don't you start looking for the truth from both sides, you could start here with Citizen, Doc and a few others, you might actually learn something instead of being so closed minded and so far left that you stink.

In other words, grow up

I appreciate your opinion. Thank you.

[UKgrad02]

Richard Nixon has been dead for 22 years. His policies are irrelevant.

Those who voted against the democratic party because of the racial tensions that are a result of the policies of the previous administration are not doing so because they are racist. They are doing so because they disagree with the RESULT OF THE POLICIES. Liberials don't seem to get that. When people see the result of a policy and subsequently vote against it because they don't like it, its not always because they are racist. My daughter is in law enforcement and it sickens me to see the previous president of this country fail to support them. The color of his skin didn't matter. There is no way I would ever or could ever support any political party or movement that increase the likelihood that harm could come to my child. It was you that brought the entire racial aspect into the conversation, not I. That is strictly a strategy I don't use.

As for Hilary and her qualification, you might believe she is more qualified that Trump. I don't. I certainly don't believe he is all that great or all that qualified but compared to her, he is a better choice. Lets start from the beginning. While I tend to not put a lot of value on ones personal life, I do consider some aspect of it as far as character. This is a woman who showed to be spineless. A women who would remain married to a low life lying scumbag who has zero respect for women and honesty. A person who would lie to the nation and use any method to scheme out of responsibility, including "it depends on your definition of what "is" is". This is also the woman who ran the state department when one of the most embarrassing moments of nation diplomatic personal safety occurred (second only to the Iranian hostage crisis) in Benghazi, then she lied to the nation about it. This is a woman who if president would be responsible for the national security yet isn't able to grasp even the most basic concepts of how to and not to handle classified information, then when caught has the audacity to destroy the evidence. This is the person who as SOS saw the rise of ISIS and did nothing to stop it, failed to see the significance of it. Also the woman who oversaw the sale of nuclear fuel to Russia to her financial gain, then feigns outrage over Trumps dealing with Russia. The woman who while not the Sec of State when the Iran deal was finalized, she certain was there when the seeds were planted. So while she has experience in foreign affairs, I don't think its GOOD experience. IMO, no experience is better than bad experience. Of course that is assuming Trump has none which is a false assumption. As an international business person, he has plenty of interaction in dealing with foreign countries. And I'd add that personally I'm tired of the status quo.

What Hillary lacks is domestic economic experience. She has no idea how to run an economy. The reason the economy was sluggish for the last 8 years is because a bunch of politicians were trying to stimulate it. The approach of taking money from the rich and giving it the poor, encouraging people onto entitlements, creating more handouts like cash for clunkers, etc don't stimulate long term prosperity.

Personally I have zero expectation that you agree with me nor do I expect to change your mind. That won't happen. Likewise you won't change my mind. You will believe that dumb, sorry, uneducated southern white people voted for Trump because they know no better. They want their guns and bibles because they know no better. That the rich don't care about the poor. Trump hate Muslims and Mexicans...yada yada yada. And I will believe Hillary has horns and a pitchfork. Makes us even.

Hillary Clinton has been in public service since she was in her twenties. She is a lawyer that understands the law and the constitution. Donald Trump has used his father's millions to enrich himself. His entire existence has been about enriching himself. He has slandered and lied to all those who stand in the way of this enrichment. He has no experience in public service, the law, or running anything other than his own business--a business which, multiple times, has resulted in bankruptcy. The one time he acted in a public capacity, the business failed.

Donald Trump has already leaked classified information at the dinner table of his restaurant, in meetings with our allies, and in unsecured conversations on his personal phone. There is no indication anywhere of Secretary Clinton destroying any evidence of anything whatsoever regarding classified information. The FBI has investigated and found no prosecutable incidents as directed by the Constitution.

The Secretary of State has no direct impact on the actions regarding ISIS or any other fledging terrorist group. It was the predetermined withdrawal of troops signed by President Bush that created the vacuum that allowed the Sunnis to take hold of Iraq and declare the caliphate. This date was binding and codified before President Obama took office.

You are stating that a wife should be blamed for the actions of her husband? if a husband cheats, she should be held responsible? Is there no culpability on the part of the husband? Does the adultery committed by both Trump and N. Gingrich hold less weight than a woman betrayed? Where is the personal accountability?

There were 9 congressional investigations into Benghazi by Mr. Issa, etc. all which came up empty. Not one shred of evidence of blame. These were investigations led by republicans. I can give you the links if you'd like.

The Russian fuel story has been proven to be false. This was perpetuated by the propaganda written in a book called Clinton Cash. I can give you the link showing the hoax if you like.

Under no circumstance did President Obama do anything, or offer any policy guidance, advice, or comment disparaging the police or law enforcement at any time during his presidency. In any event, Obama is not now president, nor did these incidents you are afraid of occur during a Hillary Clinton presidency.

The economy has recovered, and has continued to grow, after the Bush recession in 2008. Obama's policies, the TARP act, and programs like cash for clunkers reenergized an economy devastated by deregulation and real estate speculation. We continue to reap the benefits of this stimulated economy to this day. In fact, the fed has had to recently raise interest rates to cool the economy. I can give you the link if you'd like.

I don't know of anyone other than rally goers and his family who would vouch for Mr. Trump's character. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of citizens, workers, contractors, and businessmen and women who can attest to being scammed, lied to, and cheated out of their earnings by Mr. trump. I can send you the links if you'd like.

Mr. Trump has been recorded as stating that his privilege allows him to assault women simply because of his status. He is on record saying he has no respect for women, and that you have to "treat em like sh#$" he is on record stating that he values loyalty over integrity. he is on record as saying that he prefers destroying his rivals and "winning" over compromise and fair dealing. His official record is full of lies, contradictions and distortions, often which occur in the same paragraph. I can send you the links if you'd like.

Mr. Trump lacks an honorable, compassionate, god-fearing character, as his record shows.

He has proven that he lacks the character, temperament, and intelligence for the position to which he now holds. We are witness to it everyday. Of course, this utter lack of capability is what got him elected. Many Americans simply wished to "burn it down" to see what happens. However, once you start a fire in another city, it sometimes has a way of spreading to your own backyard.

Enjoy your weekend.