Forums / Fun! / Memeory Lane

Bernie Sanders is dead you say? As a fan of Bill Hicks, he;s got my vote then. We really do need a dead president!

Love the assessment on Jim Gilmore.
Good that Rubio is pretty healthy. He's second on my list of preferable candidates.
Same for Paul, he's my first choice.
Lol at Kasich. "Somewhat moderate, if you will."
Oh my gosh. For Ted Cruz, "Approaching cause for serious concern, like Ted's poll numbers"
Sad Sanders has such a high risk, apparently. He's the kind of politician people aren't disgusted to listen to. Even my very conservative dad said he's alright, because he's honest.

This is low for Hillary's standards.

Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie have been pushed to the early debate on November 10 because of the requirement that you have to be polling at least 2.5 percent for the main debate. Lindsey Graham and George Pataki won't be see any debating as you need to be polling at least 1 percent for the early debate.

@unusedusername
I don't understand how you or who ever made the image is implying that Hillary made or funded the website?

FCKH8 https://gotfunnypictures.com/memes/people/fckh8 made the website I thought

I was right http://deportracism.com/pages/about-campaign-manager-luke-montgomery

Are they donating money to hillary or something and that is how she is connected? I don't understand…

Here's their FEC filing, they filed as an independent expenditure PAC which means they support/oppose one or more specific candidates, and they can only collect up to $2,700 per candidate. As an independent expenditure they're not allowed to contribute to any candidate's campaign or committees or other PACs but they can personally advertise for or against candidates with donations from people, so it counts as a campaign donation anyway and is subject to the $2,700 cap. They probably support Bernie and Hillary.

Are these people literally insane?

Illegal immigrants release ‘Bill of Rights’

{ The list of demands runs 10 items long -- the same as the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights -- and also calls for an end to arrests and deportations for “all law-abiding undocumented Americans.”

The list of rights begins with a protest against the terms “illegal” and “alien.” Immigrant-rights advocates say both terms are dehumanizing, and have offered “undocumented workers” or, in the case of United We Stand, “Undocumented Americans,” as their preferred term.

The 10 points include a demand that they be accorded respect; calls for citizenship rights and an immediate deferment of deportations; in-state tuition at public colleges; “wage equality”; medical care; and protection against deportation if illegal immigrants report a crime as a witness. }

That's a real pretty list for a bunch of people who don't pay any taxes, and you notice none of their demands provide a way for that to happen. They don't want to become citizens, they just want to be treated like they are without actually contributing to the system. "Undocumented Americans". Really fuckin' says it all.

I don't understand it. Why not fight to make becoming a citizen easier? Why do they think illegal citizens deserve the same as legal citizens?
You don't sneak into a concert and then complain you get kicked out and didn't get to watch the show.

There is a difference between anti-illegal immigrant, and anti-immigrant, but they act like there isn't.

I would love to see a fight for easier citizenship, but it is being replaced with a fight for illegal immigrants to just suddenly becoming legal because who cares about the millions of others who actually spent the time and money doing so legally?

I'd consider paying taxes and all the fees you'd have to pay to get into the country, plus a fine, a reasonable way to amnesty. But seriously? Just, ignore the fact that we actually broke the law getting here and don't pay taxes; pretend we didn't break the law and give us stuff?

Free Beacon obtains and shares copy of NDA signed by Hillary Clinton and aides.

{ As the nation’s chief diplomat, Hillary Clinton was responsible for ascertaining whether information in her possession was classified and acknowledged that “negligent handling” of that information could jeopardize national security, according to a copy of an agreement she signed upon taking the job.

A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure” of classified information.

Experts have guessed that Clinton signed such an agreement, but a copy of her specific contract, obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute through an open records request and shared with the Washington Free Beacon, reveals for the first time the exact language of the NDA.

The language of her NDA suggests it was Clinton’s responsibility to ascertain whether information shared through her private email server was, in fact, classified.

“I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation,” the agreement states.

Clinton received at least two emails while secretary of state on her personal email server since marked “TS/SCI” --top secret/sensitive compartmented information--according to the U.S. intelligence community’s inspector general. }

tick tick tick tick it's Hillary's time bomb counting down the seconds to implosion.

bruhs.

Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship

{ The academy has occupied a central place in Carson’s tale for years. According to a story told in Carson’s book, “Gifted Hands,” the then-17 year old was introduced in 1969 to Gen. William Westmoreland, who had just ended his command of U.S. forces in Vietnam, and the two dined together. That meeting, according to Carson’s telling, was followed by a “full scholarship” to the military academy.

West Point, however, has no record of Carson applying, much less being extended admission.

When presented with these facts, Carson’s campaign conceded that a central point in his inspirational personal story did not occur as he previously described. }

I think Donald fuckin' Trump might actually be the only candidate who hasn't told the public a lie thus far. Brutal honesty is still honesty, at least.

That's definitely gonna hurt his evangelical base, a group that likes him quite a lot so far. The loss of that might seriously damage his numbers.

These people are pretending to be sanders supporters to try and pin them stage Trump. The same with the now known Hillary Shills and BLM derailers who staged sanders in Seattle.

@unusedusername
>dat false flag dough

LBJ would be proud.

poochyena said:

Why not fight to make becoming a citizen easier?

This. When it takes twenty years for an immigrant to become a citizen, plus all the fees they have to pay, it's not really surprising illegal immigration's become the problem it has. The red tape needs to get cut, but for some reason no candidate wants to tackle it. It's really baffling to me, especially for the GOP since it'd be an easy Latino appealer and it would make the small government folks a little moist at the same time.

lisalombs said:

Hillary’s time bomb counting down the seconds to implosion.

I'm sorry, but the FBI's going to do fuck all. Maybe if Biden had jumped in, but now, there's no way Obama's going to nuke the DNC's crown princess. If there are any charges, it'll be like Christie's bridgegate and a few sacrificial lambs will be put out to slaughter. Clinton's just got too much power in the Democratic Party right now.

{ The red tape needs to get cut, but for some reason no candidate wants to tackle it. It’s really baffling to me, especially for the GOP since it’d be an easy Latino appealer and it would make the small government folks a little moist at the same time. }

??

All the Democrats have talked about is making de-facto amnesty easier and essentially opening our borders as in Europe. The GOP has at least three candidates other than Trump who have released almost too-liberal immigration reform plans, both legal and illegal.

It should be baffling to you that these options have been out there for months in some cases, yet the media has still convinced you the GOP is a bunch of racists trying to deport all the Mexicans and make legal immigration impossible.

{ I’m sorry, but the FBI’s going to do fuck all. }

The FBI are the only people willing to admit they're doing a criminal investigation at this point, and Obama's camp is notoriously anti-Hillary. Wouldn't be surprised to see him throw her under the bus on his way out tbh.

Remember back in 2012 when Trump's "campaign" for president was nothing more than an amusing blip on the radar?

If you had gone back in time 4ish years ago and told me the current state of events, I'd tell you that you were fucking insane. And yet here we are.

Carson and Rubio have announced support for the TPP, the full text of which was finally released to the public.

Well, nobody's perfect. :l

That is… as optimistic a response as one could have I guess…

Fun fact: the full text of the TPP is 3x longer than the Bible.

:|

Been using this smiley all day, it has been thoroughly unimpressive.

According to Politico, an anonymous source has said that

The U.S. intelligence community has retreated from claims that two emails in Hillary Clinton’s private account contained top-secret information…
After a review, intelligence agencies concluded that the two emails did not include highly classified intelligence secrets..

Of course, anonymous source. I'm always wary of those.

99% positive it's a disgruntled State Dept intern because, as the article does eventually state and as has been one of the problems throughout this whole investigation, neither the Justice Department nor the State Department explicitly has the ability to determine the final classification of the emails. They both have completely different standards, the State Dept favoring Clinton and the Justice Dept not, so the classification of those two emails and all the other emails considered classified have always been disputed by the State Dept who claims none of them should even be considered classified in the first place. For them to resolve that issue would take more than a closed door meeting between the two departments, they've said that from day one.

I am half obligated to think it was a Clinton campaign plant to help cushion the release of her NDA which specifically lays out the penalties for mishandling SCI info. If suddenly none of her emails are considered SCI, that's a very convenient turn of events for her. They're the only two emails so far that could land her in jail beyond a doubt, especially now that we've seen the NDA they tried so desperately to prevent from being released.

Of course, the Democrat establishment is already trying to make it conclusive:

{ "DNI Clapper’s determination is further evidence that there was no wrongdoing by Secretary Clinton," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). "The classification process is complex and subjective, but this confirms Secretary Clinton did not send classified information through her email account. It’s time to put this issue behind us and move on.” }

State Dept even addressed it: { "As far as I know we’ve received no final decision by the intelligence community with respect to these two emails," Kirby said at a daily briefing for reporters. "As far as we know, that process is ongoing." }

That's the kind of thing the State Dept would be broadcasting to the world if it was true.

That's true.
Of course they are, the U.S. revolves around partisan politics, remember? Protect your own pack at all costs and attack the other.
I'm always wary of anonymous sources because you don't have anything other than the name of the person who published the piece behind it.

Anonymous sources are necessary in journalism, we shouldn't only be accepting official government statements, but this contradicts both departments. And if it was official or true I'm pretty sure Hillary herself would be making it known, it's not like any of the Democrats wouldn't tell her. Now that someone's said it everyone else must be frantically hunting for some kind of official statement if it is true though, so we should know either way by Monday.

Lol @ this article by the NYTimes, particularly this one section:

The presidential campaign is still in its early and unsettled stages, and many subplots are still to unfold. But so far, the old and powerful structure of the venerable news media as a gatekeeper, seizing on the candidates for any untruth and deeply wounding them in the process, seems to be crumbling, replaced by a more chaotic environment.

Oh noo, people are finally realizing the media sucks! Everything is descending into chaos! It's the end times! The ennddd!

It does point out several falsehood the various candidates have spread and yet aren't damaged by, from both the Republican and Democratic side. But that one line, it's so ridiculous.

Anyways. Just wanted to share that the media is scared that the media is being doubted.

Also, sadly, Rand Paul is being predicted right now to have as good a chance as Jim Gilmore at getting the nomination. Jim Literally Who Gilmore.

ProfessorRivers said:

Also, sadly, Rand Paul is being predicted right now to have as good a chance as Jim Gilmore at getting the nomination. Jim Literally Who Gilmore.

Sadly, it's going to be at least another decade before the libertarians gain enough power in the GOP to seriously contend. On the bright side, more and more young Republicans are on the libertarian side of the spectrum, so its inevitable that there'll be a shift over. I wouldn't be surprised if there's an eventual merging of the GOP and Libertarian Parties like what happened with the Democratic and Populist Parties in the early 1900s.

Polls:

GOP:
>Trump 25.3%
>Carson 23%
>Rubio 11.8%
>Cruz 10%
>Bush III 5.5%

Democrat:
>Clinton 54.8%
>Sanders 32.5%
>O'Malley 1.8%

So… when is O'Malley going to finally give up?

If Clinton ends up getting in trouble for her e-mails, O'Malley would be the establishment candidate. Even if she doesn't get arrested, if she ends up taking a huge blow due to it O'Malley's support would surge as the only establishment candidate that isn't under fire for extremely dangerous and criminal actions. Also, while this is only slightly related, he has a really strong chance at becoming either candidates VP.

Sadly, it’s going to be at least another decade before the libertarians gain enough power in the GOP to seriously contend.

I'm not so sure. Maybe not IN the GOP, sure, but I remember Gallup over the years has been showing a trend of citizens wanting third parties in power, and the Libertarian party is a great fit – practically the antithesis to the Democrats, strongly different from Republicans, with many good thinkers, the largest base at the moment, and huge spread for a third party across the nation. They even have moderate success at the local level. Combine this with the fact that, as shown by this election cycle, people are really freaking fed up with establishment politics, it seems like the stars are aligned for the Libertarian Party to surge.

The libertarians could contend evenly with Bernie Sanders right now in the Democrat race, that's why they can't in the GOP. Moderate young Republicans will hopefully never be like the independents of today who go beyond compromising on social issues to completely rolling over on foreign policy and tax reform as well. As we can see, that's going real well for the open border socialists in Europe. Danke Merkel. Even Sweden is imposing border controls now.

Politico Admits Fabricating A Hit Piece On Ben Carson

{ Politico's editorial staff on Friday conceded that entire basis of attack on Carson was invented out of whole cloth.

At a time when the media need to demonstrate good faith efforts to cover Republicans and conservatives with even a modicum of fairness, Kyle Cheney and Politico have done a tremendous disservice to their brands. Politico stealthily edited the inflammatory headline and lede, after the damage was done. They made changes without adding a note about what was corrected. They didn’t update the piece or add an editor’s note. }

Breaks down the accusations and reality, also links to a good handful of other news outlets criticizing Politico.

Is every election season this messy? It feels like the entire media world is falling apart and tripping over themselves to not screw up, and to screw up others. It's quite fun to watch, if a bit sad.

No, this cycle is a (edit:) spectacular disaster by anyone's standards, rest assured.

WashTimes investigates: Republicans’ media bias claims boosted by scarcity of right-leaning journalists

{ A mere 7 percent of journalists identify as Republicans, and when they do give money to political campaigns they usually donate to Democrats, lending evidence to Republican presidential candidates’ claims that they are facing a hostile audience when they deal with the press.

“There’s something in the DNA of liberals that makes them want to go into jobs like the arts, journalism and academia more so than conservatives,” Mr. Groseclose said. “Even if you’re just trying to maximize profits by offering an alternative point of view, it’s hard to find conservative reporters. So it’s natural the media is more liberal.” }

Can you imagine if we used that excuse for anything else the Democrats project?

There's something in the DNA of men that makes them want to go into STEM fields, so it's natural the STEM field is more male!

It's natural that the supposedly neutral news which is meant to report facts accurately has a liberal bias! But if it had a conservative bias we'd have all sorts of federal government social programs trying to make up for it via affirmative action for liberal reporters, we can't have a minority group disproportionately underrepresented after all…

Isn't Fox News the biggest news network in the US? How can you claim liberal bias when the biggest news network is the opposite of liberal?

Also
>There’s something in the DNA of men that makes them want to go into STEM fields, so it’s natural the STEM field is more male!

That's honestly probably true. I'm in the creative field, I own an etsy shop, and go to conventions and sell handmade goods. Literally 80% of etsy shop owners are female, and of the many conventions I have been to, I've never seen an artist alley table being run by just a male. It is always women, or a man and woman. Even for me, my etsy shop helped by a woman who does a lot of the designs for my stuff.
Its near impossible to find other men in the creative field.
Idk why there is a huge push to get more women in STEM, but not a push to get men into creative fields. Honestly, I think we should just let people choose w/e career they want and stop pushing people.

As for a bias, well, there will always be a bias, different people can view a situation differently. They don't always purposely try to add a bias or spin a story in a certain way, its just how they view the story themselves. Its kinda hard to write a neutral story when you only have one perspective of the story.

I should know better than to riff on liberal males in a forum full of liberal males.
How about a different demographic then?

There's something in the DNA of black men that makes them more violent, so it's natural that they get into confrontations with and killed by the police more often than other races ~ #BLM can shut down now, mystery solved. There's something in the DNA of black men that makes them less smart, so it's natural their average scores never match whites and Asians. Why is there such an affirmative action push to get more black people into high-educated positions? We should just let them pick whatever minimum wage retail job they want and not push people.

Are you still buying this, or is the logic suddenly a bit more unsavory when the bias doesn't benefit your POV?

Fox News is the most-watched news network in the country because the average Democrat doesn't watch the news on a regular basis (edit to illustrate: there are 320 million people in this country… during primetime, viewer leader Fox averages ~2million viewers; CNN gets ~500k). Shocking, I know, who would have thought. That's why our voter turnout is better when there's not a black guy running on the fact that he's black, Democrats are also much less likely to consistently vote.

{ As for a bias, well, there will always be a bias, }

That's literally what the editor is for. They were meant to police their organization and make sure no obviously slanted or erroneous reporting got in the way of facts, which used to be able to destroy a publication's reputation. Now we make excuses for it. It's in our DNA~!!

Eh.
Sometimes DNA DOES plays a role in what people do, sometimes it doesn't.
With the "liberals are more likely to be journalists, its in their DNA", its kinda true. DNA does play a part of who you are, and liberals are definitely more interested in journalism because its part of what being a liberal is. The left is more interested in the community and being apart of movements and such while the right is more interested in themselves/how things affect themselves.

--

>because the average Democrat doesn’t watch the news on a regular basis

I think Democrats are just more likely to read the news online rather than watch tv. Democrats are generally younger than republicans, so it makes more sense for democrats to watch less tv news and go more for online news. Especially since most young people don't even have a cable subscription so even be able to watch CNN..

--

But it isn't always obvious that it is slanted. meh.

Democrats are younger on average because as people get older and mature and realize how the world works, they realize that Democrat ideals are fantasies for children and convert to the GOP (and then at the very end of their lives they say fuck it, I worked for 80 years, time cash in on the liberals).

Young people who live on their own are far more likely to have some kind of cable service than old people who live on their own… you do have to be 18 to vote you know, that 15 year old liberals don't often pay their own cable bills is kind of irrelevant.

Behavioral genetics is not something that can be broken down so narrowly as "liberals are altruistic and conservatives are greedy bastards" as you seem to believe. Nor can we say "liberals are more into writing and journalism than conservatives". There's not even weak statistical evidence to support correlating behavioral genetics and political affiliation. Republicans and Democrats are found almost equally split in the population no matter what you're doing, except very niche positions whose industries are directly effected by politics (ie coal miners). That's the whole point of singling out that bullshit statement in my first post on the topic.

It's not like only 7% of journalism graduates in this country are conservative. Hundreds of thousands of students graduate every year from journalism programs in schools considered conservative colleges. CNN doesn't hire conservative staff to mix in with their liberal staff because they don't want conservative reporters. Same with NBC and ABC and all the other liberal alphabet networks in the mainstream.

Democrats are younger on average because as people get older and mature and realize how the world works, they realize that Democrat ideals are fantasies for children and convert to the GOP (and then at the very end of their lives they say fuck it, I worked for 80 years, time cash in on the liberals).

Don't tell me you're channeling Wiston Churchill there.

I haven't read the studies people keep quoting, but there's a lot of holes people aren't filling in when talking about them. Do their actual beliefs change or does party affiliation change, because those can be huge things – 60ish years ago the Democratic party began radically changing, for example, and parties slowly change in response to popular morality. John Kasich's gay marriage comments at the first republican debate this year would have likely been boo'd, not applauded, in 2004. for example. So do these studies measure party affiliation or belief change?
Also, jumping to the conclusion of "it's because they learn more about the real world" is kinda… irrational.The biggest different at the later years is 9 percentage points. Factoring in the margin of error that's common in most studies like these, that's barely significant. Statistically significant, but barely so. If they learned how the world worked and that's why, why do only 9% learn how the real world works by that age? Also, is there evidence that's the actual reason why, and not, say, simple maturity changes throughout life that may or may not be actually representative of real life? Suicide rates among older people is higher, yet I doubt you'd say that's because they learn how the real world works.
Again, I haven't seen the studies for myself, but nobody seems to be addressing these holes when they talk about them.

{ Don’t tell me you’re channeling Wiston Churchill there. }

No, just Gallup.

But you're both microfocusing on the one obviously sarcastic sentence in the whole post… as opposed to the media part, which actually matters.

I was focusing on the statistics, but the point remains regardless.
I don't know for sure if liberals go into media because the media is liberal or if the media is liberal because liberals go into media. It's something I'd leave up to someone with more letters after their name, and who focuses on a relevant field. Regardless, I do agree the media has a left-leaning bias.

I didn't post stats that say Democrats who mature realize their lifetime of party affiliation mistakes, I posted stats that said it's overwhelmingly common for Democrats to switch parties as they age, which is true, and then provided my own snarky reasons as to why.

You can look up roughly how many students graduate in each field annually.
Even easier from specific schools, like schools known to be conservative colleges.

Plus, check out CNN's anchor profiles.

{ With more than 25 years of experience in broadcast journalism, Allen has also worked at NBC News, MSNBC, and the Weather Channel.}

{ Anderson has extensive business journalism experience including posts with the UK's ITN, CNBC Europe and Bloomberg. }

{ Before joining CNN, Cooper anchored ABC's off-beat overnight newscast World News Now, and was a correspondent for World News Tonight as well as 20/20. }

{ Before joining CNN in March 2007, Acosta was a CBS News correspondent since February 2003. Originally based in New York, he later relocated to the CBS bureau in Atlanta. He contributed primarily to the CBS Evening News. }

It's like a little liberal media clique, they just bounce from one alphabet network to the other.

You'd need statistics from when the media began being liberal (if there was a time when it began to be liberal) and/or before it to tell, because it's possible the fact that there's more left-leaning news media means there's more of a demand for left-leaning journalists. More demand, it could be filled by more of them moving into that field for money.
Although, at this point I'm just saying I don't know anything about this and can only pose possible counter-arguments, and we've also gone reeeaaaallly off-topic. The whole issue of media bias is worthy of its own thread.

Also, question: Did anybody here watch the MSNBC forum? I couldn't find any recordings of it after the fact and was unable to watch it when it was streaming on MSNBC. I'm imagining it was terrible but am not sure. Any particularly interesting parts if you did watch it?
And, on a similar note, the next Republican debate is tomorrow. Anyone other than me and Lisa planning on watching it and sharing their thoughts?
There'll be a libertarian commentator at midnight (EST I think) after the debate btw, for anyone who cares (likely me and xTSGx). Because the debate is said to have an economic focus we could see some small-government and Austrian economic positions expressed there in contrast to the common moderate-government and Keynesian economics. And all this probably means nothing to most people on here…

{ You’d need statistics from when the media began being liberal (if there was a time when it began to be liberal) }

It's like you've all forgotten that a world once existed where the media was expected to be and stay neutral. I don't know it offhand but I don't imagine it would be very hard to pinpoint the decade that news started becoming obviously partisan.

It's worthy of its own thread for sure, but the issue is being examined in the mainstream right now, by the biased reporters trying to excuse themselves, purely because of that disastrous NBC debate.

In that article I linked originally one of them says it's okay that the mainstream news is overwhelmingly liberal because the conservatives have pages online like the Drudge Report……… which is nothing but a news aggregator, so…

I know it was once expected to stay neutral, that's why I said when it began being liberal…
Anyways, I've decided for no particular reason to attempt to tally up all the people who posted here and give some statistics on the most common commentators. I'll cut it off at page 11 because this one isn't finished yet. I'm fairly certain the top two won't surprise anyone.

Basically what ProfessorRivers said, especially Do their actual beliefs change or does party affiliation change

Also, is this really true lisa?
>Young people who live on their own are far more likely to have some kind of cable service than old people who live on their own…

I thought most young people just went for internet + netflix.

Also, if you want to stereotype party members.

Democrats are usually young since young people benefit the most from left policies such as government assistance since young people are usually poorish, but as they get older, get a good career and richer, they become Republicans since they benefit the most from right policies, such as tax breaks.

Maybe a lot of people just support the party that benefit them the most at the moment.

Btw, the chart, how do you even get that as people age, they switch from dem or rep? The number of dems stay about the same the whole time while the number of Rep increase and independent decrease. It looks more like, as people age, they switch from independent to republican rather than switch from dem to rep.

@ProfessorRivers regarding the msnbc forum
https://www.youtube.com/user/msnbcleanforward/videos

{ >Young people who live on their own are far more likely to have some kind of cable service than old people who live on their own… }

That's true, the internet + Netflix craze is still only predicted to wipe out TV. Hasn't taken the majority yet, plus people already had and keep their cable even though they have the internet.

{ Also, if you want to stereotype party members. }

& like most stereotypes, they're based on statistical fact. Yes, young people start off Democrat because young people tend to want things handed to them for free. Then they get older and start to earn their own money and feel less like parting with what they worked hard to earn now that they know how it feels to earn it. You might say that's called maturing but ahh there goes my sarcasm again.

The Democrat line starts at 49 and then hangs out at ~40 for the rest of life?
What do you mean it stays the same?

Just from a quick google seach
http://www.statisticbrain.com/tv-cable-subscriber-statistics/
Pay-TV Service Age 18-36 Age 37-48 Age 49-67 Age 68+
Cable TV 46 % 48 % 55 % 63 %
Netflix 43 % 31 % 21 % 13 %

> and feel less like parting with what they worked hard to earn now that they know how it feels to earn it. You might say that’s called maturing

Sound more like they don't want to give back to a system that helped them when they needed the help. Sounds self-entitled and immature.
Take all the free stuff they can when they are young, then as they age, do what ever they can from keeping their money from being taxed.
The system should be like, take a penny, leave a penny, not, take all the pennies from the tray, then hoard all the extra pennies you have.

Democrat line only changes by 9 points, which is less than Republican and Independents, which change by 15 and 10 points over time.

Getting close. Aren't TV producers supposed to be implementing some sort of Netflix-esque plan so I can watch TV online anyway?

{ Sound more like they don’t want to give back to a system that helped them when they needed the help. }

That's what your federal and state and sales and property and income and real estate and investment and death and inheritance and exit and sin taxes do. Did you want to leave some more pennies on top of that? How generous!

Teenagers can't apply for social welfare programs, so I doubt any of them were robbing the system any more than those who chose to stay Democrat and vote for entitlement expansions do. :)

Alrighty, here's the raw data on the posts in this thread, on pastebin. Note that this is the first time I've done something like this so I probably miscounted somewhere. However, I think it's pretty reliable. Some highlights:

Well, this was a huge waste of time, but it was kinda fun.

It would be great if the republicans would pay for all the taxes they are suppose to instead of constantly asking for government assistance under the guise that they'll add more jobs (but not jobs that would actually pay a living wage, that would be asking for too much).
But your right, the rich need their money to buy a second yacht much more than the poor need money to afford to be able to eat out at McDonalds every once and a while.

Really, you can't tell me welfare abuse cost the government more money than tax evasion and loop holes from the rich.

ProfessorRivers said:

…it seems like the stars are aligned for the Libertarian Party to surge.

Maybe I'm just pessimistic, but due to the way our election system is (first past the post, and the clusterfuck that is the electoral college), third parties are always seen as a "throw away." Perot showed it to conservatves in '92 and Nadar showed it to liberals in '00. It's nice people want to vote third party, but when the rubber meets the road and they're in the voting booth, they don't want their ideology to lose. It's never about voting for your candidate, it's about voting against the other party's to stop their ideology from winning.

That's why Hillary's got so much support. Most liberals hate her, but they hate the GOP more and don't want to risk Sanders and his left wing policies alienating the centerist independents, so they plug their nose and ignore her Wall St smoozing. Same for conservatives and most of the GOP's contenders, but replace "Wall St" with "defense spending" and "world police."

I'd love for the libertarians to make a great showing, but even with "all" the media that Ron Paul got in 2012, they still only managed lass than 1% of the vote. I don't really see that changing unless they commit a coup within the GOP.

ProfessorRivers said:

Is every election season this messy?

Honestly, it really is. Washington was turning in his grave by 1828.

lisalombs said:

…they realize that Democrat ideals are fantasies for children and convert to the GOP…

If you're a conservative at 20 you have no heart, and if your a liberal at 30 you have no brain.

jarbox said:

Don’t tell me you’re channeling Wiston Churchill there.

It's actually apparently by a French jurist named Anselme Polycarpe Batbie, who was satirizing Edmond Burke and his support for the American Revolution and later condemnation of the French Revolution.

poochyena said:

It would be great if the republicans would pay for all the taxes they are suppose to…

I don't understand this line of reasoning. If you can take a deduction on your taxes, don't you? And if you could afford to hire someone to do your taxes for you who could find every deduction you could claim and save a ton of money, wouldn't you? Nobody wants to pay more money than they have to, whether it's the single mom living in section 8 or the billionaire in his mansion.

How to get around Congress in 4 easy steps:

Step 1: Issue obviously illegal executive orders declaring amnesty.

Step 2: Rest of country takes you to court over illegal executive orders, win a block on the implementation of said illegal executive orders.

Step 3: Higher appeals court keeps block on Obama immigration actions

Step 4: Have your buddies in the Supreme Court grant legality to your illegal executive orders anyway.

{ The 2-1 ruling Monday from the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit is a defeat for the Obama administration, but one that may have come just in the nick of time to give the Supreme Court the chance to revive Obama's attempt to make it easier for many immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally to live and work here.

The timing of the appeals court's decision had become of increasing concern to the Obama administration and immigrant rights' groups in recent weeks.

Obama's latest round of executive actions has been on hold since February, and delay in the issuance of the appeals court's ruling was raising doubt about whether the Supreme Court would have an opportunity to resolve the case in time to allow Obama to move forward with the programs before leaving office.

The release of the 5th Circuit decision Monday appears to allow the Supreme Court enough time to take up the dispute this term, if the justices choose to wade into the issue. A favorable Supreme Court ruling would permit the administration to implement the executive actions next summer. }

& here's our first action from our new GOP Speaker who won endorsements from Democrats Harry Reid and Luis Gutierrez (who is the #1 amnesty advocate in Congress) before being voted in:

{ The first immigration bill introduced under Rep. Paul Ryan’s speakership Wednesday would bypass the annual 66,000 cap on H-2B work visas by allowing foreigners admitted in any of the three previous years to remain and not be subject to the cap.

Critics say it will lead to more competition for what are often middle-class American jobs and will eventually lead to more illegal immigrants as the foreign workers overstay their visas.

The H-2B is considered a “seasonal” work permit for lower-skilled workers such as cooks, construction workers, hospitality, theme park employment, maintenance, forestry, seafood processing, cruise ship employees and truck driving among many other jobs.

It differs from the H-1B, which is for skilled guest-workers and also is the subject of pending legislation sponsored by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who wants to triple the number issued to foreign workers each year.

The cap exemption on the H-2B expired in 2007. At the time, it doubled the number but it could as much as quadruple, legislative sources told WND. This is the same way the total number of existing H-1B visa workers got so much higher than the annual inflow. }

I'd be laughing at how obvious this is if we weren't also so obviously fucked thanks to it.

This is on top of the TPP, which Obama wrote a lovely editorial to sell in Bloomberg.

Let's just examine the first paragraph since it features my FAV government LIES.

{ As president, my top priority is to grow our economy and strengthen the middle class. When I took office, America was in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression -- but thanks to the hard work and resilience of the American people, our businesses have created 13.5 million jobs over the past 68 months, the longest streak of private-sector job creation in history. The unemployment rate has been cut nearly in half -- lower than it’s been in more than seven years. We have come back further and faster from recession than nearly every other advanced nation on Earth. }

Do I have to post it again for this thread or do you guys already know what I'm about to say.
I really hope you already know since I post it like SIX TIMES A MONTH at least.

I've also revealed the lie behind that job growth stat hundreds of times this year, do I need to post that again as well????

Well I will.

1.

2. Rick Santorum touted a shocking statistic to Iowa voters: Of the “6 million net new jobs created in America” since 2000, “all of them” are held by immigrants. That’s not accurate. Santorum ignores the 2.6 million job gains by native-born Americans over the age of 65 in the same time period.

Vote for open borders.
Vote with your heart.
Vote Democrat.