Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 296 of 346 FirstFirst ... 196246286294295296297298306 ... LastLast
Results 4,426 to 4,440 of 5177
  1. #4426
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    30,702
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    That’s the point. Special often calls Trump’s lies exaggerations. He said Trump was exaggerating when he claimed he personally saw thousands of Muslims in NJ cheering 9/11.
    attempting to be comical didn't work, nobody is seriously going to say what Biden said is an exaggeration.

    what Biden said is simply wrong. now maybe he was told the wrong time and wasn't lying to deceive people. he should correct himself.

    I see this from someone on what Biden should say..

    https://twitter.com/saletan/status/1379607611901902851
    Biden could do a world of good by admitting, "You know what, I screwed up that thing about the poll closing times in Georgia. We're not gonna be like the last administration. When we get something wrong, we'll admit it. Now, let's talk about what's bad in the Georgia law ..."


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    a person is smart. people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
    #TrumpDerangementSyndrome


  2. #4427
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    39,491
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    attempting to be comical didn't work, nobody is seriously going to say what Biden said is an exaggeration.

    what Biden said is simply wrong. now maybe he was told the wrong time and wasn't lying to deceive people. he should correct himself.

    I see this from someone on what Biden should say..

    https://twitter.com/saletan/status/1379607611901902851
    Nobody serious would say Trump claiming he saw thousands of Muslims cheering 9/11 in New Jersey was exaggeration either.

  3. #4428
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    30,702
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Nobody serious would say Trump claiming he saw thousands of Muslims cheering 9/11 in New Jersey was exaggeration either.
    I doubt Trump himself saw anyone cheering, but the number would be an exaggeration, a stretch from the people that were cheering.


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    a person is smart. people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
    #TrumpDerangementSyndrome


  4. #4429
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    39,491
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    I doubt Trump himself saw anyone cheering, but the number would be an exaggeration, a stretch from the people that were cheering.
    He lied.

  5. #4430
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North Shore
    Posts
    12,283
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    I doubt Trump himself saw anyone cheering, but the number would be an exaggeration, a stretch from the people that were cheering.
    So he lied

    Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

  6. #4431
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    16,720
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Ok and how do you suggest I do that? I outlined the documents required to get each one. Should I forge one to get the other? It's a chicken and the egg that can't just be resolved with "let's make them free" platitudes.
    So then your issue with this is more about making it easier for people to get proper IDs, not with the idea of requiring one when voting. Therefore, that's the problem to work on, not just let that continue while calling requiring one to vote a method of suppression.

    How many people are we even talking about that currently 'can't' get a proper ID? And why wouldn't we want that as a requirement period, not just to vote?
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  7. #4432
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    97,709
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    So then your issue with this is more about making it easier for people to get proper IDs, not with the idea of requiring one when voting. Therefore, that's the problem to work on, not just let that continue while calling requiring one to vote a method of suppression.

    How many people are we even talking about that currently 'can't' get a proper ID? And why wouldn't we want that as a requirement period, not just to vote?
    Yes. My issue is practicality. People throw out “just give them a free ID” like it’s a real point.

    But people are using that fact to get people off the voter rolls and restrict it further. States that are expanding access are eliminating the need for a photo ID.

  8. #4433
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    16,720
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Yes. My issue is practicality. People throw out “just give them a free ID” like it’s a real point.

    But people are using that fact to get people off the voter rolls and restrict it further. States that are expanding access are eliminating the need for a photo ID.
    In a logical world, does it not make sense for people to have to verify their identity before voting? Yes or no?
    If the answer is yes, the logical next step isn't to NOT require it because some have issues getting one, the logical next step is to eliminate that issue. There are other reasons why everyone should have an ID.

    You guys do realize that, even after these changes, there are states with tighter restrictions, yet this is where you think the focus should be?
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  9. #4434
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    11,753

    Joe Biden's Presidency

    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    In a logical world, does it not make sense for people to have to verify their identity before voting? Yes or no?
    If the answer is yes, the logical next step isn't to NOT require it because some have issues getting one, the logical next step is to eliminate that issue. There are other reasons why everyone should have an ID.

    You guys do realize that, even after these changes, there are states with tighter restrictions, yet this is where you think the focus should be?
    Yes the focus should be on those suppressing votes intentionally. That’s a major issue.

    That none of the measures supposedly implemented for security also include this it is an obvious attempt at such. If people actually cared about security allowing everyone to vote securely these plans would include free and easily accessible ids. I have no issue with ids being free and accessible at all but until they are you shouldn’t have it be a requirement to vote. When people try and suppress votes by making it a requirement the focus can be on the very bad thing while acknowledging the other issue as well.

    Who do you think is against the idea of everyone having free and easy access to ids? My guess is the same people not including it in their attempts to suppress votes.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by mngopher35; 04-07-2021 at 06:46 PM.

  10. #4435
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    6,874
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Please point out the evidence that proves the Big Lie. There was no voter fraud in the election that would have tilted the scales. I won't say there was no voter fraud because there's always going to be some. But I can say that in my state (Virginia) we had one whole case of it. According to numbers others posted, Texas had an average of 9 cases of voter fraud in their elections.
    And the Iowa race resulted in a gop win by 9 votes. What if voter fraud changed the outcome in that race?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. #4436
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    97,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Brewersfan255 View Post
    And the Iowa race resulted in a gop win by 9 votes. What if voter fraud changed the outcome in that race?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    If if’s were candy and nuts...

    There hasn’t been a real case of voter ID in Iowa since 2017.

    https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?state=IA

  12. #4437
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    97,709
    Glad to see that the courts are starting to get these things right.

    https://boingboing.net/2021/04/07/ne...mpression=true

  13. #4438
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Coventry RI
    Posts
    5,086
    Lmao Gina talking about turning Rhode island around. Ya then she proceeded to bend us over and insert. No kiss goodbye either. We are all in trouble if no one actually is going to press this lady for the truth. God I hate our Media

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
    One More Time

  14. #4439
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    16,720
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    Yes the focus should be on those suppressing votes intentionally. That’s a major issue.

    That none of the measures supposedly implemented for security also include this it is an obvious attempt at such. If people actually cared about security allowing everyone to vote securely these plans would include free and easily accessible ids. I have no issue with ids being free and accessible at all but until they are you shouldn’t have it be a requirement to vote. When people try and suppress votes by making it a requirement the focus can be on the very bad thing while acknowledging the other issue as well.

    Who do you think is against the idea of everyone having free and easy access to ids? My guess is the same people not including it in their attempts to suppress votes.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Why is it assumed ANYone is against ensuring everyone has free and easy access to IDs?
    Who are the people who currently do not?
    Why would it be logical for states to expand access by NOT requiring IDs vs ensuring people can get them?
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  15. #4440
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    9,044
    Yelin urges a minimum corporate income tax for all (including the 55 or so major corporations that paid zero in corporate income tax last year, a list that includes Archer-Daniels-Midland, Booz Allen Hamilton, FedEx, HP, Interpublic, Nike and Xcel Energy.)

    With support from leaders of both major parties, the corporate income tax has dropped from 6% of the GNP to less than 1% since the early 1960’s, the justification always being that the economy as a whole will benefit — that lower corporate taxes would lead to company expansions, more jobs and higher incomes. But it hasn’t worked out that way. Instead, economic growth has been mediocre since the 1970s. And incomes have grown even more slowly than the economy for every group except the wealthy.

    In the face of the (incorrect ) assumption that those corporations will parlay the additional money into broader benefits, US economic experience over the past 60 years has definitively shown that has not happened and...bottom line: almost assuredly will not happen.

    Time for the fat cats to pony up. Think this administration has the balls to get this done? I hope so.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •