RE: To Provide For The General Welfare

RE: To Provide For The General Welfare (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Edwird -> RE: To Provide For The General Welfare (12/23/2016 7:23:24 PM)
Oh yeah, I forgot to ask: Ever since policies and a multitude of legislation to enforce them have come into place directing the efforts of society towards providing greatest benefit to the wealth stealers and wealth destroyers to inevitable result of increasing the number of poor people, this mantra of "the poor want to be poor" has been invented and heavily promoted. So, people working their asses off 40-45 hours a week in complete shit jobs to make $16k-22k a year do this because they want to work their asses off in complete shit jobs and still have to worry about paying the rent and the power bill, do I have this right?

tamaka -> RE: To Provide For The General Welfare (12/23/2016 7:41:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Democrats had to have their token female. Well that BACKFIRED ON THEM and now we got Trump. T^T Who could have beaten Trump?

Termyn8or -> RE: To Provide For The General Welfare (12/23/2016 7:56:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Democrats had to have their token female. Well that BACKFIRED ON THEM and now we got Trump. T^T Who could have beaten Trump? I probably could've beaten Trump, but I would never associate myself with the DNC. T^T

Edwird -> RE: To Provide For The General Welfare (12/23/2016 7:59:21 PM)
If the media (including the so-called 'left media,' what a larf) hadn't gone out of their way in presenting Sanders as the 'cute old dodger, isn't that precious!' in aggressively dismissive fashion, there's a decent chance he could have won. A lot less registered voters would have stayed home if he'd been the prime alternate to Trump, that's for sure.

Edwird -> RE: To Provide For The General Welfare (12/23/2016 8:28:07 PM)
In any case, there was nothing 'token' about H. Clinton. Regardless of policies and pronounced inclination to support the status quo, she was more than well qualified for the job. I doubt even Trump voters took her basic qualifications into consideration. In fact it's obvious that anyone voting for Trump had pretty much zero consideration of qualifications at all. The multitudes didn't stay away in droves as consideration of her qualifications.

Termyn8or -> RE: To Provide For The General Welfare (12/23/2016 9:24:57 PM)
It's not her qualifications, it is her loyalty. T^T

Edwird -> RE: To Provide For The General Welfare (12/24/2016 12:34:54 AM)
No disagreement there, the question of her loyalty to what is what kept people away. I never got anything about loyalty to gender in any of her speeches or pronouncements, maybe I missed it. Whether expressly stated or not, her loyalty to the status quo was unmistakable however. But in any case I don't think it was about gender for any more than a few voters on either side of it.

DaddySatyr -> RE: To Provide For The General Welfare (12/24/2016 12:43:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Who could have beaten Trump? Off the top of my head? 1) Biden 2) O'Malley 3) Webb (for whom I might have been persuaded to vote). Michael

Musicmystery -> RE: To Provide For The General Welfare (12/26/2016 4:03:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird If the media (including the so-called 'left media,' what a larf) hadn't gone out of their way in presenting Sanders as the 'cute old dodger, isn't that precious!' in aggressively dismissive fashion, there's a decent chance he could have won. A lot less registered voters would have stayed home if he'd been the prime alternate to Trump, that's for sure. Yeah, who knows who would have won, but more people would have voted.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875