What has the woman ever done to deserve to be President? It makes no sense.
I don't care who runs against her, they should win.
I don't care who runs against her, they should win.
If you vote for Hillary, you're an idiot.
- Thread starter EEResistable
- Start date
Senator and former Sec State vs. real estate/ realityTV star. Get over yourself
You may want to add liar, felon, and accomplishments of nothing.
says the guy who said Trump was just going to 'rattle the cage and try to make some deals'...yeah STFU
Last edited:
Why be dishonest? That is pathetic. Please link the quote you just attributed to me. Every post is here.
Last edited:
And she got those jobs because her husband was President. Admit it that you love her because she was married to Bill. That's the truth.
I'm voting Democrat regardless who the nominee is, especially these days. I don't want to repeal obamacare or defund planned parenthood and I hate all the GOP chickenhawks who seem to want war as the first tenet of our foreign policy. What does Hillary have to do with it? She won't be our nominee anyway I predict, seems like a great time for someone else to swwop in.
You probably need to put one in that will continue the apology tour. If Korea advances a little, you will be facing a two or three prong battle that you don't currently have the capacity to defend.
I'm really not worried a bit about it, I haven't seen a party that can run itself let alone the country from the GOP.
Lol I guess by saying Daddy instead of Dad there is a difference? Actually I think my Dad probably voted Democrat only twice. I vote democrat cause I'm pro union, anti big business and think Government evens the playing field. I did pull the lever for Ws Dad.
I never liked her much as my senator and continue to have indifferent feelings about her as a president. I would love to have a good reason not to vote for her, but Trump isn't it. Long way between now and election day, maybe someone else will come to the surface.
If it's between Trump and Hillary, I'm certain there will be a 3rd option on the ballot.
I apologize to anyone I have offended. I know we all, liberals and conservatives, want what is best for this country. We just have very different ideas on what IS best.
IMO, it remains a shame we're stuck with two parties.....and lousy ones at that, who really don't care about much beyond destroying the opposition. I realize many wish we had a 3rd party, but I myself still wish we had NO party system (which I'm not sure has existed anywhere since Adam & Eve were running around).
Of course, special interest......and politics as it's defined currently......would largely cease to exist. And wouldn't THAT be a shame.....
Last edited:
You actually think that "special interest" and politics would cease to exist in a no party environment? Thats hilarious, I'm just not as optimistic and gullible as you appear to be.
Agreed that we would have a better system if we had NO party to be loyal to. Politicians would be loyal to themselves and the people they represent.
La. had "open" primaries in the 60's. Anyone who wanted to run for a seat would pay their fees and campaign. The top two vote getters would face off in the General unless someone received over 50% in primary and they would have won the seat.
Party loyalty and power of committee assignment has gotten too great an incentive. Always working for reelection and appointment.
Election laws need to be changed also by legislature. First, no one can contribute to a candidate if they cannot vote for him. That removes outside money from: business; unions; political parties; PACs; other big money. Also, media has to give equal time to both candidates during general campaign. That is a place to start.
Apparently none of you fellas have seen Hilly-Bob from behind in a pair of yoga pants? It's a sight to behold.
Sarah Palin ain't half the woman Hillary is. At least from the waist down.
Sarah Palin ain't half the woman Hillary is. At least from the waist down.
What exactly does pro-Union have to do with voting Democrat? I'd really like to hear why you think the Democrats are still pro-Union?
Just curious, do you believe someone should be forced to be in a union? For instance, if you work in a factory but don't want to join the union, should you be forced to be in that respective union?
Yeah, especially if you are working on a contract that is negotiated through your Union reps.
Can you give me an example? I'm trying to understand your scenario, it doesn't seem to be a parallel with what I offered. What kind of contract would be negotiated by Union Reps? I'll admit, I'm slightly behind on how unions operate these days. I grew up in a family that owned a business and in 88 we were able to disband the union (teamsters) in our company. We were able to successfully offer more money to our personnel but had less of them. All of the guys I spoke to enjoyed the post non-union to the union days in our company. Always left an impression on me when I was younger and coming up in business, that if given the opportunity to choose, many would opt out. That is obviously contingent on a company doing right by their workforce. I think in today's society and business environment, there is a higher chance of that occurring than 100 years ago.
So the union means more than the worker?
I work with the trade organization in WV to help contractors in the state. Not all contractors in the state are members, should I expect them to be forced to join if they will benefit from our organization's hard work?
No. And the shareholders mean more than the workers already. The Union works for the workers so I'm not sure how they would mean more, together the workers are stronger by having a collective voice. Not looking for a debate on Unions, but I did watch Matewan again last night.
Everywhere I have worked the Union reps negotiated with company management over each new contract, talking paper mill, coal mine and a ballistics laboratory.
Let them opt out. But they won't have to abide by what the union negotiates-pay, hours, vacation, retirement, etc. If they opt out, they don't pay union dues and they can negotiate their own contract. I'm sure that will work out just grand for those who opt out. Think Walmart.
Were you ever in a Union? Are all of your employees in the Union? How about all the waiters,cooks,janitors and grounds keepers at you "club"?
The argument that you have to join a union to benefit from the union shows the true selfish nature of the union. It's not about the betterment of the worker, it about the betterment of the union. If it were about the worker, then they would care more about all workers and not just union workers.
I've seen good unions and bad unions. I won't deny that several have had a fair amount of corruption, and others drove some businesses into the poor house with strikes and demands. Regardless, I think the assertion that they should help workers entirely out of the goodness of their hearts is no solution either. Even churches take up a collection.
Unions were born because of abuses by employers and they corrected a lot of those abuses. HOWEVER, most Unions of today are not about correcting abuses, they are more concerned with generating a revenue stream aimed at keeping leadership in power. And with that comes all the trapping of wealth and power. Most rank and file Union members of today are nothing more than pawns of their leadership.