Senator John McCain of Arizona found to have brain cancer - McCain's office
- Thread starter WVU82_rivals
- Start date
Only if you think further dumbing down and fracturing of our civil society is a good thing.
Your just mad because if he can't perform his duties as a Senator then Arizona might replace him with an honest to god conservative.
The 5 year survival rate of this form of brain tumor of people aged 55-64 is 4%.
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/brain...tection-diagnosis-staging/survival-rates.html
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/brain...tection-diagnosis-staging/survival-rates.html
Dang, I hate that for Mr. McCain. He's a genuine good American. I hope he defies the odds that are against him! :americanflag:
Yes, there is a purpose for this. No, you won't understand it because you're a mush head.
Trump likes Senators who don't get cancer. I'm sure when McCain passes away, Trumplethinskin will act like he never said what he did. Some pathetic posts in this thread by the usual idiots. At least they are consistent with your dear leader's. Shame on you people.
you have the libtard "playing the victim" part down to a tee...
eight years of practice will do that I guess...
SJW all the way...
Or maybe we can start by educating the 32% of trump fans that don't believe junior met with the Russians ......
No doubt thousands of the great unwashed masses are celebrating the demise of a moderate
what if Jr did meet with the Russians ?
he doesn't hold office...
typical libtard positioning...
cnn brainwashed...
#hillarylostwhat if Jr did meet with the Russians ?
he doesn't hold office...
typical libtard positioning...
cnn brainwashed...
I don't watch CNN. Did you actually graduate from WVU? I'm curiouswhat if Jr did meet with the Russians ?
he doesn't hold office...
typical libtard positioning...
cnn brainwashed...
Pardon me if I just ignore any outrage you feign regarding trump. You have lost all credibility with your idiocy.
I was poking fun at how they continue bringing Hillary up on everything, yet they also keep throwing it to the Democrats that "Hillary lost, get over it". Funny, isn't it? They are the only ones bringing her up.......
Sounds to be a glia blastoma which is what took Ted Kennedy. My mother in law also died of it a few years ago. Not really much of any 'cure' has been successful. Sadly. Mother in law ran a 5-k race in May at age 86. Was confined to wheel chair before Labor Day and gone before Thanksgiving. Not a pretty scenario to witness.
This news is one reason people were so appalled when at age 72 he picked Sarah Palin as his VP. If he won in 2008 there would've been a decent chance he was POTUS up until six months ago. And considering POTUS is a way more stressful job than Senator it's possible he would have come down with this cancer while he was still POTUS and Sarah Palin would have become the most powerful person in the world.
I like McCain a lot, especially since (aside from picking Palin) he keeps his dignity, unlike some politicians, but he has been in the Senate for 30.5 years and was just elected for the 6th time and that's simply ridiculous. Congress should have term limits. And before someone says "Well the people of Arizona keep electing him," incumbency has big advantages, which is why once they get in they can stay in so long, which is why we need term limits.
I like Obama a lot too but by the time he was getting near the end of his eight years he was doing things like going on The Jimmy Kimmel Show and doing mic drops and it's the result of all this power going to peoples heads and them thinking they can do anything.
Can you imagine what a circus it would be if there were no term limits for POTUS? Every two term POTUS in our lifetime, including entering-Alzheimers Reagan, would have tried for a 3rd term. Putting term limits on the POTUS was a great thing and it would be a great thing to put them on Congress too.
I like McCain a lot, especially since (aside from picking Palin) he keeps his dignity, unlike some politicians, but he has been in the Senate for 30.5 years and was just elected for the 6th time and that's simply ridiculous. Congress should have term limits. And before someone says "Well the people of Arizona keep electing him," incumbency has big advantages, which is why once they get in they can stay in so long, which is why we need term limits.
I like Obama a lot too but by the time he was getting near the end of his eight years he was doing things like going on The Jimmy Kimmel Show and doing mic drops and it's the result of all this power going to peoples heads and them thinking they can do anything.
Can you imagine what a circus it would be if there were no term limits for POTUS? Every two term POTUS in our lifetime, including entering-Alzheimers Reagan, would have tried for a 3rd term. Putting term limits on the POTUS was a great thing and it would be a great thing to put them on Congress too.
Our Founding Fathers never imagined anyone wanting to keep a job in Congress for a lifetime.......but ever since it turned in to a financially satisfactory job with great retirement and health benefits, why would a person NOT stay? I agree, a term limit of 12 years is needed for Congress. That's long enough.......
I think 12 years is even too long.
6 years. No re-elections. Reset to stagger it out so you are changing over a 1/3 of congress and senate every 2 years. Give them standard Tri-Care, kill the retirement plan, salary reflective of median salary of their respective state; this is how you get them working for the people again. You make them one of the people again.
Getting rid of re-elections would have the same or similar impact. I'm less inclined to give a **** about a lobbyist if I know I have no re-election campaign to be concerned with where I need to raise money and gather supporters.
But, even with no re-elections, a lobbyist can influence legislation and that Congress person may end up with a better "retirement package" from a lobbyist after his/her one term.......get rid of lobbyists, and the politicians have to do the unthinkable......LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE!
You claim to be a doctor and you can't spell glioblastoma? Really? Somehow, this doesn't surprise me though.
Lobbyists are the people. They are group of people united behind a common goal of a group of people. It's easy to pick on lobbyists because we see what's happened with the PACs and SuperPacs but what you are talking about is as ridiculously unachievable as one can get. When i go see a Congressman to speak my mind, I am lobbying.
Let's put it into practical terms. I go to speak my mind to my congressional rep. In your mind that's ok. I go with a group of buddies that agree, is that ok? How about if some people fund our trip? How about if we represent a large group of people? Is that ok? What if we are trying to influence legislation that will have a significant impact? What if that impact is extremely important? What if we're from Flint Michigan and we're trying to get help over the situation there?
See my point?