Bluegrassrivals

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Both the #NeverTrump and the #NeverHillary movements are alive and well. Trump makes McCain look like a dream candidate in comparison. The real question is whether Trump will be on the ballot in November. Don't be surprised if the GOP replaces him with another RINO. If that happens, then I will be #NeverRINO.

Oh dear God, #NeverTrump was never anything really. If it was, it's like most of the GOP and that being a massive failure. As a soon to be ex Republican let me say, this party doesn't know how to win an election, bunch of losers is all it has become. When a party has the likes of Ryan, McCain, Romney, McConnell, Cruz and so forth in it, you know it's a dumpster fire. The only movement I can think of when I hear Never anything from this party is a bowel movement because that's what it has become.

luke skywalker Wrote:Oh dear God, #NeverTrump was never anything really. If it was, it's like most of the GOP and that being a massive failure. As a soon to be ex Republican let me say, this party doesn't know how to win an election, bunch of losers is all it has become. When a party has the likes of Ryan, McCain, Romney, McConnell, Cruz and so forth in it, you know it's a dumpster fire. The only movement I can think of when I hear Never anything from this party is a bowel movement because that's what it has become.

Welcome back my liberal democrat friend!

luke skywalker Wrote:Oh dear God, #NeverTrump was never anything really. If it was, it's like most of the GOP and that being a massive failure. As a soon to be ex Republican let me say, this party doesn't know how to win an election, bunch of losers is all it has become. When a party has the likes of Ryan, McCain, Romney, McConnell, Cruz and so forth in it, you know it's a dumpster fire. The only movement I can think of when I hear Never anything from this party is a bowel movement because that's what it has become.

I hope Johnson/Weld get to 15% so they can be in the debates. I was very interested in what they had to say in the CNN Libertarian Town Hall.

The Urban Sombrero Wrote:I hope Johnson/Weld get to 15% so they can be in the debates. I was very interested in what they had to say in the CNN Libertarian Town Hall.

Johnson is a sociopath with mental issues. Anyone who would vote for him has serious issues.

The Urban Sombrero Wrote:I hope Johnson/Weld get to 15% so they can be in the debates. I was very interested in what they had to say in the CNN Libertarian Town Hall.

It would be great if Johnson and Weld were libertarians, but they are liberal Democrats, just as their main competition is. Peterson would have attracted more support among conservative Republicans.

As long as the LP keeps nominating liberals to run for president, its appeal will be limited to the drug legalization zealots. Libertarians would find plenty of common ground with true conservatives if they focused on economic liberty and private property rights. The field is already too crowded with liberal nutcases.

WideRight05 Wrote:Welcome back my liberal democrat friend!

I am not back, I am just passing through. :biggrin:

luke skywalker Wrote:Oh dear God, #NeverTrump was never anything really. If it was, it's like most of the GOP and that being a massive failure. As a soon to be ex Republican let me say, this party doesn't know how to win an election, bunch of losers is all it has become. When a party has the likes of Ryan, McCain, Romney, McConnell, Cruz and so forth in it, you know it's a dumpster fire. The only movement I can think of when I hear Never anything from this party is a bowel movement because that's what it has become.

What was really nothing was the Trump campaign. Talk about a massive failure. The odds that Trump will be the GOP candidate in November has dropped since the convention.

TheRealThing Wrote:We (the American public) were told contingent to Roe, that abortions from that day forward were to be, "safe legal and rare, and would happen only in cases of incest, rape or danger to mother."

Someone I know (but associate with as little as possible) has said, many times, (something like) "with Roe v. Wade, we were sold a bill of goods. We were told that abortions would be safe legal and rare, and would happen only in cases of incest, rape or danger to mother." I've always doubted that, since SC decisions wouldn't seem to be something that would be "sold".

Where did that phrase come from/start? I did a Google search and the earliest thing I found was Slick Willie in the early 90's.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:(Virginia) "now has crooked Democrat, Terry McCauliffe, as its governor, and thousands of convicted felons recently had their voting rights automatically restored."

Lots of media outlets used this misleading phrasing - it should be EX-felons - you know, the ones who have paid their debt to society, and who would be able to vote if they were from any other state but KY, Fla or Iowa.

Here's the real deal, just for the record...

Va. has only let ex-felons get their voting rights back by filling out a form which the Gov. signs (basically a Clemency), then the Gov. somehow informs the state Gen. Assembly. Our last Gov., a Republican, made it easier by reducing the "form" from five pages to two, eliminated a two-year waiting period, and restored rights to over 8,000 ppl, "including more than 2,000 in the last few months of his term." The ex-felons THEN had to register to vote.

McCauliffe tried to make it easier by doing an Exec. Order saying that certain ex-felons (206,000 or so) were granted Clemency - you can now register. The Repubs in the GA took it to the VA SC, which sided with them 4-3 (I have yet to see an article saying if this was a party-line vote or not). So, McCauliffe's said 'Fine... I'll sign (auto-pen) 200K+ forms ASAP.

So, yeah, our crooked Democrat is trying to give Va. to HRC by doing something that 46 other states already allow.

Interesting side note...
Obama only won 20 out of about 100 counties in '08 and just 17 in '12.
In '12, he won Va. by 150 K - he won Northern Va (Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax & Prince William Co.) by 220 K .

VHSL-helper Wrote:Lots of media outlets used this misleading phrasing - it should be EX-felons - you know, the ones who have paid their debt to society, and who would be able to vote if they were from any other state but KY, Fla or Iowa.

Here's the real deal, just for the record...

Va. has only let ex-felons get their voting rights back by filling out a form which the Gov. signs (basically a Clemency), then the Gov. somehow informs the state Gen. Assembly. Our last Gov., a Republican, made it easier by reducing the "form" from five pages to two, eliminated a two-year waiting period, and restored rights to over 8,000 ppl, "including more than 2,000 in the last few months of his term." The ex-felons THEN had to register to vote.

McCauliffe tried to make it easier by doing an Exec. Order saying that certain ex-felons (206,000 or so) were granted Clemency - you can now register. The Repubs in the GA took it to the VA SC, which sided with them 4-3 (I have yet to see an article saying if this was a party-line vote or not). So, McCauliffe's said 'Fine... I'll sign (auto-pen) 200K+ forms ASAP.

So, yeah, our crooked Democrat is trying to give Va. to HRC by doing something that 46 other states already allow.

Interesting side note...
Obama only won 20 out of about 100 counties in '08 and just 17 in '12.
In '12, he won Va. by 150 K - he won Northern Va (Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax & Prince William Co.) by 220 K .

Our crooked governor tried to restore the voting rights of felons through a blanket executive order. The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that he did not have the authority to do so and that restoring felon voting rights must be done on a case by case basis. A felon is a person who has committed or has been convicted of a felony. Paying one's debt to society does not make one an ex-felon but being released from prison makes a felon a former prisoner.

Our crooked governor, a longtime Clinton associate, is currently being investigated by the FBI for alleged federal campaign violations. As a close Clinton ally, he has not yet been charged or incarcerated, so he will likely remain an alleged criminal rather than a convicted felon.

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe under federal investigation for campaign contributions

Under the Obama Justice Department, only Republican governors seem to be vulnerable to federal corruption charges.

Former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell is an ex-felon because the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously vacated his felony conviction on politically motivated charges.

VHSL-helper Wrote:Someone I know (but associate with as little as possible) has said, many times, (something like) "with Roe v. Wade, we were sold a bill of goods. We were told that abortions would be safe legal and rare, and would happen only in cases of incest, rape or danger to mother." I've always doubted that, since SC decisions wouldn't seem to be something that would be "sold".

Where did that phrase come from/start? I did a Google search and the earliest thing I found was Slick Willie in the early 90's.

There were deaths associated with what liberals referred to as 'back alley abortions with a coat hanger.' And there was something to it in those days as by the time many realized they were pregnant they only had a few weeks before they would begin to show. Which meant precious few days remained to wrestle with the horrendous stigma of facing their families and society with an awful confession. The stress and anxiety of the moment caused many to panic and make foolhardy decisions to terminate their pregnancy however they could. Liberals, ever watchful for ways to circumvent what is right in the name of tragedy, seized upon the practice and demanded action. The court in my view, responded to the emotional drama as presented by the left and caved on Roe v Wade. Which back then, seemed reasonable because abortions though unacceptable to the Church, were by today's standard relatively rare. But as is always the case, once a no-no is made legal, the flood gates open and the shallow of conviction rush through until today we've reached the sad high water mark of 60 million dead.

The "safe, legal and rare" language is a liberal catch phrase dropped on 'the people' by the granddaddy of deceivers, William Jefferson Clinton. Actually he sold it so well, many people were confused about it at the time and thought the language was actually part of the court text.

EXCERPT---
"Abortion supporters have largely adopted President Clinton's famous formulation that abortions in America should be "safe, legal, and rare." Unfortunately, only the middle word aligns with today's reality. Abortion is never "safe" for the human life being snuffed out, and as we were reminded last week, it can also be deeply harmful to mothers. Nor is abortion rare, thanks to the permissive laws jealously defended by people like Bill Clinton. But just how common is the practice? A new report from the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute offers an appalling"
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2...,_and_rare

TheRealThing Wrote:There were deaths associated with what liberals referred to as 'back alley abortions with a coat hanger.' And there was something to it in those days as by the time many realized they were pregnant they only had a few weeks before they would begin to show. Which meant precious few days remained to wrestle with the horrendous stigma of facing their families and society with an awful confession. The stress and anxiety of the moment caused many to panic and make foolhardy decisions to terminate their pregnancy however they could. Liberals, ever watchful for ways to circumvent what is right in the name of tragedy, seized upon the practice and demanded action. The court in my view, responded to the emotional drama as presented by the left and caved on Roe v Wade. Which back then, seemed reasonable because abortions though unacceptable to the Church, were by today's standard relatively rare. But as is always the case, once a no-no is made legal, the flood gates open and the shallow of conviction rush through until today we've reached the sad high water mark of 60 million dead.

The "safe, legal and rare" language is a liberal catch phrase dropped on 'the people' by the granddaddy of deceivers, William Jefferson Clinton. Actually he sold it so well, many people were confused about it at the time and thought the language was actually part of the court text.

EXCERPT---
"Abortion supporters have largely adopted President Clinton's famous formulation that abortions in America should be "safe, legal, and rare." Unfortunately, only the middle word aligns with today's reality. Abortion is never "safe" for the human life being snuffed out, and as we were reminded last week, it can also be deeply harmful to mothers. Nor is abortion rare, thanks to the permissive laws jealously defended by people like Bill Clinton. But just how common is the practice? A new report from the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute offers an appalling"
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2...,_and_rare

"We're having a clump of cells!"

Said no one ever.

^^The Clintons are the drum major and majorette of the parade of the willfully ignorant. This nation had never seen the like of them and the original White House soap opera that defined their public lives. The one who first opened America's eyes to the vastness in ambiguity contained within the simple word is, is; a threat to move right back into the Oval Office where the first couple of doublespeak may well redefine a fetus as a clump of cells.

"Abortion supporters"

Is it really pro-life v. pro-death? Is that the view? That it would be impossible to see a right of privacy in the Constitution, and with certain criterion met, within that right a woman's capacity to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy? In the views expressed here, is it possible to oppose abortion on a personal level, but agree with Roe v. Wade as a matter of law in civil government under our Constitution?

The Urban Sombrero Wrote:"Abortion supporters"

Is it really pro-life v. pro-death? Is that the view? That it would be impossible to see a right of privacy in the Constitution, and with certain criterion met, within that right a woman's capacity to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy? In the views expressed here, is it possible to oppose abortion on a personal level, but agree with Roe v. Wade as a matter of law in civil government under our Constitution?

60 Million slain. Abortionists should be like McDonald's and advertise their successes. McDonald's has served their billions and the abortion industry has slain their millions. Yeah it really is pro-life or pro-death.

Can the created look to it's Creator and say "I'm greater than you and my laws will be higher than yours? Men are the creation of God, they ought not pass law that overturns His and then play like Pilate and try to wash their hands of their own responsibility before HIm.

Urban - are you crazy?
I'm afraid only a handful of ppl. in the US have the mental capacity for that, that they can have/hold a belief, but be cool with the fact that the majority of the US (and the law) doesn't agree with them.

TheRealThing Wrote:60 Million slain. Abortionists should be like McDonald's and advertise their successes. McDonald's has served their billions and the abortion industry has slain their millions. Yeah it really is pro-life or pro-death.

Can the created look to it's Creator and say "I'm greater than you and my laws will be higher than yours? Men are the creation of God, they ought not pass law that overturns His and then play like Pilate and try to wash their hands of their own responsibility before HIm.

If the reasoning put forth, then, is that "God's law" is higher, and, therefore, all are subject to it, and that is applied in the civil government plane, how is that different from the reasoning behind sharia?

VHSL-helper Wrote:Urban - are you crazy?
I'm afraid only a handful of ppl. in the US have the mental capacity for that, that they can have/hold a belief, but be cool with the fact that the majority of the US (and the law) doesn't agree with them.

I thought we were having a debate. The failure to differentiate between the dominion of church and the realm of state is historically dangerous. One would have to be ignorant of history to not see that.

If one does not raise voice against smoking, and lobby for the Supreme Court to rule smoking unconstitutional and illegal, must one, like Pilate, seek to wash one's hands and escape responsibility, even if one does not smoke? How about picketing Big Mac and Whopper village?

The Urban Sombrero Wrote:If the reasoning put forth, then, is that "God's law" is higher, and, therefore, all are subject to it, and that is applied in the civil government plane, how is that different from the reasoning behind sharia?

Uh, could it possibly be it is different because God is alive and sovereign as compared to all of the fictional gods? And that all men are subject to it (God's law) because God has clearly stated exactly that? That being the case, nobody has ever said the US is a theocracy. Governing a nation is a completely different issue than defining moral issues. And yet governing with His sovereignty in mind only makes good sense if we want to avoid the pitfalls of moral error, and if we expect to lay rightful and indisputable claim to the moral authority under which we govern.

TheRealThing Wrote:Uh, could it possibly be it is different because God is alive and sovereign as compared to all of the fictional gods? And that all men are subject to it (God's law) because God has clearly stated exactly that? That being the case, nobody has ever said the US is a theocracy. Governing a nation is a completely different issue than defining moral issues. And yet governing with His sovereignty in mind only makes good sense if we want to avoid the pitfalls of moral error, and if we expect to lay rightful and indisputable claim to the moral authority under which we govern.

So, your God is real, and every other one is fictional? Now, that makes you a good Christian monotheist, but what I keep pressing is this: what compulsion do the religious beliefs of the majority, or for that matter minority, place upon the rest of the society under our form of constitutional democracy?

If I understand you correctly, you suggest the Framers believed our society was undergirded by the belief in a Creator and in his moral law. While I am asserting that an utmost respect for freedom of conscience in matters of essential liberty was fundamental, with the belief those essential liberties were not given by Man, but by the Creator. Does the Creator give a woman the freedom to choose to end a pregnancy? I say "yes." We are accountable for how we use the freedom granted, but we are not to impede another's use of their own.

If a nation grant essential liberties to its citizens, is that nation held accountable by God for how those citizens use that freedom? The word to Ezekiel was that "the soul that sins shall die."

Some ardent Trump supporters, and I am not talking about the "anybody but Hillary" Trump supporters, have taken issue with the fact that I have posted links to negative Trump articles appearing on sites such as nytimes.com, washingtonpost.com, nbcnews.com, foxnews.com, etc.

In the interest of fairness and balance, I decided to post some good news for the more zealous Trump supporters who prefer to look at the Trump glass as half full instead of seeing the Trump campaign as the nearly empty vessel that it is.

Despite the alarming Trump poll numbers that have sent The Donald scurrying to read speeches from notes and endorsing establishment politicians who he despises, The Gateway Pundit published the following, which concludes that if the election were held today, Trump would win in a landslide.

BLUF, according to that authoritative source of all news Trump, The Gateway Pundit, all Trump has to do to win in a landslide is to continue tweeting at a frenetic pace and keep working on his social media game. The election will take care of itself. :lmao:

Quote:Social Media Patterns Show Trump Is Looking at a Landslide Victory

Current polls show the race for President is much tighter than it really is. Ann Coulter warned us years ago in her best seller Slander that Democrats and the liberal media always use polls to manipulate and discourage conservatives from voting. Thanks to social media there is more and more evidence that the polls are way off and if things stay as they are, Trump will win in a landslide!

It’s evident Hillary has a hard time filling a Union Hall while Trump regularly turns people away from his stadium and arena venues.

Now this – Analysis from social media provides additional support that Trump is likely to win in a landslide.

So how bad is it?

Evidence from ‘The Truth Division’ shows that if you look at social media,

Trump is killing Hillary!

Facebook

Trump: 10,174,358 Likes Clinton: 5,385,959 Likes

Trump has nearly double the amount of ‘Likes’ that Clinton has!

When comparing recent ‘live streams’ on Facebook:

Trump Live Stream Post — 135,000 likes, 18,167 shares, 1.5 million views
Clinton Live Stream Post —11,000 likes, 0 shares, 321,000 views

Trump is crushing Clinton.

Twitter

Trump: 10.6 million followers
Hillary: 8.1 million followers

Trump has 30% more Twitter followers — and they translate into real votes. A recent study confirmed that 70% of his followers are real supporters, and 90% of those real followers have a voting history.

Who knows if Hillary followers are even real?

Trump: Averages 30,000 live viewers per stream
Clinton: Averages 500 live viewers per stream

Trump has 5900% more live viewers than Clinton. That’s plain devastation!

Instagram

Trump: 2.2 million followers
Clinton: 1.8 million followers

Trump has 22% more Instagram followers.

Reddit

Trump: 197,696 subscribers
Hillary: 24,429 subscribers
Hillary for Prison: 55,228 subscribers

Hillary for Prison’s Reddit feed has more than double subscribers of Hillary’s Reddit page, equating to Trump having 700% more Reddit subscribers.

Hillary is proving that she is a terrible candidate. No one likes her and no one trusts her. Based on turnouts at campaign events and on social media, if the election were today… Trump would likely win in a Landslide!

I know what some of you are thinking. No, The Gateway Pundit is not a political satire website.

VHSL-helper Wrote:Urban - are you crazy?
I'm afraid only a handful of ppl. in the US have the mental capacity for that, that they can have/hold a belief, but be cool with the fact that the majority of the US (and the law) doesn't agree with them.

That would be highly debatable. We have never seen so many abortion laws passing as in the past four our five years. Had it not been for a few activist judges, we would have made some serious progress.

You rarely poke your head in, but considering it's to defend a woman's "right" to avoid responsibility for getting pregnant and killing her child, that is sickening. Roe v. Wade may be "law" (for now) but that doesn't change the fact that it's a sick act and if these pro-"choice" people really were about protecting lives, they wouldn't be defending so strongly a case that has resulted in the death of, as TRT mentioned, nearly 60 million of the unborn - that's around the same number of people that were killed in World War II.

Instead of expressing alarm at the number of deaths since 1973, our pro-"choice" supporters express more alarm at a woman having to take responsibility for her actions.

(Save the rape comments. Rape totals to about 1% of abortions.)

⬆⬆ Depending on how the question is asked, polls suggest between 7 and 19 percent of Americans believe abortion should be completely banned.

^ Once again, instead of focusing on the millions of lives lost due to abortion, we see yet another attempt to defend this sickening act.

The Urban Sombrero Wrote:⬆⬆ Depending on how the question is asked, polls suggest between 7 and 19 percent of Americans believe abortion should be completely banned.

I wonder how the 60 million victims of abortion would have responded to those polls?

WideRight05 Wrote:^ Once again, instead of focusing on the millions of lives lost due to abortion, we see yet another attempt to defend this sickening act.

That is an actual fact, posted in response to a post you made in which you, in a veiled way, suggested a majority of Americans felt otherwise. I am correcting the record.

"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

A quote from a female cab driver in Boston...retold to me by a female colleague who argues that the religious Right is a reactionary social movement obsessed with controlling women. I do not share this view, but it is interesting.

The Urban Sombrero Wrote:That is an actual fact, posted in response to a post you made in which you, in a veiled way, suggested a majority of Americans felt otherwise. I am correcting the record.

The Urban Sombrero Wrote:"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

A quote from a female cab driver in Boston...retold to me by a female colleague who argues that the religious Right is a reactionary social movement obsessed with controlling women. I do not share this view, but it is interesting.

You said yourself it depended on how you worded the question. For one thing, 93-95 percent of abortions are related to "birth control" or "social reasons." I'm in the total ban category, but rape, incest, life of the mother, all those combined account for a small percentage of abortions that occur.

You are defending all abortions, especially those 93-95 percent of abortions that occur for just about any random reason. Again, 50+ million babies lost since the passage of Roe v. Wade - and you still think we should let over a million babies die each year?