On 7/4/2015 10:15 PM, T wrote:
With Scott Walker declaring yesterday, that makes


1 Crimson Weasel

whos he? Lyndsay Graham?

--
Dilbert Firestorm

remove *byteme* to email me

On 07/10/2015 06:53 PM, dilbert firestorm wrote:
On 7/4/2015 10:15 PM, T wrote:
With Scott Walker declaring yesterday, that makes


1 Crimson Weasel

whos he? Lyndsay Graham?


Think, the worst crimson colored hair cut in the batch
(the Donald).

My goodness, he really doesn't have any political consultants
which is why he is so high in the pols. We all (maybe not
Trader4) admire him for speaking his mind, even if we don't
agree with him. We are all very tired of the political double
speak.

On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 20:53:39 -0500, dilbert firestorm
wrote:

On 7/4/2015 10:15 PM, T wrote:
With Scott Walker declaring yesterday, that makes


1 Crimson Weasel

whos he?

A worker attaches bright-yellow hair to a new piñata in the
image of U.S. billionaire Donald Trump.

"The reaction to Donald Trump's disparaging remarks about Mexicans has
been fast and furious. Now Mexicans will be able to whack him upside
the head.

Trump piñatas are quite the rage in Mexico, where businessman Dalton
Ramirez is selling the popular candy-filled characters in the image of
Trump, complete with a very big mouth and a dollop of bright yellow
hair."

Story:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/donald-trump-pinatas-popular-mexico-article-1.2273487

You can't make this up...

On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:15:30 -0700, T wrote:

My goodness, he really doesn't have any political consultants
which is why he is so high in the pols. We all (maybe not
Trader4) admire him for speaking his mind, even if we don't
agree with him. We are all very tired of the political double
speak.
b

Sigh. Trump double speaks. Why has he not addressed real problems
like Fast and Furious, Benghazi, E-mails, IRS, FBI. CIA, DEA, DHS,
OPM - ad vomits.

He will never be the nominee. Pay attention. Trump even suggests he
will not vote for a republican is it isn't him. Wake up! The clown is
a died in the wool democrat. I stand my ground! I'll never have a
choice to vote for him, It will never happen.

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 2:02:46 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 20:53:39 -0500, dilbert firestorm
wrote:

On 7/4/2015 10:15 PM, T wrote:
With Scott Walker declaring yesterday, that makes


1 Crimson Weasel

whos he?

A worker attaches bright-yellow hair to a new piñata in the
image of U.S. billionaire Donald Trump.

"The reaction to Donald Trump's disparaging remarks about Mexicans has
been fast and furious. Now Mexicans will be able to whack him upside
the head.

Trump piñatas are quite the rage in Mexico, where businessman Dalton
Ramirez is selling the popular candy-filled characters in the image of
Trump, complete with a very big mouth and a dollop of bright yellow
hair."

Story:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/donald-trump-pinatas-popular-mexico-article-1.2273487

You can't make this up...

That's pretty funny. You know another interesting Trump angle?
Would you want to have to go around, just in your daily life, after
having said what he said? Almost all of us deal with Mexicans and
Central Amercian immigrants almost daily. Whether it's a guy pumping
gas, washing your car, the hotel maid, etc. Wouldn't you feel uncomfortable?
I sure would. And Trump, since he "loves" Mexicans, must have some
as managers, etc in his businesses that he engages with frequently, right?
IDK about Trump, but I think any normal person would sure feel uncomfortable
and would offer some kind of amendment to what he said, some kind of
clarification, some kind of apology. But Trump probably has far, far, less
dealings with these people than the average person, he's probably surrounded
by gofers. Still, if I were him, I'd be constantly wondering what workers
in the kitchens of even high end restaurants were doing to his food before
serving it to him. I could see one of those Mexican rapists spitting inside
his appetizer.

T and some folks admire Trump because he just speaks whatever is on his
mind. As Hesch on the Sopranos said about Tony's whacko mom, "between brain
and mouth there is no interlocutor". That's Trump, to some extent. And I
don't think it's really about what's good for the country, it's just that
Trump doesn't give a damn and/or is delusional. I predict it won't be too
long before he says something that totally ****es T off. To your point that
Trump won't address some issues, I watched his recent interviews where he was
asked, probed on what he would do with the 11 mil illegals already here.
Trump wouldn't answer it. Yet if any other GOP candidate did that, I think
that would make them a Rino, no?

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 06:41:48 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/donald-trump-pinatas-popular-mexico-article-1.2273487

You can't make this up...

That's pretty funny. You know another interesting Trump angle?
Would you want to have to go around, just in your daily life, after
having said what he said? Almost all of us deal with Mexicans and
Central Amercian immigrants almost daily. Whether it's a guy pumping
gas, washing your car, the hotel maid, etc. Wouldn't you feel uncomfortable?
I sure would. And Trump, since he "loves" Mexicans, must have some
as managers, etc in his businesses that he engages with frequently, right?
IDK about Trump, but I think any normal person would sure feel uncomfortable
and would offer some kind of amendment to what he said, some kind of
clarification, some kind of apology. But Trump probably has far, far, less
dealings with these people than the average person, he's probably surrounded
by gofers. Still, if I were him, I'd be constantly wondering what workers
in the kitchens of even high end restaurants were doing to his food before
serving it to him. I could see one of those Mexican rapists spitting inside
his appetizer.

T and some folks admire Trump because he just speaks whatever is on his
mind. As Hesch on the Sopranos said about Tony's whacko mom, "between brain
and mouth there is no interlocutor". That's Trump, to some extent. And I
don't think it's really about what's good for the country, it's just that
Trump doesn't give a damn and/or is delusional. I predict it won't be too
long before he says something that totally ****es T off. To your point that
Trump won't address some issues, I watched his recent interviews where he was
asked, probed on what he would do with the 11 mil illegals already here.
Trump wouldn't answer it. Yet if any other GOP candidate did that, I think
that would make them a Rino, no?

Trump could learn a lesson. "Know when to shut up and know when to
stand up!" He could learn a lesson. I can agree with him at times but
he needs to think about things. You do know he isn't prepping for the
debates, yet. Just watch him attack all the others.

Looks like people agree with him; yet, he hasn't told me his plan of
action. We haven't even got into the election cycle - 2016. Nobody
talks about a "Platform" today. I can take over the Trump empire, but
I don't have a plan

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 4:56:49 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
It turned out that Gore actually won
Florida in terms of the number of votes but the Supreme Court chose Bush
as president.

The lie, still being repeated. After the election, several major,
credible news organizations counted the ballots themselves, using
every metric under consideration, including the one that Al Gore
wanted used and Bush won every time.

Your claim is only partially valid but even more importantly it's not the
crux of the problem. The problems started long before any ballots were
cast. In Florida, before the election, many voters who were actually
eligible had been thrown off the rolls because the state had executed a very
badly flawed purge of supposed felons.

http://www.brennancenter.org/press-r...en-erroneously

After a detailed study of the purge practices of 12 states, Voter Purges
reveals that election officials across the country are routinely striking
millions of voters from the rolls through a process that is shrouded in
secrecy, prone to error, and vulnerable to manipulation.

So if anyone's committing massive voter fraud, it's not happening at the
polls but in the recesses of government offices with very little oversight.
Millions of votes being "stolen" and yet we're told, repeatedly, that we
need Voter ID laws to stop the one-off fraud that no one's been able to
quite prove is happening. (Except, perhaps, for the testimony of some
people who've posted here whom I would not believe if their tongue was
notarized. I recall one such "witness" claiming "I saw busloads of illegals
being driven up to the polling stations.")

Then there was also the "butterfly" ballot that managed to have one of the
highest rejection rates of any of the ballots used. Ironically the stats
showed that seniors were just as likely to suffer from disenfranchisement as
minorities.

The Brennan study is merely one of many various studies that have also shown
serious disenfranchisement of poor voters. Reasons range from poorer
districts appearing to have gotten old voting machines with poor reliability
and inadequately trained staff causing tremendous lines at many polling
places.

The people seeking to deny others the right to vote have had a long, long
time to practice and hone their arts. Those tactics are what's seriously
undermining the security and sanctity of the system, not all the invisible
voter fraud that ALEC and many Tea Partiers is certain occurs (without the
remarkably detailed evidence that Brennan and others present
disenfranchisement.

So yes, if you want to talk narrowly about just ballots cast perhaps there's
a case to be made the Bush would have won in any case. I don't believe that
and there's been plenty of evidence presented to support that position but
that's the subject of another even more detailed post.

If you want to properly examine the entire universe of what it takes to
record an individual's vote fairly, then I disagree strongly with your claim
that no matter what, Bush would have won. The fix was in for poor voters in
Florida long before dimpled chads even became a press fixation. The five
notorious members of the right wing clique on the bench merely pounded one
of the many nails into the coffin of fairly run elections.

I find it ironic that the folks complaining the most about mostly
non-existent voter fraud at the polls are actually the ones defrauding
thousands (Brennan claims millions) of their right to vote by stopping them
long before they get to the ballot box.

--
Bobby G.

On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 10:37:42 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 4:56:49 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
It turned out that Gore actually won
Florida in terms of the number of votes but the Supreme Court chose Bush
as president.

The lie, still being repeated. After the election, several major,
credible news organizations counted the ballots themselves, using
every metric under consideration, including the one that Al Gore
wanted used and Bush won every time.

Your claim is only partially valid but even more importantly it's not the
crux of the problem. The problems started long before any ballots were
cast. In Florida, before the election, many voters who were actually
eligible had been thrown off the rolls because the state had executed a very
badly flawed purge of supposed felons.


I guess you should tell that to Gore, because I don't recall that issue
being presented to the courts. And even if it were, it seems very unlikely
that any sane court is going to get involved in something that happened
before the election and which people had a chance to resolve.
If people were indeed somehow incorrectly deleted from the list, they showed up, insisted they were eligible to vote, normally that is
handled by giving them a provisional ballot, which is held separately, then
counted if they can determine that the person is indeed eligible after they
check into it. This sounds like yet another sore loser argument.



So yes, if you want to talk narrowly about just ballots cast perhaps there's
a case to be made the Bush would have won in any case.

That was apparently the issue that the other poster framed, not me.
He claimed that the SC gave the election to Bush and that otherwise
Gore would have won. And that would indeed seem to be the only real
issue. If you're going to start all this nonsense about poor people
allegedly being denied the right to vote, it's just absurd, you could
never settle any contested election.



I don't believe that
and there's been plenty of evidence presented to support that position but
that's the subject of another even more detailed post.

If you want to properly examine the entire universe of what it takes to
record an individual's vote fairly, then I disagree strongly with your claim
that no matter what, Bush would have won.

That whole argument is clearly in some absurd parallel universe.



The fix was in for poor voters in
Florida long before dimpled chads even became a press fixation. The five
notorious members of the right wing clique on the bench merely pounded one
of the many nails into the coffin of fairly run elections.

I find it ironic that the folks complaining the most about mostly
non-existent voter fraud at the polls are actually the ones defrauding
thousands (Brennan claims millions) of their right to vote by stopping them
long before they get to the ballot box.

--
Bobby G.

It's seems rather odd to me that given all the Americans that have died
serving their country to protect the freedom to vote, that people actually
make the argument that it's such a huge burden to overcome
for the poor to get a simple ID that almost all of US actually already have.
They seem capable of figuring out how to sign up for food stamps, welfare,
free or low cost housing, signing their kids up for school, getting the
kids the necessary vaccinations for school, finding food, liquor, cigarettes, but registering to vote is the one thing that's too hard. Go figure.