Jump to content

GRHorn

crowd sourced
  • Posts

    6272
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by GRHorn

  1.  Warren- mildly interesting.  The Fauxcahontas thing may haunt her.  I know everyone is lying now, but lying about your ancestry is kind of like lying about military service.  Less forgiven imo. 

    Biden-  meh.  4 years older than Trump.  Has Obama taint on him, without the coolness. 

    Harris- still think she’ll be early frontrunner. Younger at least.  

    Hickenlooper or other moderate Dems- maybe.   Have a lot of ground to make up as far as recognition.  

    I still think good chance it’s off the board pick.  You don’t go Trump in national election then fall back to “safe” pick like Biden or something.  Literally anything could happen now that Trump genie is out of bottle. 

  2. 5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    She lost because people are fucking stupid and voted with their pearl clutching pussies instead of their head.

    Hillary was lights out on policy for anyone that wanted to inform themselves.  Unfortunately she wasn’t reality TV star enough to appeal to our mouth breather voters.

    See?   

  3. 6 minutes ago, Dick Tremayne said:

    I can't speak for "a large percentage of people on the Left", but if that's what they think, we'll lose again. They lost because they put up a terrible candidate with no political instincts who ran an awful campaign and had no message other than "I'm not Trump". All of this Russia, Trump duped stupid people, etc. is bullshit and will just lead to similar results next time around. Maybe some of those things played a small role in the results, but it stinks of not learning your lesson and repeating the same mistakes.

    I haven't been here long, maybe I've missed you but a huge part of this forum and the President Trump thread is Russia, Russia, active measures, collusion, dumb, racists, dumb, racists, Russia, Putin. Hell that's 90% of Hugo's posts right there and he's the highest repped poster on here. There's also an obsession with removing him office via any measures possible rather than beating him.  

    8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

    No offense, but that's not how primaries work for Democrats. 

    You talking about people with money picking the nominee?  Not literally, but they slid the scale pretty well over to Hillary over Bernie.  They were not passive observers and they used the media to pursue what they wanted.  

    • Haha 1
  4. 2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

    all 20+ of them will do that circuit. Barack Obama did it in 2006. Donald Trump did the equivalent in 2014. Both got polite nods and snickers. Those people in each party matter less than they ever have, Especially in the Democratic party now that the Clinton faction has been thoroughly discredited. The bases will decide.

    They could get who they want, obviously, and things can and will change but I've never seen Democrats more realistic and serious in their purpose than they are right now. I know reproductive rights activists right now who are saying things like "we need to stop villainizing people who have moral and ethical qualms about abortion if they are with us on the income healthcare and criminal justice issues."
    Obviously Democrats are the world's foremost experts at losing elections, but people at the grass roots are thinking about these things the right way right now.

    It'll be interesting to see how it shakes out for sure, but she was making the rounds almost immediately.  She also kind of checks the boxes for the coastal elite who still run the party.  I saw you mentioned moderate Western governors, but that doesn't excite the people in the charge of the party or its money on either coast.  

    My impression gleaned from being here and elsewhere online is that large perecentage of people on Left, especially the media, believe people were duped into voting for Trump.   The uneducated people in flyover country.  I think people in charge in California and the northeast think they're smarter and better qualified than the Governor of Colorado and will do what it takes to skew the primary away from someone like him.  Don't downplay the media's role in this either.  Who's more likely to get wall to wall coverage in primaries, Kamala Harris or John Hickenlooper?

  5. Kamala Harris would probably lose.  She looks to be the anointed, touring the Hamptons pick.  

    As a non Dem, Tulsi Gabbard would be interesting.  Don't know if she has those aspirations, but I'd consider anyone with non hysterical, non interventionist foreign policy stance. 

  6. 19 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

    This is my favorite type of Trumpster.  The 'bro, I'm chill' version.  Pretty much nobody neutral is acting nonchalant  about the Dotard being completely out of control.  Hell, I was on the R 'team' and still find myself completely on the 'fuck this asshole' side.  If you see everything that's going on and act chill...yeah that's a red flag that you might just be an orange cock gobbler.  There's nothing wrong with that - just own it.  Quit acting like anybody nonpartisan is going along with Trump, like 'oh yeah, he's pretty much a scumbag, but no more than past Presidents'.  That's complete bullshit.  

    Oh and your 'my family had a farm on the border and we had lots of immigrants working on it' jive comes off exactly like the bigot who gets caught dropping the N word, then comes off with the 'bro, I have lots of black friends.'  So, long story short, I'm calling bullshit.  Nite. 

    You got me.  I'm in the chill bro category that doesn't get hysterical about politics or Trump.  I think there's probably more people like me than you would guess just not as vocal.  We could use more people who are even keeled.  People are gonna start getting seriously hurt out there if this keeps escalating. 

  7. 1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

    Fuck your ideas.  Your guy doesn't get to run roughshod over the entire Constitution and then you get to say "hey, guys, what you got?  Let's caucus!  Let's make this better!"

    I'm sorry I haven't been clear.  Fuck you and yours, and stop being a pussy while you're at it.  I am starting to welcome the opportunities that will be afforded me when this descends into civil war.  Make of that what you will, it's probably what you think.  But maybe not.  Who knows?  Let's caucus!

    You’ve been clear.  You seem to be a sad, bitter man that acts out on the internet.  Go make a difference in the real world.  Be a real revolutionary instead of insulting people here.  I wish you and yours well.

  8. 24 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

    Just so we're all clear, here is what the 2016 Democratic platform says about immigration, emphasis mine:

    “Democrats believe we need to urgently fix our broken immigration system—which tears families apart and keeps workers in the shadows—and create a path to citizenship for law-abiding families who are here, making a better life for their families and contributing to their communities and our country. We should repeal the 3-year, 10-year and permanent bars, which often force persons in mixed status families into the heartbreaking dilemma of either pursuing a green card by leaving the country and their loved ones behind, or remaining in the shadows. We will work with Congress to end the forced and prolonged expulsion from the country that these immigrants endure when trying to adjust their status.”

     

    This all sounds good but ignores security so you need a combo of both.  

  9. 3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

    There are bills out there that could pass both houses of Congress tomorrow. 

    Paul Ryan won't bring any of them to the floor of the House.

    Ok great.  Would Trump sign them?  Could they override veto?  If not, meaningless. 

    My guess is both sides think politically they look ok coming out of it so nothing will happen until midterms. Dems will play Trump is Hitler card.  Rs will say they are against illegal immigration. How will country respond?  Let’s see. 

  10. 20 minutes ago, Gardner Barnes said:

     

     


    Trump literally created this problem. Why should the Ds have to clean up his mess?

     

     

    You have a point but now that it’s been blown into a national issue and all the issues with border are being magnified maybe now’s the time. 

    • Fuck You 1
  11. 11 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

    No, you put up or shut up, you control the entire fucking apparatus,  yet you whine like a bitch. Do Something! 

    No not really.  Dems in Senate can still block things, but you knew that already. 

     

    22 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

    I can’t decide if your impotence is staggering or hilarious. 

    My impotence or Republicans?  I’m not sure what youre talking about here. 

  12. 8 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

    Utter bullshit. No one, on any side, thinks it’s been fine and dandy at the border. Your false equivalence is the issue. This isn’t a both sides thing. Everyone agrees that we need massive overhaul of the immigration. Only those who support this idiot think we should separate families. 

    Ok. Then now is the Ds chance to submit ideas. The media blitz that they’ve supported has worked.  Now put up or shut up. 

    • Fuck You 3
  13. 1 hour ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

    I agree, my experience living on the border was the same, why are you supporting a lying despot that wants to demonize people seeking a better life?  

    Yes he’s a liar. 

    No he’s not a despot.  That’s hyperbole. 

    Yes he does demonize some portions of the immigrant population.  I think a lot of that is silly. I also don’t agree with separating families at the border.  That doesn’t change my feeling that the border should be more secure.  

    So we have two sides it seems.  One is trying to scare its constituents into wanting extreme measures on the border.  The other wants to act like it’s been fine and dandy down there.  The truth is probably somewhere in between.  I lean more to the secure it side.  

    Anyway, I support Trump on some issues and probably oppose him on more.   I take it on a case by case basis  

     

  14. 38 minutes ago, SKJ said:

    You had immigrants that close to your family!?!? 

    I bet your grandparents we murdered by them?

    You never got to meet the immigrants I bet, because you'd obviously be dead.

    I have good and bad news for you.  My experience living by the border gave me a unique perspective.  Yes immigrants contribute to society and are rarely criminals.  But on the flip side our border could and should definitely be more secure.  

  15. 43 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    Jesus Christ you are one misinformed moron.  Please don't breed.

    Too late hoss. 4 kids that are well taken care of because I’m actually smarter than the average bear. 

    Instead of misinformed I’d say uninformed.  Immigration is just an issue that has never really interested me.  I grew up closer to the border than most, my grandpa had illegal aliens working on his farm growing up, but it’s not something I’ve ever devoted much thought to.  

    Unlike a lot of people on the internet I don’t act like I’m an expert on everything. With 4 kids and busy career I don’t have time to keep up with details of every thing political.  Thus my posts were direct questions.  Mojo was good enough to provide answers, however simple.  Thanks. 

    I’ll continue to comment and debate here to the level of my knowledge and ask questions when I don’t know something.

    You can continue to be an “informed, intelligent” poster that acts like a dbag and refers to a black Supreme Court Justice as a “Tom”. 

  16. 10 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

    The "release" under that policy was inside the United States while awaiting a hearing and full due process.  That is, the government was picking them up, processing them into the system, slapping on ankle monitors, and letting them go until their hearing.   Trump is talking about the government grabbing people, taking them across the border, and releasing them in other countries without any judicial process at all. 

    Ok.  So catch and release was the previous policy where people were released with monitors, awaiting hearing, but often cut off their monitors and ghosted?  Are there any stats on how often people actually showed for those hearings?

    So Trump wants to catch people coming in illegally and without a hearing ship them back out?  When you say releasing them in other countries what do you mean?  We catch Mexicans coming across and dump them in Canada?

  17. On 6/19/2018 at 8:24 AM, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

    so who will admit to losing a lot of money in this boondoggle? Anyone? lol

    Still up a good bit fortunately.  I got in early enough.  

    I put in a sizable amount, but not more than I could afford to lose if it went to zero.  Most of it is still speculative.  In fact I'd say the only thing you could put outside the speculative classification is Bitcoin itself.  It is not going to zero.  There is a use case and market for uncensorable, immutable digital gold.  Even if the tech cannot be scaled more than that via Lightning network or whatever, that demand will be there.

    The scaling of blockchains is the big issue.  The hype got ahead of the technology quite a bit.  Even ethereum has some major challenges to overcome before applications can be built on top without crashing the network. 

    It will take time for these problems to be worked out, but a lot of the smartest minds from Silicon Valley and even Wall St are moving into this realm.  I'm willing to wait and see what happens.  

    Bitcoin specifically has had at least 3 other bubbles similar to 2017 happen in the past and each one has come back bigger.  Given the small amount of penetration worldwide still, I'm betting it's gonna happen again and bigger.  I plan on being there from the beginning next time.  Place your bets.

  18. 1 minute ago, Jerry Callo said:

    The majority came up with the right result for the wrong reasons.  They actually make the issue more fuzzy going forward.  Gorsuch goes back to the late 60's ruling in Katz and the next major 4th Amendment cases, Smith and Miller, to say they were wrongly decided then and even more inapplicable now.  Both the "reasonable expectation of privacy" doctrine and the "third party" doctrine were stretches when created by the Court back then and are nearly unusable in this day and age with technology.

    Thanks.  I was surprised to see he voted against. 

×
×
  • Create New...