Facebook Co-Founder Donates $20M To Elect Presidential Candidate

Which is what trump supporters normally say, despite evidence to the contrary. (He was polling at about 0% in the last poll I saw).

Both Trump and Clinton are awful candidates, no matter what side you lean on.


The difference is I provided a link to my poll ;)
 
For a woman that's as evil and supposedly corrupt to get where she is
You mean by happening to be married to the guy that became president of the US, and who started a Clinton Foundation to launder various special interests (from Saudis, to banks, you name it) in a corrupt quid-pro-quo pay to play system of selling favor, which she continued?

Granted, she did attack the women that her husband raped in order to protect his political career (her practice as a lawyer defending a pedophile rapist that she personally knew to be guilty and laughed at that she was able to get him off), and thus her own vested interest, but aside from that what specific thing has she done that was impressive? Well, aside from getting people killed in Benghazi and then lying about it, and having the gal to insist under inquiry "At this point, what difference does it make" as the families are still mourning.
 
I have a lot of respect for Hillary. For a woman that's as evil and supposedly corrupt to get where she is while holding at bay a powerful movement against for her 25 years, that's impressive. The way I see it given the state of the country today, Jesus Christ would be a polarizing political figure, there's just no way around that no matter who you are. I simply think Hillary is far better to deal with current circumstances than anyone else running and isn't a complete idiot.


So you essentially compare Hillary to Jesus. Yeah, nothing wrong with your political outlook whatsoever... :confused:
 
You mean by happening to be married to the guy that became president of the US, and who started a Clinton Foundation to launder various special interests (from Saudis, to banks, you name it) in a corrupt quid-pro-quo pay to play system of selling favor, which she continued?

Granted, she did attack the women that her husband raped in order to protect his political career, and thus her own vested interest, but aside from that what specific thing has she done that was impressive? Well, aside from getting people killed in Benghazi and then lying about it, and having the gal to insist under inquiry "At this point, what difference does it make" as the families are still mourning.


Don't forget a member of the Dixie Mafia.
 
Don't forget a member of the Dixie Mafia.
Speaking of Dixies; That's the sad thing though, is that so many black Americans don't appreciate history and actually fall for Hillary's blatant fake pandering. The Democrats have somehow managed to convince uninformed Americans that everything their party did and fought for was AMERICA'S doing, not their own. They say America was racist and America promoted slavery and America put Japanese people into interment camps, when that was all what the Democratic party fought for and did!

The KKK were all Dixie Democrats, and the abolitionists and leaders like Abraham Lincoln were all Republicans. After the war though, the Democrats were desperate for votes, and after a series of disastrous policies resorted to the practice of promising free stuff in exchange for votes. Unfortunately, black Americans that didn't believe in the "American dream" sold by the Republican Party on self-reliance and making your own way fell for the trap the racist Democrats laid out for them, of offering some free crap as long as they all promised to vote Democrat (as up until then, for obvious reasons, 99% of black Americans were Republican). It was easier to just say "hell yeah, I'll take some free crap over a dream", but not better.

So we saw a big shift in the 1930s where the black vote swung almost overnight for the new Democratic "handout" party, but of course the Democrats were by no means historically pro-black and were just using the black vote to stay in power. Not much has changed, and the Democratic Party still doesn't really care about black people, they care about black votes, and so happily pander a little, throw out some hollow platitudes, and then toss out some free scraps to live off of, knowing damn well this isn't helping black communities. So we see the primarily black areas with exclusively Democratic party officials in power are completely mismanaged and corrupt, with lots of poverty, high crime, etc.

And sadly, so many don't know their history and think that whoever promises meager handouts must be their friends and gladly look the other way when it comes to all the corruption (or even kissing and defending ex-KKK leader Robert Byrd), and the successful black Americans that believe in the American dream that vote Republican they call sellouts... just sad.
 
Last edited:
I don't see how more money will help Clinton. She's the most known quantity in politics. Ad buys, ground game, none of it will change people's perception of her. Trump is the only dictating the polls right now.
 
Speaking of Dixies; That's the sad thing though, is that so many black Americans don't appreciate history and actually fall for Hillary's blatant fake pandering. The Democrats have somehow managed to convince uninformed Americans that everything their party did and fought for was AMERICA'S doing, not their own. They say America was racist and America promoted slavery and America put Japanese people into interment camps, when that was all what the Democratic party fought for and did!

The KKK were all Dixie Democrats, and the abolitionists and leaders like Abraham Lincoln were all Republicans. After the war though, the Democrats were desperate for votes, and after a series of disastrous policies resorted to the practice of promising free stuff in exchange for votes. Unfortunately, black Americans that didn't believe in the "American dream" sold by the Republican Party on self-reliance and making your own way fell for the trap the racist Democrats laid out for them, of offering some free crap as long as they all promised to vote Democrat (as up until then, for obvious reasons, 99% of black Americans were Republican). It was easier to just say "hell yeah, I'll take some free crap over a dream", but not better.

So we saw a big shift in the 1930s where the black vote swung almost overnight for the new Democratic "handout" party, but of course the Democrats were by no means historically pro-black and were just using the black vote to stay in power. Not much has changed, and the Democratic Party still doesn't really care about black people, they care about black votes, and so happily pander a little, throw out some hollow platitudes, and then toss out some free scraps to live off of, knowing damn well this isn't helping black communities. So we see the primarily black areas with exclusively Democratic party officials in power are completely mismanaged and corrupt, with lots of poverty, high crime, etc.

And sadly, so many don't know their history and think that whoever promises meager handouts must be their friends and gladly look the other way when it comes to all the corruption, and the successful black Americans that believe in the American dream that vote Republican they call sellouts... just sad.

I have no idea why GOPers think that this is some kind of new argument. It's beyond old and tired and it's hilarious to me when I've talked so much about my parents growing up in the Jim Crow South, as though my parents were too stupid to know Democrats ran the South at the time.

MLK denounced Goldwater in 1964 for not supporting the CRA of 1964 and that's were it kind of stands for blacks nationally today.
 
So you don't mind voting for the slavery party, as long as the promise of free-stuff doesn't expire, but why do you personally think that high poverty and crime areas vote virtually exclusively Democrat? And if the Democratic party is doing such a good job, why are the most mismanaged, poor, and violent cities in America all run by Democrats? Detroit, St Louis, New Haven, Memphis, Oakland, Little Rock, Baltimore, Stockton, etc. all long time Democrat. Would you agree that the status quo isn't working for the overwhelming majority of black Americans? After 8 years of Democrats in power on a federal level as well, black households aren't earning more once adjusted for inflation now than before the Obama administration. And if we continue to lose more manufacturing and service industry jobs to Mexico and overseas, and continue to ramp up the influx of illegal labor from South/Central America into the US, that is only going to hurt black Americans competing for those jobs.

Now, Asian households have seen a very large increase during that time BTW, but they weren't pandered to or given any handouts at all, and in fact right now Asians have the highest average household income of any demographic. At some point, you have to wake up and see what works and doesn't work, and make a real change.
 
You didn't once mention the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As though being able to go into a shoe store or a restaurant, paying the same money as white folks and not being treated as lepers is somehow "free stuff".
 
You didn't once mention the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Why do I keep having to answer your tangents, when you completely ignore every single fact I've stated. And Republicans supported the Civil Rights act of 1964 overwhelmingly. Only 6 Republicans voted against it, compared to 21 senate Democrats that voted against the Civil Rights act. Democrats were against the Voting Rights act too.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965, passed along similar partisan margins, with 61 Democratic “no” votes in the House and 24 Republicans voting against the bill, which passed 333-85. In the Senate, the measure passed with the support of 94 percent of the Republican caucus.

“The degree of Republican support for the two bills actually exceeded the degree of Democratic support, and it’s also fair to say that Republicans took leading roles in both measures, even though they had far fewer seats, and thus less power, at the time,” PolitiFact said in a 2010 analysis of the GOP role in civil rights.
Who’s Really Responsible for the Civil Rights Act?
 
I have a lot of respect for Hillary. For a woman that's as evil and supposedly corrupt to get where she is while holding at bay a powerful movement against for her 25 years, that's impressive. The way I see it given the state of the country today, Jesus Christ would be a polarizing political figure, there's just no way around that no matter who you are. I simply think Hillary is far better to deal with current circumstances than anyone else running and isn't a complete idiot.

Not sure if serious. IF you want absolute corruption controlling the country for decades to come, then vote Hillary.
 
Looking up the data (wikipedia):
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

It's not a coincidence the south went from blue to red later on after its passage.
 
Well, actually it seems to be widely panned across the political spectrum. I think initially the right thought that it would bring "balance" to the process but ultimately all it did was make rich people to openly bribe politicians.

As opposed to rich people in the liberal media having an overt monopoly on promoting politicians of their choice in the form of biased editorials masquerading as objective reporting.
 
Why do I keep having to answer your tangents, when you completely ignore every single fact I've stated. And Republicans supported the Civil Rights act of 1964 overwhelmingly. Only 6 Republicans voted against it, compared to 21 senate Democrats that voted against the Civil Rights act. Democrats were against the Voting Rights act too.

Who’s Really Responsible for the Civil Rights Act?

And again, old arguments. What's fascinating to me about this old argument though is that right wingers NEVER mention geography. The South was dominated by Democrats at the time. Guess from were the overwhelming opposition to repealing Jim Crow laws came.
 
Looking up the data (wikipedia):
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

It's not a coincidence the south went from blue to red later on after its passage.

The political shift in the south was mostly due to economics and not due to racism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html?_r=0
 
Looking up the data (wikipedia):
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

It's not a coincidence the south went from blue to red later on after its passage.

Thank You! This vote was a regional divide, not a political one at the time. And at the time Democrats dominated the South. But the GOP POTUS candidate at the time opposed the CRA and MLK denounced him for it. Way is this so hard for right wingers to get.
 
Not sure if serious. IF you want absolute corruption controlling the country for decades to come, then vote Hillary.
I don't like Bernie Sander's politics, but he was supposed to be the outsider cleaning up the bad apples in the Democratic Party the way Trump promised to for Republicans, and yet somehow people are also forgetting the emails from the Hillary campaign talking about using Sander's Jewish heritage against him, and rumors that Sanders was threatened to end his campaign against Hillary. Considering how many people that have threatened the Clinton Foundation that have ended up dead in suspicious circumstances, I don't blame him.
 
Last edited:
I have a lot of respect for Hillary. For a woman that's as evil and supposedly corrupt to get where she is while holding at bay a powerful movement against for her 25 years, that's impressive. The way I see it given the state of the country today, Jesus Christ would be a polarizing political figure, there's just no way around that no matter who you are. I simply think Hillary is far better to deal with current circumstances than anyone else running and isn't a complete idiot.

Hitler was evil and corrupt and was able to hold onto power for quite a few years, but I sure wouldn't vote for him.
 
Like people think she is actually going to raise taxes on the people donating millions to her :rolleyes:

It's just a way to buy an exemption, so the new taxes target someone else.

Trump is proposing far more new spending that Hillary.
 
Sure. So a region of the country that had written zillions of race laws just dropped all of that and went GOP because it served their economic interests.

Weird that the left can admit that a region can change party affiliation but not its perception on ethnicity. Must be similar to how it thinks that people can change their sex but not their sexual orientation. Leftist inconsistencies and special exemptions abound.
 
So is King James ok?

I prefer the Geneva Bible, but the Authorized/KJV is fine, too. Even though they technically use Modern English, most people today who don't know any better dismiss them as using archaic "old English," as if they were using the same version of English as that which existed at the time of Beowulf's composition (which predates the 17th century, when the KJV was written, by far).
 
Weird that the left can admit that a region can change party affiliation but not its perception on ethnicity.

The change was through force though. Had Southern states voted on the Civil Right Act of 1964 locally, they would have defeated it.
 
Sure. So a region of the country that had written zillions of race laws just dropped all of that and went GOP because it served their economic interests.
Hi Heatless, remember me? All those uncomfortable facts you keep ignoring, and ignoring my replies to you. As said before, those laws are created by political representatives, as we do not have a direct democracy in the United States and never have. Democrats wrote "zillions of race laws", which the GOP, the party of abolitionists and racial equality, successfully opposed.

Now to answer your question, why did Southern whites abandon the Democratic party? One reason is a cultural shift, in which groups like the KKK Dixie Democrats were losing influence among white people in the South with regard to race-baiting. Southern whites always held Republican views on taxes, moral values, and national security, but in the past the Democrats were able to rile up racism among many Southern whites to overrule those other concerns, to get them to vote Democrat. And for a long time racist Democrats like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt loyally upheld white supremacy, and that was enough to convince sufficient "one-issue" voters to disregard their other political beliefs.

As that racist sentiment became less and less popular, the Democratic Party began to rapidly lose votes and power. In a desperate attempt to regain votes, they shifted strategy to again race bait and use blacks in their favor, beginning to pander and offer handouts to black Americans in exchange for votes. This was a successful strategy, and black Americans overwhelmingly shifted from the Republican to Democratic party. Certainly at this point, any declining number of white supremacist voters still left over would have found no party that specifically catered to their agenda, and would cast their votes based on other considerations like the before-mentioned taxes, morals, national security, and class.

So the Democratic party has been using race to prop itself up since its inception, and continues to do so today.
 
I prefer the Geneva Bible, but the Authorized/KJV is fine, too. Even though they technically use Modern English, most people today who don't know any better dismiss them as using archaic "old English," as if they were using the same version of English as that which existed at the time of Beowulf's composition (which predates the 17th century, when the KJV was written, by far).

Is there really any translation of the Bible that would radically alter its overall perception? Is there any translation that got it so wrong as to make anyone for it or against it rethink anything?
 
Is there really any translation of the Bible that would radically alter its overall perception? Is there any translation that got it so wrong as to make anyone for it or against it rethink anything?

One sodomite activist and Obama supporter got butthurt and sued Zondervan and Thomas Nelson publishers because their Bible translations condemned homosexuality, so he apparently didn't find the NIV very liberal.
 
Hi Heatless, remember me? All those uncomfortable facts you keep ignoring, and ignoring my replies to you. As said before, those laws are created by political representatives, as we do not have a direct democracy in the United States and never have. Democrats wrote "zillions of race laws", which the GOP, the party of abolitionists and racial equality, successfully opposed.

Again, just not really sure why folks like you are telling me something I've repeatedly pointed out that my parents witnessed fist hand and taught me of.
 
Again, just not really sure why folks like you are telling me something I've repeatedly pointed out that my parents witnessed fist hand and taught me of.
I don't see how effectively repeating "I know the Democratic Party is racist" is an actual defense, while you ignore everything else. You've made it clear you don't mind voting for the slavery party, as long as they half-ass pander and throw some free scraps your way now. I just don't agree that short sighted and self-defeating attitudes like yours are helping the black communities (or anyone else for that matter).
 
I don't see how effectively repeating "I know the Democratic Party is racist" is an actual defense, while you ignore everything else.

I know that the GOP POTUS candidate of 1964 was in direct opposition to MLK over the CRA of 1964. I also know that your description of Southern culture and its supposed rejection of race politics is complete bullshit during the time that my parents lived in the Jim Crow South.
 
I know that the GOP POTUS candidate of 1964 was in direct opposition to MLK over the CRA of 1964. I also know that your description of Southern culture and its supposed rejection of race politics is complete bullshit during the time that my parents lived in the Jim Crow South.

Because what his parents spoon fed him must be the only valid outlook.
 
Back
Top