The Democrat Primary Race Is Filling Up

[Tombs]

I mean, why just randomly pay for someone else's meal in a situation like that?

Because:
1.) It doesn't require effort
2.) It isn't enough money to be a sacrifice
3.) They don't have to leave the safety of their neighborhood
4.) They get to play their little game and think they're doing something good, when all they're doing is telling the person they help that they need to be charitable too.

It's dripping with self righteous liberalism.

I think I need to call you on your ****. He didn't besmirch veterans, he besmirched Amazon. Whether or not he served is irrelevant. But I do agree that it is ridiculous to call American veterans who are democrats, "traitors". Is that his actual position?

If they vote for a candidate who has a policy to undermine the constitution, yes, they are a traitor.

They took an oath to defend it, not destroy it. Making the severity of their choice even more condemnable, the uninformed voter didn't take that oath.

 

[jamil]

Maybe you look scruffier than you think?

I haven't shaved in a few months. And I was driving a late model pickup truck. And I was wearing a camo hat. But still. I can't be mad that she paid for my lunch. I'm just a little astonished that she would waste the money. She's probably much wealthier than I am, if she goes around paying for other people's meals in the drive thru at Panera's. Maybe I should just STFU and be happy. But dammit, now I feel obligated to pay it forward and find some homeless person to buy a meal. That ****ing *****.

 

[Alpo]

I think I need to call you on your ****. He didn't besmirch veterans, he besmirched Amazon. Whether or not he served is irrelevant. But I do agree that it is ridiculous to call American veterans who are democrats, "traitors". Is that his actual position?

Post 1728.

Me too, trials should be held for these traitors to the United States people and their accessories(voters.)

 

[Alpo]

I haven't shaved in a few months. And I was driving a late model pickup truck. And I was wearing a camo hat. But still. I can't be mad that she paid for my lunch. I'm just a little astonished that she would waste the money. She's probably much wealthier than I am, if she goes around paying for other people's meals in the drive thru at Panera's. Maybe I should just STFU and be happy. But dammit, now I feel obligated to pay it forward and find some homeless person to buy a meal. That ****ing *****.

Damn. That's terrible.

Maybe you looked like her gardener that she felt deserved a tip.

 

[jamil]

Because:
1.) It doesn't require effort
2.) It isn't enough money to be a sacrifice
3.) They don't have to leave the safety of their neighborhood
4.) They get to play their little game and think they're doing something good, when all they're doing is telling the person they help that they need to be charitable too.

It's dripping with self righteous liberalism.



If they vote for a candidate who has a policy to undermine the constitution, yes, they are a traitor.

They took an oath to defend it, not destroy it. Making the severity of their choice even more condemnable, the uninformed voter didn't take that oath.

We've seen a lot of examples on INGO where people think something is or isn't constitutional, and they draw some conclusions from that. Sometimes they're wrong. So I'm pretty sure there are other more likely causes for why they might vote for Democrats other than to destroy the constitution. Of course there are some bat**** crazies who do want to destroy it. But those are not mainstream Democrats, at least non of the Democrats I know.

 

[Tombs]

We've seen a lot of examples on INGO where people think something is or isn't constitutional, and they draw some conclusions from that. Sometimes they're wrong. So I'm pretty sure there are other more likely causes for why they might vote for Democrats other than to destroy the constitution. Of course there are some bat**** crazies who do want to destroy it. But those are not mainstream Democrats, at least non of the Democrats I know.

Considering more than 2/3rds of the military opposed democrats in 2016, I think the overwhelming majority are well aware of what is and is not against the oath they took.

 

[jamil]

Considering more than 2/3rds of the military opposed democrats in 2016, I think the overwhelming majority are well aware of what is and is not against the oath they took.

2/3rds of the military was republican before they went in. It doesn't seem logical to me that the reason they're republicans after being in, is because of their oath, and that democrats want to destroy the constitution. it's probably more because they're just republicans.

 

[Tombs]

2/3rds of the military was republican before they went in. It doesn't seem logical to me that the reason they're republicans after being in, is because of their oath, and that democrats want to destroy the constitution. it's probably more because they're just republicans.

I didn't say republican?

There's a lot more 3rd party voters in the military than in the general public.

 

[jamil]

I didn't say republican?

There's a lot more 3rd party voters in the military than in the general public.

Still the same point. They were what they were when they went in, and they stay what they were while in. You can't project your worldview about the constitution and expect other people to obey your worldview. I'm sure very few democrats think they're destroying the constitution, notwithstanding the bat**** crazies.

 

[Tombs]

Still the same point. They were what they were when they went in, and they stay what they were while in. You can't project your worldview about the constitution and expect other people to obey your worldview. I'm sure very few democrats think they're destroying the constitution, notwithstanding the bat**** crazies.

I guess if you consider essential human rights listed in black and white on our founding document, that they're swearing an oath to, as a world view.

I don't. It's a sacred document that gave birth to the greatest nation the world has ever seen, and I no longer have tolerance for those who wish to abolish it.

 

[jamil]

I guess if you consider essential human rights listed in black and white on our founding document, that they're swearing an oath to, as a world view.

I don't. It's a sacred document that gave birth to the greatest nation the world has ever seen, and I no longer have tolerance for those who wish to abolish it.

The world view is how they interpret the document. I mean this is basic stuff.

 

[Tombs]

The world view is how they interpret the document. I mean this is basic stuff.

The constitution's language is also pretty basic and hard to miss the point of unless you have a malicious intention, as well.

You have to remember, you're trying to tell me that "they aren't that bad" when to my moral compass, they're no better than the people behind slavery and genocide.
New age, new generation, same despotic evil.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

We've seen a lot of examples on INGO where people think something is or isn't constitutional, and they draw some conclusions from that. Sometimes they're wrong. So I'm pretty sure there are other more likely causes for why they might vote for Democrats other than to destroy the constitution. Of course there are some bat**** crazies who do want to destroy it. But those are not mainstream Democrats, at least non of the Democrats I know.

Even if the voters don’t want to destroy it, they’re voting for candidates who do, and openly say they do. When a candidate says he wants to confiscate guns and people support him... that’s supporting the destroying of the constitution. No way to misinterpret that

 

[jamil]

Even if the voters don’t want to destroy it, they’re voting for candidates who do, and openly say they do. When a candidate says he wants to confiscate guns and people support him... that’s supporting the destroying of the constitution. No way to misinterpret that

That’s where worldview and interpretation comes in. They don’t think that’s destroying the constitution. But I doubt that matters. You guys seem to want to establish the dichotomies the way you do. Not every democrat wants that.

 

[KG1]

Would it be ironic the author sold his book in a capitalist economy, and enjoyed profits from the fruits of his labor?

Didn’t Bernie Sanders write a book about socialist revolution which pocketed him close to a million dollars?

I believe when he was questioned about it he said something to the effect that he wrote a best selling book. If you write a best selling book you can be a millionaire too.

It seems to me that he is encouraging others not to be haters and go out and do something in a capitalist environment to enrich themselves like he did.

I find it quite ironic that the book was about socialist revolution.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You'd think that. But "by and large" isn't all that true. The filthy richest people in the US are democrats too.

• Bill Gates: $106.8 billion. Not a republican.
• Warren Buffett: $80.8 billion. Not a republican.
• Mark Zuckerberg: $69.6 billion. Bat **** crazy progressive.
• Larry Ellison: $65 billion. Hard to say, he donates to both. Might lean Republican though.
• Larry Page: $55.5 billion. Bat **** crazy progressive.
• Sergey Brin: $53.5 billion. Bat **** crazy progressive.
• Michael Bloomberg: $53.4 billion. Former Democrat then RINO then independent then democrat.
• Steve Ballmer: $51.7 billion. Not a republican.
• Jim Walton: $51.6 billion. Probably republican.

"People," as in individuals... but by family (according to political donations). These can be speed out over many different people.

1. Walton – Republican
2. Koch – Republican
3. Mars – Republican
4. Cargill-MacMillan – Republican
5. Johnson (Fidelity) – Republican
6. Hearst – Republican
7. Cox – Democrat
8. Pritzker – Both
9. Johnson (S.C. Johnson) – Republican
10. Duncan – Republican
11. Newhouse – Democrat
12. Lauder – Both
13. Du Pont – Republican
14. Hunt – Republican
15. Ziff – Both
16. Johnson (Franklin Templeton) – Republican
17. Busch – Both
18. Dorrance – Both
19. Mellon – Republican
20. Brown – Both
21. Carlson – Both
22. Fisher – Republican
23. Butt – Democrat
24. Rockefeller – Both
25. Gallo – Democrat
26. Marshall – Republican
27. Bass – Both
28. Meijer – Republican
29. Bechtel – Republican
29. Reyes – Republican
29. Simplot – Republican
32. Rales – Both
33. Rollins – Republican
34. Scripps – Republican
35. Crown – Both
36. Stryker – Democrat
37. Smith – Republican
38. Pigott – Republican
39. Shoen – Both
39. Simon – Democrat
41. Lefrak – Both
42. Hughes – Republican
42. Phipps – Republican
44. Kluge – Both
44. Tisch – Democrat
46. Johnson (Johnson & Johnson) – Republican
47. Marriott – Republican
48. Kohler – Republican
49. Perot – Both
50. Barbey – Republican

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katias...milies-republicans-or-democrats/#5161f6cc3e83

 

[Phase2]

If you don't know the answer to that stupid accusation, there is little hope for you.

Please seek assistance.

I'll help him him along with about 65-70 million of our friends next November.

 

[rob63]

There is something really funky with those lists. If you follow the links on Forbes you end up with the richest family in America is the Walton's with $130 billion, the 2nd is the Koch's with $82 billion, etc.

The strange thing being that they appear to have completely excluded individuals such as Gates, Buffet, Zuckerberg etc. that have plenty enough money to have been on the list.

 

[Kutnupe14]

There is something really funky with those lists. If you follow the links on Forbes you end up with the richest family in America is the Walton's with $130 billion, the 2nd is the Koch's with $82 billion, etc.

The strange thing being that they appear to have completely excluded individuals such as Gates, Buffet, Zuckerberg etc. that have plenty enough money to have been on the list.

Perhaps they are pointing out families that are solidly R or D. Gates has contributed 8 times to Democrats and 6 times to Republicans. But then you have Buffet and Zuckerberg who both seem to be Democrats. I would imagine that "family" is probably a key component, meaning the wealth is spread well throughout large blue blood families. Old money, if you will.

 

[Leadeye]

Big money wants to be in charge and stay in charge, I don't think political denominations play into their game much unless it's for some pet social cause. Exceptions will be made in the fine print of socialist wealth confiscation laws for those at the very top. It keeps tax laws complicated and tax/accounting firms rich.