|
Post by Warmonger on Jul 21, 2016 12:08:49 GMT -5
Don't see how it's some kind of "right wing" thing to despise the girl for lying about being raped and for molesting her sister when she was younger.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Jul 21, 2016 12:51:20 GMT -5
Don't see how it's some kind of "right wing" thing to despise the girl for lying about being raped and for molesting her sister when she was younger. The fact that you believe those things is a result of the right wing's war on Lena Dunham.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jul 21, 2016 12:54:13 GMT -5
Don't see how it's some kind of "right wing" thing to despise the girl for lying about being raped and for molesting her sister when she was younger. They oddly don't seem to have much problem not despising poor lil Josh Duggar. I'm just asking for some consistency.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Jul 21, 2016 14:02:30 GMT -5
Here's one reason why Trump isn't very popular in this forum: www.politico.com/story/2016/07/harry-potter-donald-trump-fans-225919"The more books you read from the "Harry Potter" series, the more you'll dislike Donald Trump, a new study claims. The study out of the University of Pennsylvania, titled "Harry Potter and the Deathly Donald," found that readers of the landmark fantasy series were more likely to report stronger dislike of the newly minted Republican nominee than non-readers. According to the findings, for every "Harry Potter" book read, dislike of Trump rose by two to three percentage points, with the gap between readers and non-readers climbing as high as 18 percentage points even when accounting for political affiliation, age, educational attainment and other relevant factors. "Harry may not be a full-on patronus against the Republican presidential nominee’s appeal, but reading Potter stories does appear to be a shield charm against Trump’s message," said U. Penn spokesperson Julie Sloane in a statement."
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Jul 21, 2016 16:50:21 GMT -5
Don't see how it's some kind of "right wing" thing to despise the girl for lying about being raped and for molesting her sister when she was younger. The fact that you believe those things is a result of the right wing's war on Lena Dunham. Of course I believe them She wrote some memoir where she detailed forcibly touching her sister when they were younger. She also apologized to the guy she had consensual sex with, and then tried to accuse of raping her when she found out that he was a republican.
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Jul 21, 2016 16:57:51 GMT -5
Don't see how it's some kind of "right wing" thing to despise the girl for lying about being raped and for molesting her sister when she was younger. They oddly don't seem to have much problem not despising poor lil Josh Duggar. I'm just asking for some consistency. Duggar is garbage too Hell, even more so. This isn't some left or right issue. Many of the goofs in the media on both sides will play their favorites, I just find it kinda ridiculous that any politician running for president would allow a minor celebrity with that kind of shady past speak in favor of them at a national convention. It's not like the RNC wasn't a joke either. Both sides are turning up comedy gold.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jul 21, 2016 16:58:38 GMT -5
The fact that you believe those things is a result of the right wing's war on Lena Dunham. Of course I believe them She wrote some memoir where she detailed forcibly touching her sister when they were younger. She also apologized to the guy she had consensual sex with, and then tried to accuse of raping her when she found out that he was a republican. Did you read the memoir? Or are you relying on something written in a right-wing blog? Where is her apology? I'm not necessarily doubting you. But in my experience this kind of stuff is seldom coming from even a secondary source.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Jul 21, 2016 17:52:03 GMT -5
Did you read the memoir? Or are you relying on something written in a right-wing blog? Where is her apology? I'm not necessarily doubting you. But in my experience this kind of stuff is seldom coming from even a secondary source. She apologized to the man who was misidentified as her attacker based on circumstantial clues in her memoir. "To be very clear, “Barry” is a pseudonym, not the name of the man who assaulted me, and any resemblance to a person with this name is an unfortunate and surreal coincidence. I am sorry about all he has experienced."
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Jul 21, 2016 21:58:06 GMT -5
Here's one reason why Trump isn't very popular in this forum: www.politico.com/story/2016/07/harry-potter-donald-trump-fans-225919"The more books you read from the "Harry Potter" series, the more you'll dislike Donald Trump, a new study claims. The study out of the University of Pennsylvania, titled "Harry Potter and the Deathly Donald," found that readers of the landmark fantasy series were more likely to report stronger dislike of the newly minted Republican nominee than non-readers. According to the findings, for every "Harry Potter" book read, dislike of Trump rose by two to three percentage points, with the gap between readers and non-readers climbing as high as 18 percentage points even when accounting for political affiliation, age, educational attainment and other relevant factors. "Harry may not be a full-on patronus against the Republican presidential nominee’s appeal, but reading Potter stories does appear to be a shield charm against Trump’s message," said U. Penn spokesperson Julie Sloane in a statement." I don't understand what's happening here, but I love it.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jul 21, 2016 22:48:54 GMT -5
Trump plagiarizes Mussolini's face in speech tonight.
Also his vision for his nation.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2016 22:49:21 GMT -5
Since, my state is already Democratic and might well padded up the Presidential Vote in terms of Popular Vote and vote for Hillary Clinton anyway and be done with it.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 21, 2016 23:04:41 GMT -5
Trump plagiarizes Mussolini's face in speech tonight. Also his vision for his nation. I "liked" your post, but only because there's no option for "internal screaming."
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jul 22, 2016 8:38:41 GMT -5
I don't understand why the DNC doesn't want to make its donor list for the convention public, the fact that they are withholding until they are legally obligated to disclose it makes it far more dubious than if were released and we saw that it was say funded by the big banks from Wall Street. It's the same with Trump, I don't get withholding your financials at all, especially when running for public office.
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Jul 22, 2016 8:58:43 GMT -5
Trump's holding out cause he's not a billionaire.
Yes, I'm sure that's why the DNC is holding out, but so what ? The Establishment knows Hillary is going to win this and is backing her. It's no secret that she's affiliated with Wall Street. I don't like it, but it's no surprise.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 22, 2016 10:21:08 GMT -5
I often bitch about many of my government's laws and regulations, but one I am very happy with is the one regulating political contributions. Here are a few key excerpts :
62. Only an elector may make a contribution. He shall do so only in favour of a political party, an association or an independent candidate authorized by the director general and only in conformity with this division.
63. Every contribution must be made by the elector himself out of his own property.
64. The total of contributions by the same elector during the same calendar year shall not exceed the amount of $3 000.
69. Every contribution of money of over $100 must be made by cheque or other order of payment signed by the elector and drawn on his account in a chartered bank or a trust company having an office in Québec, or in a savings and credit union.
70. For every contribution, the official representative or the person designated in accordance with section 66 shall issue a receipt to the contributor.
75. Outside an election period, every radio, television or cable broadcaster and every owner of a newspaper, a periodical or other printed matter may make air time on the radio or television or space in the newspaper, periodical or other printed matter available free of charge to authorized political parties, provided he offers such service equitably as to quality and quantity to the parties represented in the National Assembly and to the parties which received at least 3% of the valid votes in the last general election.
In other terms : no company, no union, no lobby, no PAC may give money to politicians. Rich individuals cannot outright buy an election because they're capped at 3,000 bucks each. There is a paper trail to follow if someone tries to cheat. The media, if it wants to give free air time to its favourite party, must offer the same deal to all parties.
Because politics shouldn't be about raising money.
|
|