Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by diessos 5 months, 3 weeks ago
    Elizabeth... hands down. She is a TRUE socialist. Hillary is just self-serving and will do and say whatever is popular to gain power. Warren is a true believer. She, like Ocasio-Cortez, is anti-business, anti-American, anti-free enterprise. With the "free" press to spread her ideology, she can destroy this country very easily.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 5 months, 3 weeks ago
    Why would anyone, who can think, vote for (1) anyone from Taxachusetts for any office outside that state, or (2) for someone who supports a ideology that has always failed in practice?

    Universal suffrage is a very bad idea.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 5 months, 3 weeks ago
      very bad idea. Women and men just are different. I think that genes in women favor stronger emotions, and genes in men favor weaker emotions and stronger thought processes.

      That isnt a condemnation of either sex, just an acceptance of what is. No one expects a cat to act like a dog, or vice-versa. To think that genes dont affect what a brain does is just ignoring biology
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LibertyBelle 5 months, 3 weeks ago
        That doesn't make any sense. Especially for anyone in Galt's Gulch, which concept actually was originated by a woman.
        Women can understand logic and individual rights as well as men. Also, men, being physically stronger, are more likely to lose their tempers and come to blows in some cases, rather than to reason things out.
        I don't like either Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren. (Isn't she the one who claimed to be black on the score of having a minuscule percentage of the ancestry through DNA?) But that doesn't mean the suffrage should be restricted.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by mccannon01 5 months, 3 weeks ago
          Elizabeth Warren idiotically and falsely claimed Native American heritage and earned the title "Pocahontas" from Trump.

          Your reference to Ayn Rand is a good one. I often think of women as being more nurturing than men and more likely to vote "yes" for the great socialist welfare state, but then I think of Rand. Then I think of men like Marx or Bernie Sanders, so there you have it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 5 months, 3 weeks ago
          I think the whole idea of democracy isnt that great either- at least when it comes down to voting. There should be some sort of vetting going on before getting the power to vote. Some people are just not qualified to vote on important things, s I am sure you can see during the 2016 election. Half the people actually voted for Hillary, which amazes me. If I expand my comment, it really applies to universal suffrage, not necessarily based on sex at all. But, we would like the people to vote to be reasonably intelligent and knowledgeable so they can analyze the issues rationally. Emotionally driven people of both sexes do not make very good decisions in the voting booth.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by LibertyBelle 5 months, 2 weeks ago
            The notion that the government should prescribe the citizen's ideology before allowing him to vote is a very dangerous one.---And look what was done with "literacy tests" in the lily-white South.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 5 months, 2 weeks ago
              Maybe the whole idea of voting in a democracy is faulty. Set the constitution and thats IT.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by LibertyBelle 5 months, 2 weeks ago
                We are supposed to have a republic, not a democracy. But the citizens must be allowed to vote. Of course, it would be better if the Constitution restricted the government (state and local as well as Federal) to its proper functions: to protect man (includes woman and child) against force and violence (fraud being a kind of force), and to punish same, and did not leave the rights of man to be trampled over every time someone got a big enough gang.
                That would abolish a large part of government that now exists, including public, government-financed and government-operated education (except maybe for technical training in the military, and police academies), and leave citizens to do things on their own. And then you wouldn't have people getting in a gang and voting away their neighbors' rights every time they got a whim (such as not liking the paint job on a neighbor's house, etc).
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 5 months, 2 weeks ago
                  I agree. In corporations, there are directors elected by voting of the stockholders, and the directors are in chargee of running the company. There are not hundreds of directors though. Maybe a dozen or so. What we have now is somewhat like that, but with hundreds of congressmen and 100 senators that are polarized in terms of two parties, and they vote on how to tax and control everyone. There is no buying of stock. If you live here, you are bound by the rules they set.

                  Somehow I think it should be more of a republic where the constitution is SET, and the government only operates within those specific bounds. Election would be to promote efficiency of operation, not the passing of new laws.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Dobrien 5 months, 3 weeks ago
    The evil hag because destroying America is what she did as SOS ,She was selling out our country to any and all who contributed to her families piggy bank the CF or CGI.
    Pocahontas is just a cheater, using her made up heritage to gain advantage at Harvard and with the minority’s . Her evil anti capitalism pales in comparison to The evil witch’s murderous ways.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  25n56il4 5 months, 3 weeks ago
      Dobrien, you are so right on! Ms Hilliary is much more devious and a whole lot smarter than Elizabeth. Don't doubt that for a minute. She was working her 'phone right in front of us, reading her emails, while we watched on TV!!!!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 5 months, 3 weeks ago
    the way the employees who have been voted to "run" the us government for over 100 years are the culprits. it matters not what "party" is in power they are birds of a feather. i used to think that the demos would do it faster the the repubs but as we have seen it matters not. h and e have lots of helpers if they were ever the president.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 5 months, 3 weeks ago
    Don't know solver...might be a tie but in totally different ways.
    Warren is just lookin for another feather in her head so she can muster up enough indian heritage to be called pokerherhontas legitimately...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 3 weeks ago
    Warren. Hillary was in it for control, but mostly to line her own pockets. Elizabeth Warren wants wholesale change to the Constitution - preferably its elimination in favor of a socialist dictatorship.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 5 months, 3 weeks ago
    ....the destruction is already assured...it is a question of "when"...not "if"...the repubs and dems are unified in this...the decifit has grown under Trump...not decreased...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ZenRoy 5 months, 3 weeks ago
    Hilary is a has been. She would be able to get nothing done as no one would really fear her or love her.

    Warren is scary should she win. She would have a great deal of support, and she is a true believer in the collectivist plan. She is seen as an up and comer rather than a has been which with the libs is all important.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Stormi 5 months, 3 weeks ago
    I think Hillary, as she has the players in place to pull all the Constitutional rights we count on, from day one. Elizabeth has a big big mouth, but not much in the way of facts and shady contacts, to rival Hillary. They could not even work together, two big egos, mass destruction.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 months, 3 weeks ago
    It's a draw. Elizabeth is a late blooming socialist, but Hillary was very socialist in college. That's why Hillary has been showing signs of making a third try, because now she can go into full throated socialist war cry, rather than masking her desires in muddled left of center policy statements. She really did despise Bill's centrism, and would be delighted to come out of the closet.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 months, 3 weeks ago
    Hillary, because she would sell our govenment out quickly for contributions to the clinton foundation. Warren would just be a moron and straddle business with useless regulations that would slowly kill us.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 months, 3 weeks ago
    I was at one of Warren's fundraisers a year ago. I haven't been to a Clinton event since 2008, and I think she's irrelevant b/c of her age. As I read the article linked to this post, more and more I do not care. Even if I contributed loads of money and got to know every staffer, which I surely do not want to do, I don't think I could move the needle much.

    I remember that Warren event because like my wife she's an attorney who taught law and who had a solo practice focused on estate planning and real estate. We ended up just networking with people in our industries and never talked to Warren. We were kind of down when we left because Warren's story is so much like my wife's, but Warren's up there selling socialism to an audience making business contacts, i.e. generating the taxes that make those promises possible. People who send a third or more of what they make donate their money to be spent riling up people who mostly pay no income taxes about how they'll spend our taxes.

    I went to a more recent fundraiser for Harris. I thought she was a better speaker. She's like I imagine Reagan or Bill Clinton, would have been to meet in person. They remember names, seem interested and interesting, just great politicians. That's great for Harris, but I don't care.

    I'm pretty disillusioned. I used to be thrilled if I lobbied them successfully on some minor issue, but it just doesn't move the needle enough to be worthwhile. I believe there's a deeper structural problem of the very definition of the role of gov't, and no one's even mentioning it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo