2020 Election
Quote: Mission146I would argue that there is no such thing as a, "Permanent residence," in the sense that one is never absolutely guaranteed to live in one select place permanently. That said, in the twelve month cycle that is a school year, an individual will spend more time than not in the place where that individual attends school. As such, I see no reason why that location cannot be the person's legal address if the person wishes it to be.
Again, I'm not opposed to additional criteria for same, such as switching one's driver's license.
You're first line is just playing silly word games. I have explained the rest and why "time" is not the issue several times today.
Quote: rxwineNot sure I've ever heard you suggest one thing that doesn't make it harder for Democrats or likely Democratic bases to access voting.
I do not get why the Democrat base always needs to have voting made "easier" for them. Why can they not do the simple things that you need to do to vote? Are they that helpless?
I want clean elections. Allowing students to register at school makes it easier for them to double-vote.
Quote: AZDuffmanI want clean elections.
Do you support Moscow Mitch?
Quote: SteverinosDo you support Moscow Mitch?
No idea what you are talking about.
Quote: AZDuffmanYou're first line is just playing silly word games. I have explained the rest and why "time" is not the issue several times today.
Let's agree that saying time is or is not the issue does not make it so, unless a jurisdiction actually has a time requirement, anyway.
Putting time in and of itself aside, is it not the case that a person who spends more time in one place as opposed to another will pay more sales taxes to the jurisdiction in which the vast majority of the time is spent? Is it not equally the case that, if a person is employed in a jurisdiction with a local income tax, and is employed there, that such tax will go to that jurisdiction?
Is it not also the case that the local economy is boosted by way of this person's presence there? Is it not the case that he presence of these people in that jurisdiction, who then rent from landlords, cause the property values to go up because of the consistent availability of rental income? That when these property values do go up, the appraisal values similarly go up, thereby causing the property taxes that are paid, as a direct result of these people being there, to also go up?
As has been pointed out, in many cases, these students being there does not contribute to the local economy, it IS the local economy. To refuse to provide a path for an individual to vote there is nothing short of taxation without representation.
Quote: AZDuffmanI do not get why the Democrat base always needs to have voting made "easier" for them. Why can they not do the simple things that you need to do to vote? Are they that helpless?
I want clean elections. Allowing students to register at school makes it easier for them to double-vote.
I agree with that. That's why you can, quite simply, make presentment of state-issued identification a prerequisite for registering to vote. Computers can cross-reference with the DMV to make sure that the identification is current and those who have changed their legal addresses are removed from the roster at the appropriate Board of Elections, or equivalent.
Boom. That should be sufficient to remove most (if not all) of the potential for double-voting.
Obviously, penalties for any who deliberately violate the law.
You probably showed picture ID to vote, that also had your social security # on it? I didn't have a problem with that, did you?Quote: SteverinosI'm curious...are you worried about somebody showing up with that identification number, or even somebody just showing up without that number, giving them your address and your name, to vote?
I just don't see voter impersonation as a problem. I think the number I remember sticking out to me was 35 cases over 15 years and 800 million national ballots with millions more at the local level. Don't quote me on that, it's just what I recall. I think that study was conducted over the 15 year period that included the Bush administration which spent years cracking down on voter fraud and produced next to no results.
Quote: petroglyphYou probably showed picture ID to vote, that also had your social security # on it? I didn't have a problem with that, did you?Quote: SteverinosI'm curious...are you worried about somebody showing up with that identification number, or even somebody just showing up without that number, giving them your address and your name, to vote?
I just don't see voter impersonation as a problem. I think the number I remember sticking out to me was 35 cases over 15 years and 800 million national ballots with millions more at the local level. Don't quote me on that, it's just what I recall. I think that study was conducted over the 15 year period that included the Bush administration which spent years cracking down on voter fraud and produced next to no results.
My license does not have my SS# on it. To answer your question, no, I didn't have a problem showing my ID.
Quote: petroglyphYou probably showed picture ID to vote, that also had your social security # on it? I didn't have a problem with that, did you?
Your ID has your SSN on it? Ugh. Not a fan.
Quote: Mission146Your ID has your SSN on it? Ugh. Not a fan.
I think most places have gotten rid of that.
Quote: Mission146
As has been pointed out, in many cases, these students being there does not contribute to the local economy, it IS the local economy. To refuse to provide a path for an individual to vote there is nothing short of taxation without representation.
If they want to vote there then they can set up a domicile there. They do not do this. They come in, go to school, and go HOME. Giving them a vote is giving outsiders a vote. It is like saying why not give Mexican seasonal farm labor a vote since they are working here and paying sales taxes until they leave at the end of the season.
If they want to be represented they can go to a school local to home, no?
Quote: aceofspadesHow about they vote where they are claimed as dependents on their parents' tax returns?
Dad's divorced and moved to Iowa. Moms remarried and lives in Florida. I live on campus ten months of the year and work at a sleep away camp in the summer. What connection do I have to Iowa or Florida? Why should any of that prevent me from voting where I go to school and live.
I'm pretty sure most court cases have ruled in favor of students voting in local elections, although it's not a subject I have followed since I graduated.
Alaska driver licenses did until sometime in the 90's. iianmQuote: SteverinosQuote: petroglyphYou probably showed picture ID to vote, that also had your social security # on it? I didn't have a problem with that, did you?Quote: SteverinosI'm curious...are you worried about somebody showing up with that identification number, or even somebody just showing up without that number, giving them your address and your name, to vote?
I just don't see voter impersonation as a problem. I think the number I remember sticking out to me was 35 cases over 15 years and 800 million national ballots with millions more at the local level. Don't quote me on that, it's just what I recall. I think that study was conducted over the 15 year period that included the Bush administration which spent years cracking down on voter fraud and produced next to no results.
My license does not have my SS# on it. To answer your question, no, I didn't have a problem showing my ID.
I think it was everyone that acquired their ss card in the state had the first 3 digits the same, which ID'd the state on the ss card, the rest of the 7 digits were different for each person of course, but those 7 digits were on earlier DL's., again, iianm. It is no longer that way.
https://azdailysun.com/social-security-numbers-still-on-millions-of-motorists-driver-s/article_2665789d-823e-5ac4-8caa-ff30c61ec2aa.html
It says right on my ss card, "not to be used for ID"Quote: Mission146Your ID has your SSN on it? Ugh. Not a fan.
This article that is difficult to pull up says 9.4 millionQuote: AZDuffmanI think most places have gotten rid of that.
https://azdailysun.com/social-security-numbers-still-on-millions-of-motorists-driver-s/article_2665789d-823e-5ac4-8caa-ff30c61ec2aa.html
Quote: AZDuffmanIf they want to vote there then they can set up a domicile there. They do not do this. They come in, go to school, and go HOME. Giving them a vote is giving outsiders a vote. It is like saying why not give Mexican seasonal farm labor a vote since they are working here and paying sales taxes until they leave at the end of the season.
If they want to be represented they can go to a school local to home, no?
I would argue that a dorm room or other place they are renting is a domicile.
Quote: petroglyphIt says right on my ss card, "not to be used for ID"
Old man!
Quote: petroglyphThis article that is difficult to pull up says 9.4 million
https://azdailysun.com/social-security-numbers-still-on-millions-of-motorists-driver-s/article_2665789d-823e-5ac4-8caa-ff30c61ec2aa.html
That would mean "most."
Here is a worse thing. I regularly find old docs with a SS number right there for pubic view. Today they redact them, not so much pre-1990s in the county I am working now.
I seem to fill out my share of paperwork for Dr. visits. One of the recurring questions is what is your social? I continue to put N/A. Some doc's ask, none object. But how silly can people be, with the constant reports of data leaks, to freely give out their most personal #, when it isn't supposed to be used for ID?Quote: AZDuffmanThat would mean "most."
Here is a worse thing. I regularly find old docs with a SS number right there for pubic view. Today they redact them, not so much pre-1990s in the county I am working now.
That probably puts me on another list.
Quote: Mission146...The law is not targeting one person...
Quote: Mission146...I do believe that it’s a direct attack on Trump...
Pick one.
rates are already very low - 1.75% on the 10 year treasury note
if the economy weakens significantly the Fed won't really have lowering rates in their playbook
cutting rates from 1.5% to 1.25% doesn't have anywhere near the impact of cutting rates from 4% to 3%
and they don't have any other plays in their playbook - that's about it - other than that the power of the Federal Reserve is largely ceremonial
China just announced it will not longer buy American agricultural products
another body blow to the farmers - who have already absorbed several body blows
they will now have to rely on T's welfare package and figure out how to dump their products at gigantic discounts
Quote: Steverinos
People have been told to be paranoid about this. The truth is that people are not stealing your votes by means of voter impersonation, which is the type of fraud voter ID laws are designed to prevent.
Probably true. Not because it would be difficult to do; just because it just isn't worth it. There are probably around 1000 workers at my hospital that have access to patient's computer charts, all with identifying information. So being armed with the 500 people you know won't be able to make it to the polls could be used nefariously. I understand the fears of disenfranchisement. President SOOPOO makes it a priority to get everyone that does not have an ID, an ID. Free. I'll even throw in free transportation to the ID office. And I'll pay for lots of counselors and helpers to get people the documentation they need.
I think the number of cases of voter fraud is probably way higher than the 'studies' show, but still way lower than many on the right feel it is. Having done research in the medical field, I frankly cannot begin to guess how they would do a study designed to predict a prevalence of voter fraud.
The solution to this depends on your answer to this question....
Is it OK to disenfranchise 1 legal voter if it prevents 10 cases of voter fraud? 50 cases? 2 cases?
Remember, 2 cases, if they predominantly favor one side, does essentially disenfranchise 2 votes for the other side. You just won't know it.
Quote: SOOPOO
I think the number of cases of voter fraud is probably way higher than the 'studies' show, but still way lower than many on the right feel it is. Having done research in the medical field, I frankly cannot begin to guess how they would do a study designed to predict a prevalence of voter fraud.
Vote fraud goes way back in the USA. IIRC during Bloody Kansas some places had several times as many votes as voters. Some of it we can never know. What we do know is how crazy the left goes over the idea of checking ID to vote. They demand ID to buy ammo in CA to stop gun violence, but to stop vote fraud? Then they just insist vote fraud is not happening!
Need state issued ID to get a legit job. Need it to open a bank account. Are they really saying there are all these people just living in the underground economy?
Remember the millions of dependents that vanished from IRS forms when a SS was needed to claim a dependent? That is how we will find out on vote fraud. Check the first elections after it is required. Even if there is not one fraudulent vote, requiring ID just makes sense.
And if "they don't have it?" Then go get it. You need it to be a grown up. Enough excuses.
Quote: RSPick one.
You don't need to pick one.
You need to decide that if a law follows the letter of the law, such as applying equally to everyone, if it matters WHY a law was passed.
Because of the WHY, there is a good chance this would get overturned when challenged.
The same thing has happened to Trump. The most recent example I can think of is WHY the citizen question needed to be on the census. The real reason why.
Quote: AZDuffmanThen they just insist vote fraud is not happening!
We actually did have an investigation showing Russia influence in our elections. Guess which side is either denying it altogether or just shrugging it off if they do believe it?
Please continue the hysterical handwaving about voter fraud.
Quote: RSPick one.
page 452
I did. The law is not only not a punishment, but it also does not only apply to Trump. It applies to anyone who wishes to be on the ballot in California. Both statements are true.
1.) It's an attack on Trump.
2.) It's not targeting one person, unless only one person ever wants to be on the ballot again.
Quote: SOOPOOProbably true. Not because it would be difficult to do; just because it just isn't worth it. There are probably around 1000 workers at my hospital that have access to patient's computer charts, all with identifying information. So being armed with the 500 people you know won't be able to make it to the polls could be used nefariously. I understand the fears of disenfranchisement. President SOOPOO makes it a priority to get everyone that does not have an ID, an ID. Free. I'll even throw in free transportation to the ID office. And I'll pay for lots of counselors and helpers to get people the documentation they need.
Nice, we agree!
Quote:I think the number of cases of voter fraud is probably way higher than the 'studies' show, but still way lower than many on the right feel it is. Having done research in the medical field, I frankly cannot begin to guess how they would do a study designed to predict a prevalence of voter fraud.
Exactly. Is the number of people who run red lights equal to the number of people who received tickets for running red lights, or is it a greater number than that?
Quote: rxwineNot sure I've ever heard you suggest one thing that doesn't make it harder for Democrats or likely Democratic bases to access voting.
Are you implying the Democratic base does not have the wherewithal to obtain a valid ID?
Quote: aceofspadesAre you implying the Democratic base does not have the wherewithal to obtain a valid ID?
It's much more complicated than that. If you're not simply baiting him with a skewed question, there's a long history, from required land ownership to gender/race requirements to poll taxes to reading tests to deliberately changing voter ID requirements, all designed to disenfranchise "some" US voters. The idea of 1 citizen, 1 vote, is only relatively recently recognized as a right without caveats.
Legislatures as recently as 2012 bragged about how their newly - passed restrictions would keep "some" people from voting, by picking and choosing among otherwise acceptable forms if ID . Add in purges of certain ethnic names and ridiculous barrings for voter roll typos and other errata, and there's a clear chain of manipulation.
So, yeah, voter ID should be required. But it shouldn't be so limited or expensive that it excludes the poorest.
Quote: beachbumbabsIt's much more complicated than that. If you're not simply baiting him with a skewed question, there's a long history, from required land ownership to gender/race requirements to poll taxes to reading tests to deliberately changing voter ID requirements, all designed to disenfranchise "some" US voters. The idea of 1 citizen, 1 vote, is only relatively recently recognized as a right without caveats.
Legislatures as recently as 2012 bragged about how their newly - passed restrictions would keep "some" people from voting, by picking and choosing among otherwise acceptable forms if ID . Add in purges of certain ethnic names and ridiculous barrings for voter roll typos and other errata, and there's a clear chain of manipulation.
So, yeah, voter ID should be required. But it shouldn't be so limited or expensive that it excludes the poorest.
Babs - the key takeaway from your thoughtful post is, for me, "1 citizen, 1 vote" - with the keyword being "citizen" - what would your plan be to certify whether or not the voter is a citizen and then, whether they are the citizen they claim to be?
JUDICIAL WATCH SUES OVER CALIFORNIA LAW REQUIRING PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES APPEARING ON PRIMARY BALLOT TO DISCLOSE TAX RETURNS
Quote: beachbumbabs
So, yeah, voter ID should be required. But it shouldn't be so limited or expensive that it excludes the poorest.
Which is why we on the right are happy with it being drivers license or non-operator ID. Easy to get, needed to conduct a normal life. Inexpensive.
Did I miss the call for Warren to cancel hers since the Dayton shooter supported her?
Dems never miss an opportunity to use a tragedy for political gain, never.
Truly disgusting people running that party.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhich is why we on the right are happy with it being drivers license or non-operator ID. Easy to get, needed to conduct a normal life. Inexpensive.
BBB and I are on the left and it seems that we agree with you on this issue. SOOPOO seems to believe that a non-operator ID could be provided freely either for everyone or for low-income (he’s on the right) and I’m obviously not opposed to that.
I don’t see the harm in paying for an actual driver’s license, provided that they are not made prohibitively expensive. If you’re driving, then you should have insurance which generally costs more than the license itself, as well as gas, which cumulatively generally costs more than the license itself.
As far as citizenship protections are concerned, licenses issued to non-citizens should have a special designation on them that indicates to the Board of Elections (or equivalent) that the holder of the ID is not authorized to register to vote. The Board of Elections should require ID to register and then ID should be required to vote. A request for an absentee ballot should include a photographic copy of the ID accompanying the request, or in the alternative, the ballot itself should include a copy of the ID.
Quote: BozJust as Rush predicted yesterday, the crazy left is calling for Trump to cancel his rally next week.
Did I miss the call for Warren to cancel hers since the Dayton shooter supported her?
Dems never miss an opportunity to use a tragedy for political gain, never.
Truly disgusting people running that party.
Fundraising off of it, playing politics off the tragedy. Telling a POTUS he is not welcome. They are disgusting human beings.
Quote: AZDuffmanFundraising off of it, playing politics off the tragedy. Telling a POTUS he is not welcome. They are disgusting human beings.
How many millions of dollars do you think Republicans raised fundraising off of Benghazi? How many fundraising e-mails were sent to YOUR e-mail inbox asking you to fill out a "Benghazi acocuntability survey" and asking for a donation of up to $500?
How many democrats have screamed at Trump during a State of the Union speech calling him a liar? Did you say anything when Republican local leaders in Roseburg, Oregon said Obama wasn't welcome there? Were you outraged? Did you call them "disgusting human beings?"
It sounds like you don't want to talk about the politics surrounding gun violence. "Now's not the time." They say that EVERY time, which means, there's NEVER a time. Which means we're stuck in this rinse/repeat cycle where nothing gets done. Enough is enough.
Biggest group of hypocrites ever assembled is the current version of the GOP.
Quote: SteverinosHow many millions of dollars do you think Republicans raised fundraising off of Benghazi? How many fundraising e-mails were sent to YOUR e-mail inbox asking you to fill out a "Benghazi acocuntability survey" and asking for a donation of up to $500?
How many democrats have screamed at Trump during a State of the Union speech calling him a liar? Did you say anything when Republican local leaders in Roseburg, Oregon said Obama wasn't welcome there? Were you outraged? Did you call them "disgusting human beings?"
It sounds like you don't want to talk about the politics surrounding gun violence. "Now's not the time." They say that EVERY time, which means, there's NEVER a time. Which means we're stuck in this rinse/repeat cycle where nothing gets done. Enough is enough.
Biggest group of hypocrites ever assembled is the current version of the GOP.
Not really, that would be your party. Screaming "racism" at anything they dislike. Now that "racism" has lost its edge they graduated to "white supremacy." Then they have the gall to say the GOP is the side spreading hate? Dems publicly wrote off the white working class last couple elections. Now we see why! Their intention is to separate people based on race, a long Democrat Party tradition.
Maybe you do not see how Benghazi is not a valid comparison. See, then the woman who said she "was ready for the 3:00 AM phone call" withheld security and said, "blame a youtube video, let me sleep!" BTW: I did not receive any emails on it, and would not give anyways. Only suckers donate to politicians.
Quote: Boz
Truly disgusting people running that party.
These are the type of posts that incite hate
Quote: AZDuffmanNot really, that would be your party. Screaming "racism" at anything they dislike. Now that "racism" has lost its edge they graduated to "white supremacy." Then they have the gall to say the GOP is the side spreading hate? Dems publicly wrote off the white working class last couple elections. Now we see why! Their intention is to separate people based on race, a long Democrat Party tradition.
Maybe you do not see how Benghazi is not a valid comparison. See, then the woman who said she "was ready for the 3:00 AM phone call" withheld security and said, "blame a youtube video, let me sleep!" BTW: I did not receive any emails on it, and would not give anyways. Only suckers donate to politicians.
Only suckers?
How many times during the campaign of 2016 did we have to hear Trump remind us over and over and over again how he used to donate to politicians of every party? I always wondered why anybody who SAYS that somebody is "all talk no action" would CONTINUE to give them money? It never made any sense. And it didn't, because he was...obviously, lying.
I find it hard to believe that you didn't receive any of these FUNDRAISING efforts off the backs of four dead Americans. You're not on any of these lists? I doubt it. I highly highly doubt it.
* A fundraising page from the NRCC with a photo of Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, accompanied by big bold text proclaiming: “Benghazi was a coverup. Demand answers.” — and asking for donations of up to $500.
* A May 2 blog post from the National Republican Senatorial Committee titled “Dude, You’re Being Lied To About Benghazi.” The post was in response to former White House spokesman Tommy Vietor’s appearance on Fox News last week where he used the line “Dude, that was like two years ago.” It concludes: “Americans deserve the truth about Benghazi and it’s clear Democrats will not give it to them. Donate today and elect a Republican Senate majority.”
* A May email blast from the conservative nonprofit Special Ops OPSEC Education Fund that asks for an “immediate contribution” of $25, $50, $100 or more to “hold Obama and Hillary’s feet to the fire until justice is done.”
* A January email from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in the aftermath of the State of the Union noting that Obama “failed to mention Benghazi, the IRS, or the NSA” and asking for donations.
* A John Bolton PAC email from April accused Obama, Clinton and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta of refusing to take responsibility for “leaving Americans to die at the hands of terrorists.”
* An email from Senate candidate Joe Miller saying that there is “strong evidence that senior administration officials crafted a false narrative for purely political purposes.”
* An email this week from Rep. Scott Rigell’s (R-Va.) campaign asking for “$5, $10, $20, or $50 to help keep him in Congress and hold the Administration accountable” that also asks “Why didn’t the military respond to the events in Benghazi Were there even military assets in the region available? If not, why not? Who made the decision not to send support? House Republicans are committed to finding out the truth about Benghazi.”
* An email from House candidate Andy Tobin accusing Obama of “covering up vital information about what happened that night” and asking for donations.
Quote: SteverinosOnly suckers?
How many times during the campaign of 2016 did we have to hear Trump remind us over and over and over again how he used to donate to politicians of every party? I always wondered why anybody who SAYS that somebody is "all talk no action" would CONTINUE to give them money? It never made any sense. And it didn't, because he was...obviously, lying.
He has billions, if he wants to donate he is free to do so. At that level you have to donate, same as if you have a bodega in Ozone Park you have to sponsor the baseball league with no teams.
Quote:I find it hard to believe that you didn't receive any of these FUNDRAISING efforts off the backs of four dead Americans. You're not on any of these lists? I doubt it. I highly highly doubt it.
(list snipped to save space.)
I do not waste my time with spam. If I do not know the sender I rarely open the email. I do not donate to politicians, I would rather donate to the dog pound.
As is the cretin George Soros.Quote: AZDuffmanHe has billions, if he wants to donate he is free to do so. At that level you have to donate, same as if you have a bodega in Ozone Park you have to sponsor the baseball league with no teams.....
https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php
Quote: SteverinosOnly suckers? I always wondered why anybody who SAYS that somebody is "all talk no action" would CONTINUE to give them money? It never made any sense. And it didn't, because he was...obviously, lying.
Politics.
Most of his donations went to Democrats. List
He donated to Hillary, Schumer, John Kerry, Biden and Kamala Harris.
When you’re a builder with international interests, you want as many politicians on your side as you can get.
“...you wanna get along with all sides because you’re gonna need things from everybody. And you wanna get along with all sides, it’s very important.” - Trump
Enter a Name: Open Secrets
Quote: TankoPolitics.
Most of his donations went to Democrats. List
He donated to Hillary, Schumer, John Kerry, Biden and Kamala Harris.
When you’re a builder with international interests, you want as many politicians on your side as you can get.
“...you wanna get along with all sides because you’re gonna need things from everybody. And you wanna get along with all sides, it’s very important.” - Trump
Enter a Name: Open Secrets
I understand all of this. Just don't lie and tell me you weren't getting anything for your money, even if it was just a cozy relationship. He repeatedly, over and over and over again, said that "politicans were all talk no action."
SO QUIT DONATING TO THEM if you believe that.
Quote: Steverinos
I understand all of this. Just don't lie and tell me you weren't getting anything for your money, even if it was just a cozy relationship. He repeatedly, over and over and over again, said that "politicans were all talk no action."
SO QUIT DONATING TO THEM if you believe that.
Quit donating to them, and all of the sudden you have problems with every building permit you file for. The unions suddenly have grievances. There needs to be another environmental impact study.
How do you get the smell of turnips out of your clothes after a long ride?
Quote: AZDuffmanQuit donating to them, and all of the sudden you have problems with every building permit you file for. The unions suddenly have grievances. There needs to be another environmental impact study.
You aren't getting it.
I understand that when you donate, you expect something in return, even if it's just a relationship. What I have a problem with is a guy getting on stage, telling me that all politicians are all talk and no action, but, oh yea, he continued to donate to people that were all talk no action.
Would you continue to pay for something that yielded no results? OF COURSE NOT.
Quote: SteverinosYou aren't getting it.
I understand that when you donate, you expect something in return, even if it's just a relationship. What I have a problem with is a guy getting on stage, telling me that all politicians are all talk and no action, but, oh yea, he continued to donate to people that were all talk no action.
Would you continue to pay for something that yielded no results? OF COURSE NOT.
You are not getting it. They are all talk and no action. Most are just there to live the high life, even more in machine cities like NYC or Chicago. They do not act, they just make sure the powers that be pay to play. And someone, somewhere, is pulling the strings. The real powers. And that is why the establishment hates Trump so much. An outsider dared crash their little party.
Quote: SteverinosYou aren't getting it.
I understand that when you donate, you expect something in return, even if it's just a relationship. What I have a problem with is a guy getting on stage, telling me that all politicians are all talk and no action, but, oh yea, he continued to donate to people that were all talk no action.
Would you continue to pay for something that yielded no results? OF COURSE NOT.
There's this thing called, "Rhetoric," and how it works is...
Quote: Mission146There's this thing called, "Rhetoric," and how it works is...
There's this thing called "lying", and how it works is...get on stage and lie your a** off about everything.
Even to the point of saying you could kill people on 5th ave and get away with it.
Wait, no, THAT's rhetoric. /thumbsup
This whole convo started because AZ said only suckers donate. I merely pointed out that Trump is a sucker because he bragged about donating...over and over. But then, in predictable fashion, he said that Trump wasn't a sucker, but everybody else must be?
Again with the different set of rules for Trump vs. everybody else.
