You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: US Politics Thread
buzzsaw wrote:mitchejw wrote:Ok so you’re saying when i quote you you think I’m putting words in your mouth? I’m just trying to engage you. That’s it. I’ve learned something.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID:
buzzsaw wrote:Please explain how this applies to Iraq. Those aren’t the reasons we originally went there.
THAT'S THE WHOLE QUOTE. I'm not talking to you, I'm talking to someone else, and you replied to MY POST asking about something I never said, asked about, or mentioned.
For some reason I replied to you and here is your further response (we've been through all of this already once):
mitchejw wrote:And maybe that was The deception. They sold the whole thing to the public based on lies and the real agenda was to find a reason to get there so we could police it. I think that goes all the way back to the original question Irish asked.
This has NOTHING to do with what I posted that you responded to. NOTHING. I didn't even use the word Iraq in my original post...I said Middle East. You aren't the victim mitch, you're the disease. Wasn't talking to you, wasn't talking about why we went to Iraq, wasn't talking about a deception or any other way you want to try to twist this that you're being picked on.
All I’m trying to tell you is that i use the reply button indiscriminately...it’s just a means to post ...and sometimes I’m replying to everyone...i didn’t know it was that important you that when i reply to you i need to only end specifically...i view this as more of a round table discussion.
Considering I wasn't at all talking about what you posted about, that's an interesting use of the reply button.
Have a nice day mitch.
Re: US Politics Thread
buzzsaw wrote:I've never in my life met someone that has it pointed out over and over to then how they're wrong, quoted their words proving they were wrong, and yet here we are 8 (maybe...not going to count) pages later trying to absolve themselves of having done anything wrong. It's just stunning. So unwilling to admit he fucked up. Grasping for straws. Changing the narrative. Denying things he's quoted as saying. It's amazing.
Have a nice day mitch is now my response to everything. Most places would have banned him (again) by now, but that's cool. I'll just treat him like the two year old that he's acting like until he grows up.
I posted my source for my claim about military funding. I’ll bet you didn’t even click on it.
The US budget and the discretionary budget added together show a huge piece of the pie from varying degrees over the last 50 years from 50% to approaching 70%
If you choose not to look or understand that that’s on you.
Nope. You know why? I wasn't involved in that discussion either. Don't care about the details. We spend so other countries don't have to. That's the extent of my involvement in that discussion. It's like you just hit reply and spew things without understanding who you're talking to and what you're talking about.
Have a nice day mitch.
Re: US Politics Thread
mitchejw wrote:buzzsaw wrote:I've never in my life met someone that has it pointed out over and over to then how they're wrong, quoted their words proving they were wrong, and yet here we are 8 (maybe...not going to count) pages later trying to absolve themselves of having done anything wrong. It's just stunning. So unwilling to admit he fucked up. Grasping for straws. Changing the narrative. Denying things he's quoted as saying. It's amazing.
Have a nice day mitch is now my response to everything. Most places would have banned him (again) by now, but that's cool. I'll just treat him like the two year old that he's acting like until he grows up.
I posted my source for my claim about military funding. I’ll bet you didn’t even click on it.
The US budget and the discretionary budget added together show a huge piece of the pie from varying degrees over the last 50 years from 50% to approaching 70%
If you choose not to look or understand that that’s on you.
Nope. You know why? I wasn't involved in that discussion either. Don't care about the details. We spend so other countries don't have to. That's the extent of my involvement in that discussion. It's like you just hit reply and spew things without understanding who you're talking to and what you're talking about.
Have a nice day mitch.
K
Re: US Politics Thread
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-ne … ple-states
Didn’t know this was ok.
Re: US Politics Thread
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-ne … ple-states
Didn’t know this was ok.
If you stop and think about it, it makes sense if you own property you use as a residence you should get to vote in the local elections for each property. Now if you use them as rental properties, the lines get blurred...you should have representation for local issues such as tax increases and things like that. It's interesting...never really thought about it.
I assume you picked this article to post because of who was identified...it's safe to assume this isn't a one-sided thing that's happening.
Re: US Politics Thread
mitchejw wrote:https://www.usnews.com/news/national-ne … ple-states
Didn’t know this was ok.
If you stop and think about it, it makes sense if you own property you use as a residence you should get to vote in the local elections for each property. Now if you use them as rental properties, the lines get blurred...you should have representation for local issues such as tax increases and things like that. It's interesting...never really thought about it.
I assume you picked this article to post because of who was identified...it's safe to assume this isn't a one-sided thing that's happening.
So, wait, this has never entered my mind. Could you conceivably vote in multiple local elections because of property ownership? How would you stop someone from voting in a presidential election in multiple precincts where they are allowed to vote? No time to research the topic. This is wild.
Re: US Politics Thread
buzzsaw wrote:mitchejw wrote:https://www.usnews.com/news/national-ne … ple-states
Didn’t know this was ok.
If you stop and think about it, it makes sense if you own property you use as a residence you should get to vote in the local elections for each property. Now if you use them as rental properties, the lines get blurred...you should have representation for local issues such as tax increases and things like that. It's interesting...never really thought about it.
I assume you picked this article to post because of who was identified...it's safe to assume this isn't a one-sided thing that's happening.
So, wait, this has never entered my mind. Could you conceivably vote in multiple local elections because of property ownership? How would you stop someone from voting in a presidential election in multiple precincts where they are allowed to vote? No time to research the topic. This is wild.
I'd never thought about it either. If you own multiple properties, you have the right to vote on local representation (I would think). Do you have to identify a "permanent" residence and that is where you vote on national elections? Not sure...it's an interesting point.
Re: US Politics Thread
mitchejw wrote:https://www.usnews.com/news/national-ne … ple-states
Didn’t know this was ok.
If you stop and think about it, it makes sense if you own property you use as a residence you should get to vote in the local elections for each property. Now if you use them as rental properties, the lines get blurred...you should have representation for local issues such as tax increases and things like that. It's interesting...never really thought about it.
I assume you picked this article to post because of who was identified...it's safe to assume this isn't a one-sided thing that's happening.
I don’t think it’s a one sided thing...but Trump is the one most concerned about voter impropriety...as the article states, its not illegal...but it is a bit unsettling.
I wonder if i can vote in Wisconsin bc i own a modest property there.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
You can’t vote in multiple states or places. Being registered isn’t the same as voting. If anything, this article is a great example of why we should be like every other first world nation and have controls over elections. Democrats fight for laws that keep people registered in multiple places, rather than policing them up.
