RepresentUs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tb-av

Ding ding ding!!!! --- she is a rabid liberal trying to drum up the 18 year old voter. Those that just graduated from High school with a 5th grade education.

---

COME ONE lets be realistic to the lefty kids !!!

its the COLLEGE ones that have the 5th grade equiv
HS just gives em a 3rd grade :)


when I lived in the Caribbean one of my best friends had about a 4th grade education but the dude knew a freaking ton about history and our country spoke two languages fluently and so on on top of it of course he was very good at just life doing things working ethics and so on


whats sad is watching things like this at how stupid people are anymorehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy5u2DIA2c8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsbhike

That's a dangerous game to the tune of that is what the road to hell is paved with.


Violations of the Constitution should have been treated as treason. As an early example, had Adams and his cronies been sent to prison (or the here after) over the sedition acts we wouldn't have many of the problems we have today.

---

Fully agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Honu

would bypassing congress be bad ? yeah bad
would not putting candidates like President Trump on ballots ? yeah bad
making sure large liberal cities have the most power to vote ? yeah bad
mob rule or those with the biggest voice that control media taking away your rights ? yeah bad

etc...

---

I didn’t every suggest any of those things. Bypassing congress and congressional reform are two, entirely different things. Also, Congress having to actually listen to their constituents is not mob rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tb-av

Ding ding ding!!!! --- she is a rabid liberal trying to drum up the 18 year old voter. Those that just graduated from High school with a 5th grade education.

---

There’s a lot of objection the the OP in this thread - and almost all of it revolves around her. Maybe the safest decision, but that’s a weak argument for it. I’m curious what people think beyond just the chick they have talking because I don’t think that actually matters a whole lot.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wake27

There’s a lot of objection the the OP in this thread - and almost all of it revolves around her. Maybe the safest decision, but that’s a weak argument for it. I’m curious what people think beyond just the chick they have talking because I don’t think that actually matters a whole lot.

---

Here is my perspective:

Most of what they said was absolutely correct.

Most of our representatives are unduly influenced by whatever the 0.05% of Americans that contribute over $10,000 to their campaigns and their PAC's - regardless of whether they are Democrats or Republicans.

I mostly agree with the numbers that they presented reference how folks describe themselves - 25% Liberal, 34% Moderate, 36% Conservative - although I think some of the self-described Liberals and Conservatives are actually moderates.

I also don't think you can probably find much fault with any of the studies they used such as the likelihood of public support resulting in passage of a law, etc.

Bottom line for me is, most of us don't trust each other and we are too dependent on the examples of outliers in forming our opinions. Here are some examples:

1) Do you really think even 30% of Americans support open borders and unlimited immigration? I don't.
2) Do you really think over 30% of Americans want third trimester abortions to be available on demand? I don't.
3) Do you really think over 30% of Americans are satisfied with the healthcare system as it is? I don't.
4) Do you really think that a majority of Americans believe that banning 'assault rifles' will significantly impact mass murders? I don't.
5) Do you really think that a majority of Americans believe that firearms should be outlawed? I don't.

Basically, it boils down to: 1) how much you trust your fellow Americans; 2) whether you think shit is broke; and 3) whether you are only willing to act based on how much the broken system impacts you, or whether you are willing to act for the good of all.

JMO

I think she's really hot, especially in Passengers, but that doesn't mean she understands the first thing about anything...especially politics.

I love movies, but actors are nothing more than people who "play pretend" for a living. They actually practice things like looking intelligent, sincere, trustworthy, etc. I'd be more interested in the political opinions of the person who works the checkout register at the grocery store. At least they actually know what it means to work for a living.

But a long, long time ago somebody figured out that if people believe "daily soaps" are real, they are probably stupid enough and impressionable enough to buy into the integrity of actors because they "look the part." Of course, we've been doing that with actual politicians a lot longer than there has been television or movies.

There are damn few Hollywood people who share any of your opinions or values. There are probably more people in Congress who actually give a damn about what you think than in Hollywood, and pretty much everyone in Congress is just there for the money.

Y’all realize that women like her would be working in a whorehouse 160 years ago, yes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 26 Inf

Here is my perspective:

Most of what they said was absolutely correct.

Most of our representatives are unduly influenced by whatever the 0.05% of Americans that contribute over $10,000 to their campaigns and their PAC's - regardless of whether they are Democrats or Republicans.

I mostly agree with the numbers that they presented reference how folks describe themselves - 25% Liberal, 34% Moderate, 36% Conservative - although I think some of the self-described Liberals and Conservatives are actually moderates.

I also don't think you can probably find much fault with any of the studies they used such as the likelihood of public support resulting in passage of a law, etc.

Bottom line for me is, most of us don't trust each other and we are too dependent on the examples of outliers in forming our opinions. Here are some examples:

1) Do you really think even 30% of Americans support open borders and unlimited immigration? I don't.
2) Do you really think over 30% of Americans want third trimester abortions to be available on demand? I don't.
3) Do you really think over 30% of Americans are satisfied with the healthcare system as it is? I don't.
4) Do you really think that a majority of Americans believe that banning 'assault rifles' will significantly impact mass murders? I don't.
5) Do you really think that a majority of Americans believe that firearms should be outlawed? I don't.

Basically, it boils down to: 1) how much you trust your fellow Americans; 2) whether you think shit is broke; and 3) whether you are only willing to act based on how much the broken system impacts you, or whether you are willing to act for the good of all.

JMO

---

I probably disagree with 30% of this forum on every issue other than guns, so yeah I have no problem believing 1/3 of this country is effin retarded. Most of them don't even form actual opinions but just repeat what they read on facebook.

I put very little trust in my fellow Americans. 30% of them apparently think Nancy Pelosi is doing a great job. That alone scares the crap out of me.

I also don't think anything is broken so much as I think it's as "fixed" as it was capable of being fixed about 50 years ago and 90% of what has been done since then to make it "more fixed" has mostly had the opposite effect. We keep believing we can legislate solutions to everything, but I think at this point we soundly demonstrated that simply isn't the case.

Some things can never be fixed, like people who believe stupid shit. Some things are probably as good as they are ever going to get, like people who let stupid biases and beliefs color how they judge other people. And more than anything else, the only way things are going to get "good" is if it's been "really bad" for awhile. The 1950s were seen as some kind of golden age and it wasn't because everything was perfect it was simply because it was a lot better than most of the 1930s and 1940s where really terrible things kept happening to just about everyone all the damn time.

When you survive a year like 1945, where almost every person on the planet was touched by war in some way, shape or form, the 1950s really do seem like Happy Days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

I think she's really hot, especially in Passengers, but that doesn't mean she understands the first thing about anything...especially politics.

I love movies, but actors are nothing more than people who "play pretend" for a living. They actually practice things like looking intelligent, sincere, trustworthy, etc. I'd be more interested in the political opinions of the person who works the checkout register at the grocery store. At least they actually know what it means to work for a living.

But a long, long time ago somebody figured out that if people believe "daily soaps" are real, they are probably stupid enough and impressionable enough to buy into the integrity of actors because they "look the part." Of course, we've been doing that with actual politicians a lot longer than there has been television or movies.

There are damn few Hollywood people who share any of your opinions or values. There are probably more people in Congress who actually give a damn about what you think than in Hollywood, and pretty much everyone in Congress is just there for the money.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

I probably disagree with 30% of this forum on every issue other than guns, so yeah I have no problem believing 1/3 of this country is effin retarded. Most of them don't even form actual opinions but just repeat what they read on facebook.

I put very little trust in my fellow Americans. 30% of them apparently think Nancy Pelosi is doing a great job. That alone scares the crap out of me.

I also don't think anything is broken so much as I think it's as "fixed" as it was capable of being fixed about 50 years ago and 90% of what has been done since then to make it "more fixed" has mostly had the opposite effect. We keep believing we can legislate solutions to everything, but I think at this point we soundly demonstrated that simply isn't the case.

Some things can never be fixed, like people who believe stupid shit. Some things are probably as good as they are ever going to get, like people who let stupid biases and beliefs color how they judge other people. And more than anything else, the only way things are going to get "good" is if it's been "really bad" for awhile. The 1950s were seen as some kind of golden age and it wasn't because everything was perfect it was simply because it was a lot better than most of the 1930s and 1940s where really terrible things kept happening to just about everyone all the damn time.

When you survive a year like 1945, where almost every person on the planet was touched by war in some way, shape or form, the 1950s really do seem like Happy Days.

---

Good points. Though I do still think, if nothing else, that term limits have to be introduced. The fact that being a politician is a full time job now is an indicator that something is wrong because they damn sure don’t do that much work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wake27

There’s a lot of objection the the OP in this thread - and almost all of it revolves around her. Maybe the safest decision, but that’s a weak argument for it. I’m curious what people think beyond just the chick they have talking because I don’t think that actually matters a whole lot.

---

Ok, well let's just pretend it's Hillary, Fauxahontas, AOC, Schulosi, Obama, etc.

Now go back and listen to 8:35 - 8:40

"This isn't about these issues, this is about a winning political strategy"

It's interesting to note as well, right after she says that, she tells you how tings are going to be.... Then a guy walks in, he looks small because he is set in the background. "Can I do this part?" ... "No..." He walks away in shame. That scene was no accident.

the Left is very good at picking small fights, staying in the fight, winning at all cost with excellent media backing, then as she, it becomes a Federal sweep of their desires. That would be ok, if all their desires were just, moral, etc.. and all their actions fair.... but just look at Jussie Smollett <sp> . They sound good on the surface but are corrupt in their finality. Let's all have peace on earth. Sounds good, who wouldn't want that? ... Their solution? Throw all the weapons in the ocean and give away all our technology. Certainly the rest of the world would follow suit. Great idea, Horrible action.

While I agree that we’re need to do something about the influence of big political donors in DC, I’m not sure their solution is the way to go.

Gerrymandering will never be impartial, no matter who draws the line. I’m especially leery of automatic voter registration and vote from home. Way too easy for non citizens to register to vote with “automatic registration” and “vote from home” sets the stage for vote harvesting. This is exactly what the left wants.

To start, IMHO, we need:

- Federal Term Limits: No more than 12 combined years of elected federal service (Any combination of House, Senate, President and Supreme Court)

- Voter ID w/ in person voting only (exceptions for those in the military and other federal service)

- Non Compete Clause: This is similar to one change proposed in the video, but it would require those that serve in elected positions to sign an agreement that would prevent them working for any lobbying forum or be involved in any lobbying efforts for a specified amount of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Firefly

Y’all realize that women like her would be working in a whorehouse 160 years ago, yes?

---

The goal is set. Now we only have to figure out how to get you in to one of her press conferences. :)