Activists Threaten Tucker Carlson Outside His Home

Toulon · 2018-11-08T01:59:12+00:00

This is not a polticial post. This is an: ARE YOU KIDDING ME? post. Nobody should be subjected to chants outside their home that indicate that they now kn...

Toulon

Don't kid yourself...Trumpy Bear was elected for more than what you focused on.

There were millions of highly educated intelligent folk who voted for Trump. It's offensive to say that Trump got elected because people are stupid. The Democrats get a lot of votes from very uneducated inner city folk.

I don't believe in pushing people to vote, I believe in pushing the people that do vote into knowing why they're voting. To show up at a polling place and vote straight ticket is plain ignorance. That is how a lot of voting works. Neither side cares about the readiness of any voter so long as they vote for them.

Most of the people who vote have no business voting. Yes, it's your right. That right should come with the desire to know what you're doing. I'd bet it's less than 10% of voters, if that, who have any clue what they're voting for or against.

This country has been doomed by it's moral and ethical decay. Why we pretend it isn't is a whole different discussion.

NEVER equate intelligence with either party.

It is not naive to want to dismantle the two party system. It's only naive because you're conditioned to believe that. Nobody is breaking your arm to vote for a Red or Blue. Why do you? Oh, you see and hear about them on the news? CONDITIONING.

Truly intelligent voters would laugh at the choices and write in their own. Enough intelligent people who aren't conditioned and this country changes forever. I have no faith in that. This is truly Idiocracy.

Sneakylong

Toulon

I think you missed my point. I worked with some very intelligent people (engineers) for example. Very smart in technical mathematics etc... But had no idea how their 401k's worked. No idea how Wall Street worked. Absolutely ignorant regarding financial / investment stuff.

My point is (in general) the electorate is ignorant when it comes to civics. They don't teach it in schools anymore. The best example is Trump who couldn't pass a basic civics exam. Our democracy works best with an educated electorate.

I'm not saying if we had a more educated electorate we still wouldn't see an idiot like Trump get elected. But it would be less likely. Trump getting elected was a black swan event IMO. And I realize even intelligent people can get hoodwinked and scammed by a good con artist. Some very intelligent people can fall for a cult leader.

Sanda Day O'connor has been a big advocate for bring civics back into the classroom. If your educated on how a democracy works, you'd be less likely to vote for someone in your own civically ignorant self image. In other words. I don't know anything civically and therefore I believe a president who is as ignorant as I am civically would make a good president.

meagain

Sneakylong We'll never know how much it affected the election. But we know they tried and got the guy they wanted in office. In an election that was decided by ~ 80,000 votes combined in 3 states, it's not too much of a jump thinking it had some affect.

This is a question I've had for a long time, going back to the presidential election. I have never heard it come up. Why would the Russians want Trump elected, when they already had the Clinton crime family bought and paid for????

professor

meagain This is a question I've had for a long time, going back to the presidential election. I have never heard it come up. Why would the Russians want Trump elected, when they already had the Clinton crime family bought and paid for????

Easy answer to your question: Because they were not. LOL

Ack8236

GLFTPS One point.

Please post your evidence, other than a copy and paste from an alt-right "source".

It amazes me how those that cry FAKE NEWS the loudest, are the quickest to believe stories that fit their beliefs.

Weirfan

Tinker

In reality only tax payers should vote. You don’t pitch in for gas you don’t have a say in where we are going.

Weirfan

Tinker

ZWExton

Tinker In reality only tax payers should vote.

I don't hate this. It seems a conflict of interest for those on the public dole to vote, also. Hard to imagine people who benefit from government entitlements voting to ever reduce government entitlements. Same reason congress shouldn't be able to vote themselves a raise - conflict of interest.

If one contributes nothing to the advancement of government (pays no taxes) why should they decide what to do with the money? If you're not paying in, then I don't see why you have any right to the decision-making process.

Goverment employees really shouldn't be voting either - as if the FBI would ever vote to reduce funding to the FBI, right? Unreasonable to assume they could see that objectively.

KCee

Tinker So Trump would not be allowed to vote? Sorry I had to. FWIW I hate Hillary as well.

Sneakylong

ZWExton

Absolutely nuts. What your saying is only rich people can vote. Or only property owners can vote. OK, then CEO's who get corporate welfare can't vote either.

We've seen this before with women having no vote. I know Republicans want to take the country backwards, but this is crazy.

sdandrea1

How 'bout them Broncos?.......................oh, wait...................

ode

Yikes

meagain

professor Easy answer to your question: Because they were not. LOL

You know and I know that's bullshit.

professor

Toulon The reason I speak as I do about liberalism is it's hidden for years playing possum that it is objective when it's never been nor aimed to be. I find that dishonest and don't respect it.

Like I said. Thanks for the validation.

Toulon Start: My name is professor, and I'm a liberal, and think I'm smarter than you.

For the 30th time - this forum and those that came before. The nickname is "professor" because a golfing buddy back in 1997 found me obsessed with a newly found sport - golf. I found FGI as I was teaching myself to build clubs. Hence, "professor". Thanks for your sanctimony.

Toulon

professor

A great guffaw after reading your reply. I know "professor" is not your name. I know your real name but am not going to use that here out of respect for your privacy.

Hmmmm. I'm almost certain you once typed here that your moniker came from your intelligence and people noticing how you looked at the world like a professor. That goes back to FGI. I'd honestly hunt it down because I believe you said something different back then. 🙂 Too bad I can't.

Oh, and you bet I'm upset at the agenda pulled on me as a impressionable youth. I'm also ticked at all the Saturday morning advertisers that played on me to get me to bother my parents about their products. I hope you realize I'm not wrong about what happened to all of us back then. Pushed into poltitical ideals of TV networks. Many never recovered. I often wonder how people might have turned out if not for the decades long exposure to liberal propaganda. If you think that's a crazy statement, just look at the alternative lifestyle movement, or drug legalization, etc. When it's pushed over and over and over it's finally accepted where it once was rejected. Decades of liberal informercials had its effect on many. That's not wrong. It's fact. The Christian households rejected such messaging on many levels. I'm thankful I had that to counter the media message.

It's not a coincidence a lot of liberal ideology and belief in God is very much at odds.

professor

Toulon Hmmmm. I'm almost certain you once typed here that your moniker came from your intelligence and people noticing how you looked at the world like a professor. That goes back to FGI. I'd honestly hunt it down because I believe you said something different back then. 🙂 Too bad I can't.

You are "almost certain" of a figment of your own imagination. You'll hunt down no such thing because it doesn't exist. But, you remain quite arrogant. Best of luck to you.

Toulon

Here's some right side brainwashing on an incredibly deplorable level...

Toulon

professor

While it's possible I might be misremembering, I'm almost certain I am not. The only arrogance is in my memory which is usually pretty good.

You are right though, I can't go back to FGI and look. She's gone. The one thing that does stand out with your telling of your nickname is the last time it had nothing to do with golf.

If I'm wrong I do apologize. It's not personal. It's just that I really believe you told a different story as to how you got your nickname back on FGI.

ZWExton

Sneakylong

Sneakylong What your saying is only rich people can vote.

Or anyone that pays tax. Is everyone that pays taxes rich?

Talk to me. I imagine a situation in which two kids and their father are voting on whether the kids should have their allowance raised. The kids don't ever vote against that. If it's up to the kids, the family goes broke.

Those dependent on the government seem to be in the same situation to me. A government employee wouldn't vote to reduce the budget of their employer for fear of losing their job, regardless of whether its in the best interest of the country.

I thought it was crazy when it first crossed my mind too, but it seems more reasonable the longer I think on it. I shouldn't get to decide how to spend the money if I'm not putting any in the pot.

Sneakylong

ZWExton

So people who rent shouldn't be able to vote on real estate tax issues. Or only people with kids can vote on whether to build a new school. Only cops and their relatives can vote on crime safety issues.

We don't have litmus tests for voting anymore. And that's a good thing. What your suggesting is nothing more than a poll tax in order to discriminate.

Again, we need to teach more civics in schools, then we would be less likely to repeat history (like your suggesting).

ZWExton

Sneakylong I'm not suggesting any of those other things you listed, and while I see the logical connection you're trying to make, they don't seem similar enough. However, a lot of those issues are tax-related, and you could make strong cases for conflicts of interest. The police should not be deciding whether to increase/decrease the budget for the police, for example.

« Previous Page Next Page »