brett05

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 02:22 PM) Care to cite some examples? Been thru this already in this thread I believe. The court is too liberal and needs to change to a more conservative court.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 02:18 PM) The economy is still pretty bad for segments of the population, and we seem to be trending towards a bigger split between haves and have-nots with not as much of a robust middle class any more. So for those people, the economy still sucks in ways that the DJIA or GDP or baseline employment numbers might not reflect. the first political issue we agree upon.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 12:21 PM) Please explain to me what you mean by "constitutional court." One that has judges that do not create law by their judgements, they align it with what the constitution says.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 12:41 PM) I'll go a step further and say if you have young children, how could you not vote for Hilary? Trump as the POTUS is the most dangerous proposition the US, hell the world has faced in years. Hilary may be a unlikable candidate, but she's not going to do something stupid that has grave consequences across the globe. The thought of my son having to deal with the aftermath of a Trump presidency is beyond terrifying. Honestly, I think any US citizen throwing away their vote on an independent candidate in this election is being selfish. Either you're for or against everything Trump stands for, and if you're against like all rational people should be, then you have no choice but voting for Hilary. Maybe that's a hit to your pride, but it's better than living in a world where Donald Trump is the POTUS. You liberals are so funny. Give me Donald time and time again over a Hillary Clinton. It's not even close. But keep the attacks up.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 11:08 AM) To me, the Supreme Court is an extremely good reason to vote for Hillary Clinton if you care at all about social issues. Supreme Court positions are lifetime appointments. If the next President replaces Scalia and Ginsburg, they are shaping the Court for the next 40 years potentially. And with the gay marriage decision out there, and the Right's push to overturn that decision, if you are moderate or progressive on social issues, Clinton is the obvious choice... Replace Clinton with Trump and Progressive with Conservative and you have one of the main reasons I am voting for Donald. We need a constitutional court. You can't get that with someone of Hillary's ilk.

The Republicans found someone to make Trump look good...It's Kaine. Pence could have answered questions if Kaine learned how to be respectful and/or the moderator had the ability to control things. Thankfully for the Clinton supporters the VP debates are near meaningless otherwise this blowout loss for the ticket would be fairly large.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Sep 28, 2016 -> 10:02 PM) WHO COULD HAVE SEEN THIS COMING Obama tried to warn them but Congress didn't even read the bill. Exactly how our current administration wants it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 28, 2016 -> 10:53 AM) Here's a summary of the real post debate polls on who won. Speaking of cherry picking

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Sep 28, 2016 -> 08:55 AM) Yeah, you got salty because you... got stomped in, then you were snarky because you couldn't produce an actual response. lol...*dusts shoes*

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 02:21 PM) It was the post right above his. Promoting non-scientific internet polls as proof that Trump won isn't merely a different viewpoint; it's idiocy. And after SS respectfully explained why that was the case, Brett got salty and snarky. I got salty and snarky? Wow, you all need to spend more time with the non internet world.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 10:02 AM) The third parties need to show up more than once every four years. If you really want the Libertarians or the Green Party to be successful, you need to start building at the local level. 100% correct

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 12:40 PM) CNN and the multiple other legit polls aren't online self-selected response polls that can be rushed by internet mobs and are meaningless. Those sorts of polls are how Stephen Colbert got bridges in eastern europe and part of the space station named after himself, but they aren't statistically valid polls of a sample of the population that you can extrapolate to the population at large. Whatever helps you thru a Clinton loss. Her only hope now is to get Trump to implode.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 10:40 AM) Man, Trump is completely incapable of actually handling someone one on one? That's not really a good quality in a leader. Not the same thing, but I am sure you know that already. Yes because they would ignore CNN and all those polls had similar vote counts and leads...Oh wait...

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 10:14 AM) I do a fair bit of construction work as well, and agree that there are a lot of really crappy contractors. BUT in one breath he says that his hotels are all the best in the world, and in the other breath, the contractors who built them did poor jobs and shouldn't be paid. It can't be both... It can if you need to hire others to repair the trash that was done the first time around like we all do with our own places.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 08:11 AM) There were over a dozen debates in the Republican primary. And how many of those were one on one? That's right...Zero. You are right. I did find a couple more that favored Hillary. 90+% of the polls favor Donald. Deny the truth all you wish my friend.

Hillary wins the debate. But even Donald would have said that given that she's done this what, 17 times and this was Donald's first. That said, every poll that wasn't done by CNN has Donald winning it. And really all Donald wanted to do was not implode and look presidential. He did that with the first debate. And a poll that just came out shows for the first time that Mr. Trump is winning the electoral college now as well. Donald left so many doors wide open and could have really hurt the Clinton campaign but didn't. Was it reserve or more than likely lack of experience? Good question. That said, Donald wasn't going after Hillary supporters. Not after indies really. He went after the Republicans that were sitting on the sidelines. And he corralled some of those in tonight. Lester Holt was partisan tonight. He went really easy on Hillary and really attacked Donald at times. He also ignored several key areas like immigration being one of them when speaking of security. Hillary needs to convince the American people that the last 30 years was not wasted as Trump drove home over and over again.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 22, 2016 -> 03:15 PM) Oh I don't want my post to imply anything other than Trump himself is new levels of awfulness. Bush himself was still a horrible President whose policies harmed millions. Like?

Just got the email from whitesox.com that you can get the last 7 games of the season for a total of $25.00 Here's the link: http://m.mlb.com/whitesox/tickets/info/pas...56071-931187703

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 8, 2016 -> 01:29 PM) I don't think anyone in the dem thread was "complaining" about that, just explaining to greg why Trump dominates the news. I'd definitely agree that Clinton's strategy has been to stand back while he's constantly lighting himself on fire. It's the only strategy she has. She can speak toward the issues, but they don't resonate. She can speak negatively about Trump, and it hurts her numbers. Her only hope if that Trump "free styles" in his speeches. If not, she's dead on arrival.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Sep 8, 2016 -> 03:01 PM) Tell us why you doubt that the law was created to suppress black voters, given (a) the evidence of intent, (b) the fact that it would cause a strong disparate impact between races, (c ) the legislators inability to justify the claimed rationale for the law, and (d) the obvious political benefit they had to gain. I am not saying it didn't. I am taking the middle ground. Not so sure what is so hard to understand about that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 8, 2016 -> 01:38 PM) I'm not sure what the first link is supposed to do. You still haven't responded to anything at all about the case in question and why it isn't as obviously racially motivated as it appears. I don't know how to answer you. It's easier than rigging a box or losing a box. I'll Trump it for you....Trust Me, Believe Me In Person Voter Fraud would be very difficult. I have not had my way refuted in this thread. Buying votes is absolutely voter fraud. You are making assumptions here about voter turnout. There's a reason everyone outside of the dems complain about the system today.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 8, 2016 -> 11:36 AM) I provided a link to the court ruling. You're claiming it's "leftist" for reasons that are unexplained, but you haven't actually presented any sort of argument or rebuttal beyond "nuh uh!" You've continued to do that same thing here. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cou...65bc_story.html http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cour...a-idUSKCN1110BC You misread what I typed. Why would I go and break the law on voting? If you think in-person voter fraud is about the dumbest thing ever you either no little of the world or you're fabricating lies. Not sure any other possible options come to mind on that one. You are by miles giving way, way, way (how many do you think I should type?) credit on facial recognition on election judges. Heck, I make deliveries on a second job and people don't recognize me at times being the guy from the other day doing the same delivery. Again, does not mean it isn't happening. Voter fraud happens more than we know. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/wiscon...ttes-gore-votes Now is it just the Liberals that do this? That would be foolish to think that. It matters not what one registers as. The redistricting that goes on ensures an unfair process. Deny it all you wish.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 8, 2016 -> 08:15 AM) I'm relying on a unanimous court panel interpreting things. And really, it's not even that much of an "interpretation" as it is just stating what the NC legislature explicitly did. You're not actually saying much of anything at all, which is sort of the point. You haven't presented an argument beyond "nuh uh!" You presented a leftist court ruling. My argument is that you can't say one way or the other and you and others have basically shown that with the links that you all provided. Why would I want to try it? It's about the dumbest thing I've read in some time. You are the one that are clueless here. The second time thru it goes like this...."Weren't you here earlier?" ..."No I was not." ..."Would you mind producing some ID for me?"...here I can whine about voter ID or to just keep up the voter fraud and prove that I have not voted yet as myself...."We apologize sir, we just want to make sure the voting process is fair." That's how that goes down. And that assumes they catch on the second time thru. All I need is the name of someone in precinct. So easily gotten. Polling areas aren't that secretive either. That may or may not be true. I disagree and we can agree to do just that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 01:33 PM) You don't seem to have any sort of argument here other than calling anything you don't like liberal. Do you disagree with the bare facts that the court laid out? Why? What evidence do you have to the contrary? Why is it "bold" to call what the NC legislature did racially motivated/targeted? You are interpeting the evidence to fit your narrative. I'm saying you don't have enough. Way to partisan things. No you don't. Yes you do need that. Easy enough to do. The first time thru is a lie and the second time thru if caught you produce an ID to prove who you are. A minimum of two votes right there. Except I haven't been asked to verify a signature in over 20 years. On top of that, when I voted frmo one cycle to the next my signature was 100% different. You could easily see all 14 letters in my signature one year. The next year you could only make out 1. Not ever questioned either. Let me help you out. https://www.google.com/#q=gerrymandering

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 12:34 PM) This is literally Texas' defense for some of their laws http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/texas-voting-ri...-not-about-race Literally the defense on why Chicago is democratic.