Thread: 2016 Democratic US Presidential Candidates

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by baldrick

Originally Posted by RPETER65

backed an assault on Lybia

fcuk off - hillary would back an assault on your cloaca as she is of that genre that believes everything should be solved by seppo might and it is right

the recent article by goldberg on obama and the flurry of follow up articles by journalists around the world has shown that washington is full of war hawks with nary a real uderstanding of the realities outside their very fcuking rich sheltered existance

obama's stand in the 2013 syrian red line descision should be recognised as the mark of a great statesman and realist and america should be very thankful to have such a person in command

But of course you do have understanding of it all?

Obama had no stand on the Syrian red line decision, he simply ran his mouth on something he had no desire to back up.

You clearly didn't follow what happened.

Ultimately, the threat resulted in Assad handing over all of his chemical weapons.

You are obviously just another "Bomb Anything" merchant.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

He did nothing to back up his talk, nothing, all he did was make himself a laughing stalk in front of the whole world.

no most of the world believes Obama has done a good job turning around the mess left by the GOP and Bush. Most of the world now thinks Americans are idiots based on the possible GOP candidates for president. Cruz and Trump, no way I could ever explain that to my non US friends. Many of my conservative America friends dont believe it themselves. In all honesty JPeters you are one of two people I know who could support either of those candidates.

Originally Posted by aging one

Originally Posted by RPETER65

He did nothing to back up his talk, nothing, all he did was make himself a laughing stalk in front of the whole world.

no most of the world believes Obama has done a good job turning around the mess left by the GOP and Bush. Most of the world now thinks Americans are idiots based on the possible GOP candidates for president. Cruz and Trump, no way I could ever explain that to my non US friends. Many of my conservative America friends dont believe it themselves. In all honesty JPeters you are one of two people I know who could support either of those candidates.

No, I don't support either of those candidates. Trump has won a lot of support from the American people only because he is not an insider in D.C. and I can sympathies with them but Trump is not the man for the job. I think Cruz is quite capable as he has experience in the government and has enough smarts but I don't think he would take on the status quo of how D.C. works. If the democrats had not decided to move the U.S. towards a socialistic government and we're not so anti Christian I could probably support a moderate candidate from them. It could not however be Hillary she carries to much baggage and I think most of that baggage is true. The truth is I am stuck somewhere in between, I would like to see someone take on the mega corporations and at the same time preserve the freedoms that we Americans have always had.scary days ahead for the America I grew up in and love.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by baldrick

Originally Posted by RPETER65

backed an assault on Lybia

fcuk off - hillary would back an assault on your cloaca as she is of that genre that believes everything should be solved by seppo might and it is right

the recent article by goldberg on obama and the flurry of follow up articles by journalists around the world has shown that washington is full of war hawks with nary a real uderstanding of the realities outside their very fcuking rich sheltered existance

obama's stand in the 2013 syrian red line descision should beg recognised as the mark of a great statesman and realist and america should be very thankful to have such a person in command

But of course you do have understanding of it all?

Obama had no stand on the Syrian red line decision, he simply ran his mouth on something he had no desire to back up.

You clearly didn't follow what happened.

Ultimately, the threat resulted in Assad handing over all of his chemical weapons.

You are obviously just another "Bomb Anything" merchant.

You know nothing about what I stand for, I have never said anything about bombing, there were many other things that could have been done for Obama to stand his ground on the line in the sand. He did nothing to back up his talk, nothing, all he did was make himself a laughing stalk in front of the whole world.

Maybe this will help you understand the situation more clearly.

Syria's Chemical Disarmament Mirage - WSJ
The Wall Street Journal & Breaking News, Business, Financial and Economic News, World News and Video › articles › syrias-chemical...

Perhaps one day you might learn to post a fucking link.

You know, like this:

Link

Sanders gets a different kind of protester.

The guy on the right is thinking "Best.Rally.Ever".

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by aging one

Originally Posted by RPETER65

He did nothing to back up his talk, nothing, all he did was make himself a laughing stalk in front of the whole world.

no most of the world believes Obama has done a good job turning around the mess left by the GOP and Bush. Most of the world now thinks Americans are idiots based on the possible GOP candidates for president. Cruz and Trump, no way I could ever explain that to my non US friends. Many of my conservative America friends dont believe it themselves. In all honesty JPeters you are one of two people I know who could support either of those candidates.

No, I don't support either of those candidates. Trump has won a lot of support from the American people only because he is not an insider in D.C. and I can sympathies with them but Trump is not the man for the job. I think Cruz is quite capable as he has experience in the government and has enough smarts but I don't think he would take on the status quo of how D.C. works. If the democrats had not decided to move the U.S. towards a socialistic government and we're not so anti Christian I could probably support a moderate candidate from them. It could not however be Hillary she carries to much baggage and I think most of that baggage is true. The truth is I am stuck somewhere in between, I would like to see someone take on the mega corporations and at the same time preserve the freedoms that we Americans have always had.scary days ahead for the America I grew up in and love.

WOW! Not a post I would have expected from you. You get a well earned green.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by baldrick

fcuk off - hillary would back an assault on your cloaca as she is of that genre that believes everything should be solved by seppo might and it is right

the recent article by goldberg on obama and the flurry of follow up articles by journalists around the world has shown that washington is full of war hawks with nary a real uderstanding of the realities outside their very fcuking rich sheltered existance

obama's stand in the 2013 syrian red line descision should beg recognised as the mark of a great statesman and realist and america should be very thankful to have such a person in command

But of course you do have understanding of it all?

Obama had no stand on the Syrian red line decision, he simply ran his mouth on something he had no desire to back up.

You clearly didn't follow what happened.

Ultimately, the threat resulted in Assad handing over all of his chemical weapons.

You are obviously just another "Bomb Anything" merchant.

You know nothing about what I stand for, I have never said anything about bombing, there were many other things that could have been done for Obama to stand his ground on the line in the sand. He did nothing to back up his talk, nothing, all he did was make himself a laughing stalk in front of the whole world.

Maybe this will help you understand the situation more clearly.

Syria's Chemical Disarmament Mirage - WSJ
The Wall Street Journal & Breaking News, Business, Financial and Economic News, World News and Video › articles › syrias-chemical...

Perhaps one day you might learn to post a fucking link.

You know, like this:

Link

What ever they worked before.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Sanders gets a different kind of protester.

The guy on the right is thinking "Best.Rally.Ever".

Good one Harry

Originally Posted by RPETER65

If the democrats had not decided to move the U.S. towards a socialistic government and we're not so anti Christian

None of which has actually occurred in reality (or anywhere outside of the right-wing echo-chamber).

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by RPETER65

If the democrats had not decided to move the U.S. towards a socialistic government and we're not so anti Christian

None of which has actually occurred in reality (or anywhere outside of the right-wing echo-chamber).

I was so shocked that he said he would consider voting for a Dem that I completely overlooked that idiotic sentence.

Death, taxes, and Repeater posting something dumb.

The only certainties in this life.

The "Don" apparently has a very murky past!

A Mafia Don with a Pompadour | New Eastern Outlook

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by RPETER65

If the democrats had not decided to move the U.S. towards a socialistic government and we're not so anti Christian

None of which has actually occurred in reality (or anywhere outside of the right-wing echo-chamber).

I was so shocked that he said he would consider voting for a Dem that I completely overlooked that idiotic sentence.

Why would you be shocked that I could consider voting for a democrat, I have stated more than once that I have no political party affiliation.

You are only kidding yourself if you think modern day democrats are not pushing for a socialistic, or as you prefer to say, democratic socialist government.

It is quite obvious, with all the law suits involving Christians and their beliefs, the modern day democrats are at least somewhat anti Christian.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

It is quite obvious, with all the law suits involving Christians and their beliefs, the modern day democrats are at least somewhat anti Christian.

The lawsuits are almost 100% to stop militant god bothering bigots imposing their religious beliefs on others.

No one gives a shit what Christians want to believe in, but they do give a shit when Christians think they can tell others what they should do.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

It is quite obvious, with all the law suits involving Christians and their beliefs, the modern day democrats are at least somewhat anti Christian.

Name one instance.
What utter paranoid blather.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

It is quite obvious, with all the law suits involving Christians and their beliefs, the modern day democrats are at least somewhat anti Christian.

The lawsuits are almost 100% to stop militant god bothering bigots imposing their religious beliefs on others.

No one gives a shit what Christians want to believe in, but they do give a shit when Christians think they can tell others what they should do.

What you fail to address is that the law suits are mostly about forcing Christians to do things that violate their beliefs.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

It is quite obvious, with all the law suits involving Christians and their beliefs, the modern day democrats are at least somewhat anti Christian.

Name one instance.
What utter paranoid blather.

Fining a baker in Washington state for refusing to participate in an activity that violates her Christian faith.

You call it paranoid blather because you are a non believer.

We have had this discussion in the past, we disagree I was stating my thoughts on the supporting candidates for the presidency. You have your ideas and I have mine, move on.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

It is quite obvious, with all the law suits involving Christians and their beliefs, the modern day democrats are at least somewhat anti Christian.

The lawsuits are almost 100% to stop militant god bothering bigots imposing their religious beliefs on others.

No one gives a shit what Christians want to believe in, but they do give a shit when Christians think they can tell others what they should do.

What you fail to address is that the law suits are mostly about forcing Christians to do things that violate their beliefs.

What you fail to understand is that in almost every case it is to stop god botherers discriminating against people on the basis of a book of ancient fairy tales.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

It is quite obvious, with all the law suits involving Christians and their beliefs, the modern day democrats are at least somewhat anti Christian.

Name one instance.
What utter paranoid blather.

Fining a baker in Washington state for refusing to participate in an activity that violates her Christian faith.

In which bit of the Bible does it say a baker can't make a fucking cake for a couple of gays getting married then?

EXCRETUS 3:16?

There was a simple solution. Stick to making cakes for her god botherer friends and don't open a public store.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

It is quite obvious, with all the law suits involving Christians and their beliefs, the modern day democrats are at least somewhat anti Christian.

Name one instance.
What utter paranoid blather.

Fining a baker in Washington state for refusing to participate in an activity that violates her Christian faith.

In which bit of the Bible does it say a baker can't make a fucking cake for a couple of gays getting married then?

EXCRETUS 3:16?

There was a simple solution. Stick to making cakes for her god botherer friends and don't open a public store.

I thought even your limited brain power would have been able to figure it out, I was wrong. God,through his words from the bible,prohibit homosexuality thus participating,or being part of a homosexual wedding would be a violation of her Christian faith. How can that be so hard to understand. The lady was forcing nothing on the two men, nothing at all, she in know way tried to stop them from marrying, choosing not to be part of that wedding.

What makes you think she or any of her friends are God botherers, she has done nothing to interfere with anybody's plans,

What you are saying is, because of her beliefs she has no right to own a bakery making you the real God botherer.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

because of her beliefs she has no right to own a bakery

She can have a bakery but she has no right to refuse offering a customer service because of her belief.

It's the law. Upheld by courts in her state and all others.

Nothing to do with Democrat's.

^ Well it is, as anti discrimination laws based on sexual orientation needed to be put in place, and these trump religious freedom laws, so this is why Christians feel under siege.

both groups need to look for compromises IMO for a truly diverse society.