St Croix Supporters of Donald Trump

I've heard him on one of the radio call in programs.

really? that's pretty cool; we talked to him for a good 45 min. He could barely stand but he was very charismatic... haha

I am planning a move to STX but have sworn to leave the country if Trump is elected so....guess I might need to keep that in mind. STX is technically still the country!

Once you get involved in local politics (and it's hard not to) it will become apparent that we have our very own home-grown dingbats to contend with ...

I am planning a move to STX but have sworn to leave the country if Trump is elected so....guess I might need to keep that in mind. STX is technically still the country!

You could join the hundreds of celebrities and others that did the same thing when Bush was elected.

Oh I'm sure you do Old Tart. Most places do:-) but Trump, well I'll take my chances with island ding bats. At least I would be there:-)

(tu):@)

Honesty, can't see anyone in republican candidates line-up that doesn't make me cringe at the slightest possibility that they could be seriously taken as a candidate for president.

However, I thought that, too, about our present governor and quite a few of our present elected senators.

Where's the icon for barfing?.

Honesty, can't see anyone in republican candidates line-up that doesn't make me cringe at the slightest possibility that they could be seriously taken as a candidate for president.

However, I thought that, too, about our present governor and quite a few of our present elected senators.

Where's the icon for barfing?.

I couldn't agree more, though honestly the Dems aren't looking any better (gee, sounds like every election ever, right?)

if nothing else it's fun to see people speculate down here where we "can't" vote, and it seems to get a bit more focus where it needs to be, on the LOCAL dingbats... haha

Honesty, can't see anyone in republican candidates line-up that doesn't make me cringe at the slightest possibility that they could be seriously taken as a candidate for president.

However, I thought that, too, about our present governor and quite a few of our present elected senators.

Where's the icon for barfing?.[/quote

It's a photo of Hilarious Rodham Clinton.

The Dems are loaded with dinosaurs for this election, just what they purported as a major issue the GOP in the last election.

 

Sure wish we could have an election where we didn't have to vote for the lessor of two (or more) evils. :-X

(tu)

I'd rather have Sen. Sanders as president but even Hillary is better than that line up of morons the republican party has running.
Good grief, bring out the straight jackets!

Yeah we need lots more give away programs for sure. No one should have to work if they choose not too. Uncle Sugar has an endless supply of money too take care of everyone.

Here's what you get with Sanders or Hillary:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/944143000000-social-security-administration-spending-hit-record

Here's what you get with Sanders or Hillary:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/944143000000-social-security-administration-spending-hit-record

Oh I wouldn't lay that at the feet of those two (at least not entirely) the Social Security problem is old & with the babyboomers now hitting retirement age in droves, we are in for a tough period.

Oh I agree, but I guess I meant it won't get better with those 2 throwing our money away. Now I don't think the republicans are going to do much better, but at least they hopefully and I stress hopefully will try.

Amazingly 2016 will be the exact same thing.

http://youtu.be/Pji_IX-UacM

Barf.
(As far as republicans are concerned.)

what exactly dont you like about republicans? just curious
and what exactly do you like about the democrats

what exactly dont you like about republicans? just curious
and what exactly do you like about the democrats

Well, for me:
Republicans:
- Structuring budget and taxes according to the insistence that trickle down theory works, after it's had decades to show it doesn't.
- Giving priority in their handouts (yes they do that to, through sneaky tax expenditures), which benefit the well-to-do far more than the middle class and poor.
- Obstruction trumps compromise.
- Trying to legislate what a woman wants to do with her body.
- Trying to legislate denial of civil rights based on religious tenets.
- Trying to legislate education based on religious tenets.
- Trying to legislate free speech based on religious tenets.
- Giving lip service to trying to solve armed violence by hiding behind the 2nd.
- Trying to steer more funds to the war machine, while voting down additional funds and changes for veterans.
- Too quick to support armed conflict before diplomacy can be tried
- Don't seem to give a rats a$$ about the environment.
- Are against open internet
- Blind allegiance to Israel
- Incessant hearings, when previous ones don't prove what they want them to.
- A magnet party for the science-challenged, and science-phobic.
- And much, much more
Democrats:
- Trying to overcome the disastrous effects of failed trickle-down legislation.
- Focusing their handouts on the people who need them most.
- Allowing women to choose what they do to their bodies.
- Support civil rights for every citizen
- Know and teach that the earth is a tad over 9000 years old, that Moses was not one of the major contributors to how we structured our republic, and that our founding fathers held elective offices before the Constitution created our current government.
- Trying to enact legislation to stem armed violence (well, except for here, maybe)
- Trying to fund more help for veterans.
- Trying diplomacy before bombing
- Attempting to protect the environment, by supporting measures to keep the corporate foxes from guarding the hen houses.
- Support net neutrality
- Support calling out Israel, when they deserve it.
- Try to pass laws based on science because they:
* Know the difference between ice sheets and land ice, and why that's important.
* Know the difference between climate and weather.
* Know a raped (legitimately or not) woman can get pregnant.
* Know what a scientific theory is.
* Have no problem allowing actual scientists advising the EPA about science.
* Know that clearing rain forests will not curb global warming.
* Know abortions don't cause breast cancer, or handicaps in subsequent babies.
* Know that breast implants do not make women healthier.
* Know large pyramids are not efficient grain storage repositories.

Heck, I forgot immigration! Put that under "obstruction trumps compromise".

Shouldn't this thread be under the tree?

I am not a fan of republicans for many of the reasons that you mention, However democrats aren't any better.

Democrats do not like the constitution. They like to ignore the second amendment, they think that it is just an opinion rather than a guaranteed right. The Supreme Court gave clear guidance in 2008 and 2010 when they ruled on the gun laws in DC and Chicago.

Democrats also do not like property rights (4th and 5th amendments), they think that everything belongs to the government and that they have a right to redistribute wealth as they please, the constitution protects personal property. It is very depressing when your government feels that it has a mandate to take your private property and give it to someone else to buy votes. And don't forget the University of Missouri professor who just shut down the reporter, violating his 1st amendment rights. Liberals don't like for someone who disagrees with them to be allowed to speak.

Vote Libertarian. Freedom for all with less government intrusion.

I hear they vote libertarian in Galt's Gulch...

I am not a fan of republicans for many of the reasons that you mention, However democrats aren't any better.

Democrats do not like the constitution. They like to ignore the second amendment, they think that it is just an opinion rather than a guaranteed right. The Supreme Court gave clear guidance in 2008 and 2010 when they ruled on the gun laws in DC and Chicago.

Democrats also do not like property rights (4th and 5th amendments), they think that everything belongs to the government and that they have a right to redistribute wealth as they please, the constitution protects personal property. It is very depressing when your government feels that it has a mandate to take your private property and give it to someone else to buy votes. And don't forget the University of Missouri professor who just shut down the reporter, violating his 1st amendment rights. Liberals don't like for someone who disagrees with them to be allowed to speak.

Vote Libertarian. Freedom for all with less government intrusion.

Democrats in general support the 2nd. Most of my democratic friends and relatives own guns. They just would like it treated as any other amendment is treated - place reasonable restrictions to preserve the rights of fellow citizens (in this case, to live). The Heller decision (the DC decision you referred to) upheld the right to do just that.

The 4th and 5th amendments have nothing to do with taxes. That's just grasping for straws, and ignoring the intent of the amendment. Madison was too smart to propose an amendment that clearly conflicted with the tax clause to not address taxes specifically. The Constitution is clear on the right to levy taxes. And the 16th amendment allows apportionment. Can't ignore the 16th, if we can't ignore the 2nd, can we? While I agree that the tax code has been twisted in order to "buy votes", this is a bi-partisan strategy. As I said, Republicans prefer to buy those votes through tax expenditures, which benefit higher income brackets more than lower.

The UM professor was wrong. But you're making an assumption that she's a Democrat because she's a prof? Probably so, but you don't know that, and she didn't represent herself as such. Regardless, She's in no position to represent Dems, and, in general, Dems don't support her because she broke the law, just as Republicans, in general, don't support Republican lawbreakers. Your example is irrelevant.

Libertarianism? No, thanks. Until Libertarians can decide on what they stand for (almost a quarter of Libertarians can't articulate that - Pew), I won't attempt a list.

what exactly dont you like about republicans? just curious
and what exactly do you like about the democrats

Well, for me:
Republicans:
- Structuring budget and taxes according to the insistence that trickle down theory works, after it's had decades to show it doesn't.
- Giving priority in their handouts (yes they do that to, through sneaky tax expenditures), which benefit the well-to-do far more than the middle class and poor.
- Obstruction trumps compromise.
- Trying to legislate what a woman wants to do with her body.
- Trying to legislate denial of civil rights based on religious tenets.
- Trying to legislate education based on religious tenets.
- Trying to legislate free speech based on religious tenets.
- Giving lip service to trying to solve armed violence by hiding behind the 2nd.
- Trying to steer more funds to the war machine, while voting down additional funds and changes for veterans.
- Too quick to support armed conflict before diplomacy can be tried
- Don't seem to give a rats a$$ about the environment.
- Are against open internet
- Blind allegiance to Israel
- Incessant hearings, when previous ones don't prove what they want them to.
- A magnet party for the science-challenged, and science-phobic.
- And much, much more
Democrats:
- Trying to overcome the disastrous effects of failed trickle-down legislation.
- Focusing their handouts on the people who need them most.
- Allowing women to choose what they do to their bodies.
- Support civil rights for every citizen
- Know and teach that the earth is a tad over 9000 years old, that Moses was not one of the major contributors to how we structured our republic, and that our founding fathers held elective offices before the Constitution created our current government.
- Trying to enact legislation to stem armed violence (well, except for here, maybe)
- Trying to fund more help for veterans.
- Trying diplomacy before bombing
- Attempting to protect the environment, by supporting measures to keep the corporate foxes from guarding the hen houses.
- Support net neutrality
- Support calling out Israel, when they deserve it.
- Try to pass laws based on science because they:
* Know the difference between ice sheets and land ice, and why that's important.
* Know the difference between climate and weather.
* Know a raped (legitimately or not) woman can get pregnant.
* Know what a scientific theory is.
* Have no problem allowing actual scientists advising the EPA about science.
* Know that clearing rain forests will not curb global warming.
* Know abortions don't cause breast cancer, or handicaps in subsequent babies.
* Know that breast implants do not make women healthier.
* Know large pyramids are not efficient grain storage repositories.

Heck, I forgot immigration! Put that under "obstruction trumps compromise".

Shouldn't this thread be under the tree?

(tu)