RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Republican Presidential Candidates Debate
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 59642
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/13/15 5:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Quote:
Our democracy depends on a thriving two-party system


We would be better off with a lot more parties involved. The destruction of both larger parties would be the best thing that ever happened to our democracy.



_________________
On Christmas Day, the Gingerbread Man said, ‘Ladyfingers, be my wife.’
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19934



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/13/15 5:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

So that's Jonathan Capehart's 'our democracy' pablum.

Here is a clearly articulated Republican Establishment position on Trump which I think really cuts to the quick in terms of explaining their issues ... and it also serves to show this political chasm between the creepy elite conservative establishment and that inconvenient base of Americans out there somewhere. Because let's face it, folks, (to borrow a Trump catch phrase) Donald Trump is not out there in America answering all those pollsters' phone calls himself. You can only blame Trump to a point.

Matt Lewis of the Daily Caller. Daily Caller is a conservative website. Matt Lewis was the Conservative Union's Blogger of the Year in 2012. He's a straight up snake-headed asshole.

Regarding Trump.

"He's not even a conservative. Rand Paul is right [about Trump]. He [Trump] supports single payer, until recently he was pro-choice. I think Donald Trump is actually very dangerous. It's a strain on the Right that actually is not conservatism. It's sort of a right-wing populism. And I think it's dangerous."

It's dangerous TO REPUBLICANS that Trump was for single payer at some point in his life and dangerous that he was, at some point, pro-choice. Also there's electability.

Lewis again:

"I don't think Donald Trump can beat Hillary Clinton. But I think someone like Marco Rubio, who can maybe be the guy who has an optimistic vision and has talked about the American Dream."

I didn't miss quote him there... he just stopped mid-sentence and said once again that he thinks Donald Trump is dangerous.

Didn't we have a discussion in this thread over Rubio stepping forward and further on the issue of the freedom women have over their bodies. But like... you know... not for that freedom. Like at all! Like DIE please but we are not going to abort your fetus. lol. Didn't he go there?

What a world. Rolling Eyes



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/13/15 6:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
TonyL222 wrote:


People like Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, etc who built up their empires from scratch deserve all they can get. But a CEO hired just to run the business?



Even for those guys, not through salary and bonus they don't . They benefit from the rise in the value of their equity stake in the company. That called "capatalism".



well, yeah. Most of the exorbitant CEO "pay" is through stock options - options which are not taxable until exercised (most likely at long term capital gains rates) and which usually aren't available to the rank and file. I LOVE capitalism - and I think I applauded the innovators who owned the lion's share of the company THEY started.

I'm concerned with the CEO's hired in to manage, who usually sit on the board that sets executive compensation, set the policies foremployee compensation, have in place golden parachutes for if they ever get fired for non performance, whose total compensations rises to stellar heights while the average worker is lucky to get a cost of living adjustments. Mos of that excess wealth should go back to the shareholders first. It would be nice if the excess from that was shared more equally with all employees.

Capitalism is the best system in the world to me - when it has some oversight. Human nature causes the powerful to get greedy.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7477



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/13/15 10:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:


well, yeah. Most of the exorbitant CEO "pay" is through stock options - options which are not taxable until exercised (most likely at long term capital gains rates) and which usually aren't available to the rank and file.


Yeah, Congress went after CEO pay in 1993 and made any salary over $1 million non-deductible as an expense. As a result, companies ended up giving the CEO and other top execs more stock options in lieu of salary and the feeling is that compensation ended up significantly higher than if they had just let them keep raising salaries as they had been.

Quote:

Capitalism is the best system in the world to me - when it has some oversight. Human nature causes the powerful to get greedy.


I saw a quote once where someone said the purpose of the board of directors it to keep the CEO from looting the company (although the CEO is often on the board and the board is often his friends). I thought that was too cynical, but having seen the actions of some CEOs since then, perhaps not.

Jack Welch's (20 year GE CEO) retirement package was particularly shocking. It came to light through papers released by his ex-wife during divorce proceedings. A guy with a net worth in the hundreds of millions and a 9 million dollar a year pension, also negotiated all this extra stuff, much of which he had gotten as CEO, from a free chauffeur and company plane to Yankees tickets, upgrades in his houses, and even down to a USA Today subscription and flowers delivered to a New York City apartment that the company gave him rent free with maid service for those times when he was in the city.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 13342



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/13/15 11:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
TonyL222 wrote:


well, yeah. Most of the exorbitant CEO "pay" is through stock options - options which are not taxable until exercised (most likely at long term capital gains rates) and which usually aren't available to the rank and file.


Yeah, Congress went after CEO pay in 1993 and made any salary over $1 million non-deductible as an expense. As a result, companies ended up giving the CEO and other top execs more stock options in lieu of salary and the feeling is that compensation ended up significantly higher than if they had just let them keep raising salaries as they had been.

Quote:

Capitalism is the best system in the world to me - when it has some oversight. Human nature causes the powerful to get greedy.




I saw a quote once where someone said the purpose of the board of directors it to keep the CEO from looting the company (although the CEO is often on the board and the board is often his friends). I thought that was too cynical, but having seen the actions of some CEOs since then, perhaps not.

Jack Welch's (20 year GE CEO) retirement package was particularly shocking. It came to light through papers released by his ex-wife during divorce proceedings. A guy with a net worth in the hundreds of millions and a 9 million dollar a year pension, also negotiated all this extra stuff, much of which he had gotten as CEO, from a free chauffeur and company plane to Yankees tickets, upgrades in his houses, and even down to a USA Today subscription and flowers delivered to a New York City apartment that the company gave him rent free with maid service for those times when he was in the city.


162(m) doesn't really slow anybody down. It only applies to FOUR people per company. Options, incentive pay, deferred comp, non-qualified pensions, and taxable perks like use of company jets and cars for personal use, club memberships, extra healthcare benefits (like a full multi-day workup at Mayo or the like), and all the kinds of stuff you mentioned aboit Welch, aren't covered by the cap.

And it only applies to those four people on the last day of the tax year, so the cap doesn't apply to golden parachutes, severance, and other goodbye pay that happens before the last day of the company's tax year. I'm not a tax lawyer, but it's my understanding you could hand the CEO a $100million check on his last day and deduct every penny of it.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 12094
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/14/15 3:00 am    ::: Re: Donald Trump is no Rosie O'Donnell Reply Reply with quote

....bit late to the party, I am, but....I couldn't resist:

TonyL222 wrote:
Trump's view of Rosie is probably the only thing we agree on.

Tony!! You DIDN'T read the article, did you!? Confused

StevenHW wrote:
After The Donald took another gratuitous cheap-shot at Rosie O'Donnell in last week's debates, here's an article defending Rosie.

Quote:
I am sure she will be grumpy at me for writing this. But watching Donald Trump disparage her once again during the Republican debate made me sick to my stomach. And so, I am going to spill the beans and tell you about a very private part of Rosie O'Donnell, a part that she steadfastly refuses to share.


All of you have nicely covered the Highlights of Policy and Republican Party Foibles as demonstrated by the debate candidates, but I didn't see anyone anywhere, comment on the idea Steven presented above....as it reflects on our American culture!!

Simply, put? Donald Trump, vying for a presidential candidacy, can say the Politically UN-CORRENT things he did .... and he's topping the polls??

WTF!!!?

I mean, America crucifies an old pudgy white woman (Paula Dean) for having used the word n***** 20 years ago. But an ugly old white man can demean (even ONE!) woman he hates, and that's a poll-booster? Can you imagine the outrage against (and INSTANT demise of....) Barack Obama if he'd ever said anything like that publicly in either of his campaigns?

This double standard is a sad reflection of our troubled times, imo. But....I s'pose no pendulums may remain still.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 12094
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/14/15 3:05 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Quote:
Our democracy depends on a thriving two-party system


We would be better off with a lot more parties involved. The destruction of both larger parties would be the best thing that ever happened to our democracy.


I have to agree with this....AT LEAST a viable 3rd party would make a HUGE difference.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
p_d_swanson



Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 9714



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/14/15 3:32 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Is Donald Trump Running a False Flag
Campaign to Help Hillary Clinton?

Quote:
There are three main lines of argument supporting the assertion that Donald Trump is running a false flag campaign:

1. Trump cannot possibly be considered either a Republican or a conservative, once you account for his apparent political beliefs (many of which are remarkably liberal) and concrete policy proposals (or lack thereof).

2. Trump has close ties to both Hillary and Bill Clinton, and has in fact donated to her and other Democrats campaigns in the past.

3. Trumps apparent intent to run on an independent ticket should he lose the Republican nomination indicates he cares more about splitting the Republican vote (essentially insuring the election of a Democratic president) than he does about actually electing Republicans. He also lacks the wherewithal and/or long-term funding to mount a legitimate presidential campaign were he to become the actual Republican nominee.

Lets discuss each of these in detail:


p_d_swanson



Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 9714



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/14/15 4:07 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Rolling Stone: Inside the GOP Clown Car
Quote:
But the more important factor has been the astounding presence of Donald Trump as the front-runner. The orangutan-haired real estate magnate entered the race in mid-June and immediately blew up cable and Twitter by denouncing Mexicans as rapists and ripping 2008 nominee John McCain for having been captured in war.

Both moves would have been fatal to "serious" candidates in previous elections. But amid the strange Republican leadership void of 2016, the furor only gave Trump further saturation among the brainless nativists in his party and inexplicably vaulted him to front-runner status. The combination of Trump constantly spewing crazy quotes and the strategy actually working turned his campaign into a veritable media supernova, earning the Donald more coverage than all of the other candidates combined.



Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 12094
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/14/15 5:03 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Quote:
The orangutan-haired real estate magnate....


L Laughing L!!



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/14/15 6:33 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:

162(m) doesn't really slow anybody down. It only applies to FOUR people per company. Options, incentive pay, deferred comp, non-qualified pensions, and taxable perks like use of company jets and cars for personal use, club memberships, extra healthcare benefits (like a full multi-day workup at Mayo or the like), and all the kinds of stuff you mentioned aboit Welch, aren't covered by the cap.


Again I ask, what can one hired manager really do to add $162M/yr value to any company? Are they that much better than say a $5/yr CEO? Is $5/yr (with $157M going back to the stock holders) not enough? What is the rationale for this widening gap in CEO/sr executive benefits and median worker benefits? Don't the workers contribute to a company's success, too? The argument is usually that we have to remain competitive in order to attract the best talent (sounds like Capitalism at work). But that argument is made by the very same people benefiting from all the perks, and who are members of a very small universe. Each company keeps raising the ante - which benefits all the executives and never the workers.

I know regulation can be tricky and even detrimental with unintended consequences. But I view it like a marksman adjusting his sites on a target. The first shot may be off the mark, so he adjust for the wind, air temperature, etc, until he narrows in on where the sight really needs to be.

Just because initial legislation might be off doesn't mean its not needed and should be removed. You tweek, fine tune and adjust.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 13342



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/14/15 7:02 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:

162(m) doesn't really slow anybody down. It only applies to FOUR people per company. Options, incentive pay, deferred comp, non-qualified pensions, and taxable perks like use of company jets and cars for personal use, club memberships, extra healthcare benefits (like a full multi-day workup at Mayo or the like), and all the kinds of stuff you mentioned aboit Welch, aren't covered by the cap.


Again I ask, what can one hired manager really do to add $162M/yr value to any company? Are they that much better than say a $5/yr CEO? Is $5/yr (with $157M going back to the stock holders) not enough? What is the rationale for this widening gap in CEO/sr executive benefits and median worker benefits? Don't the workers contribute to a company's success, too? The argument is usually that we have to remain competitive in order to attract the best talent (sounds like Capitalism at work). But that argument is made by the very same people benefiting from all the perks, and who are members of a very small universe. Each company keeps raising the ante - which benefits all the executives and never the workers.

I know regulation can be tricky and even detrimental with unintended consequences. But I view it like a marksman adjusting his sites on a target. The first shot may be off the mark, so he adjust for the wind, air temperature, etc, until he narrows in on where the sight really needs to be.

Just because initial legislation might be off doesn't mean its not needed and should be removed. You tweek, fine tune and adjust.


What are you talking about? It's section 162(m) of the tax code.


TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/14/15 8:59 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:

What are you talking about? It's section 162(m) of the tax code.


Excuse me. I guess that should have been intuitively obvious Rolling Eyes

But it was so close to John Hammergren's salary I thought you were referring to 162 million. But understand that I am NOT speaking against capitalism in the least, and I don't think CEO salary caps would work or are the answer either. Maybe some regulations that ties the median worker level employee compensation to the median C level compensation -so that the high tide truly raises all ships.

Just thinking out loud.




Last edited by TonyL222 on 08/14/15 5:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19934



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/14/15 9:04 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

p_d_swanson wrote:
Rolling Stone: Inside the GOP Clown Car


This article quickly became a torturous exercise in trying not to wake up mrs jammer sleeping beside me. Maybe not even the funniest thing so far but I think it was the accumulation of blows that finally got me audibly snorting.

"Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry was last seen on the national stage choking on his own face in an infamous 2011 debate performance, when he was unable to name the three federal agencies he himself had promised to do away with. He returned to the race this year basically the same gaffe-spewing yutz he was four years ago, only dressed in preposterous "smart" glasses..."

This piece should come with a trigger warning. Laughing



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/14/15 9:11 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
p_d_swanson wrote:
Rolling Stone: Inside the GOP Clown Car


This article quickly became a torturous exercise in trying not to wake up mrs jammer sleeping beside me. Maybe not even the funniest thing so far but I think it was the accumulation of blows that finally got me audibly snorting.

"Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry was last seen on the national stage choking on his own face in an infamous 2011 debate performance, when he was unable to name the three federal agencies he himself had promised to do away with. He returned to the race this year basically the same gaffe-spewing yutz he was four years ago, only dressed in preposterous "smart" glasses..."

This piece should come with a trigger warning. Laughing


A lot more brain cells have died in four years. Laughing


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19934



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/14/15 9:23 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I'm dying here.

"But in person, Graham is a dud. His nasal voice and dry presentation make Alan Greenspan seem like Marilyn Manson. Still, it doesn't take too long for him to drift into rhetoric that in a normal political season would distinguish him as an unhinged lunatic, which is interesting because pundits usually call Graham one of the "sane" candidates.

First, he firmly promised to re-litigate the Iraq War. "I'm gonna send some soldiers back to Iraq," he said. "If I'm president, we're going back to Iraq."

Promising concretely to restart a historically unpopular war is a solid Trump-era provocation, but Graham then took it a step further. He pledged to solve the Syria problem by channeling Lawrence of Arabia and leading an Arab army in an epic campaign to unseat the caliphate.

Graham, a politician who reportedly once said that "everything that starts with 'al-' in the Middle East is bad news," insisted he was just the man to unite the Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians, Turks and other peoples in battle, and also get them to pay for the invasion (getting dirty foreigners to pay for our policies is another Trump innovation). "We're going into Syria with the Arabs in the lead," Graham said. "They will do most of the fighting, and they're gonna pay for it because we paid for the last two."

I looked around the room. No reaction whatsoever. An old man in the rear of the hall was picking a cuticle off his middle finger..."

lol !!!

More please...

"...later that same day, news leaked out that a Trump political adviser, Sam Nunberg, had once referred to Al Sharpton's daughter as a "n-----" on Facebook. This is news. It virtually obliterated all other campaign information.

Within a day, polls showed Trump surging like never before."

OMG. This piece is EPIC.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7808
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/14/15 12:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Quote:
The irony is that this was supposed to be the year when the Republicans opened the tent up, made a sincere play for the Hispanic vote, and perhaps softened up a bit on gays and other vermin. But then the lights went on in the race and voters flocked to a guy whose main policy plank was the construction of a giant Game of Thrones-style wall to keep rape-happy ethnics off our lawns. So much for inclusion!


Laughing Laughing Laughing



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5714
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/15/15 11:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The mullahs, ISIS, the caliph, Mexico, Russia, China -- they will all be putty in the negotiating hands of The Donald, who quickly and powerfully out-leveraged the former mightiest force on Earth: Fox News.

http://www.salon.com/2015/08/15/the_week_fox_news_got_trumped_roger_ailes_sold_out_megyn_kelly_took_off_the_donald_won_very_very_big/
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 12094
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/16/15 12:51 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
....the former mightiest force on Earth: Fox News.


LOLOL!!!
Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 18554



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/16/15 8:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

p_d_swanson wrote:
Is Donald Trump Running a False Flag
Campaign to Help Hillary Clinton?

Quote:
There are three main lines of argument supporting the assertion that Donald Trump is running a false flag campaign:

1. Trump cannot possibly be considered either a Republican or a conservative, once you account for his apparent political beliefs (many of which are remarkably liberal) and concrete policy proposals (or lack thereof).

2. Trump has close ties to both Hillary and Bill Clinton, and has in fact donated to her and other Democrats campaigns in the past.

3. Trumps apparent intent to run on an independent ticket should he lose the Republican nomination indicates he cares more about splitting the Republican vote (essentially insuring the election of a Democratic president) than he does about actually electing Republicans. He also lacks the wherewithal and/or long-term funding to mount a legitimate presidential campaign were he to become the actual Republican nominee.

Lets discuss each of these in detail:


I thought that was interesting read.

I don't think Donald is running for Hillary.

But it wouldn't completely shock me if Bill planted that seed. Laughing



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/17/15 10:13 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
p_d_swanson wrote:
Is Donald Trump Running a False Flag
Campaign to Help Hillary Clinton?

Quote:
There are three main lines of argument supporting the assertion that Donald Trump is running a false flag campaign:

1. Trump cannot possibly be considered either a Republican or a conservative, once you account for his apparent political beliefs (many of which are remarkably liberal) and concrete policy proposals (or lack thereof).

2. Trump has close ties to both Hillary and Bill Clinton, and has in fact donated to her and other Democrats campaigns in the past.

3. Trumps apparent intent to run on an independent ticket should he lose the Republican nomination indicates he cares more about splitting the Republican vote (essentially insuring the election of a Democratic president) than he does about actually electing Republicans. He also lacks the wherewithal and/or long-term funding to mount a legitimate presidential campaign were he to become the actual Republican nominee.

Lets discuss each of these in detail:


I thought that was interesting read.

I don't think Donald is running for Hillary.

But it wouldn't completely shock me if Bill planted that seed. Laughing


I have a hard time seeing Trump running a false flag campaign for anyone, but it's very easy for me to imagine that Bill Clinton would think that having Trump in the Republican primary would ensure that it descended into chaos.


norwester



Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6362
Location: Seattle


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/17/15 5:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

This is serious, y'all. Wink
Next Republican Debate To Use American Ninja Warrior Format



_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
norwester



Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6362
Location: Seattle


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/20/15 2:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Just in case this was the thread for discussing immigration here's an article that talks about how the slow of Mexican immigration specifically is hurting the restaurant industry.

The crippling problem restaurant-goers havent noticed but chefs are freaking out about

Kind of sensational (mostly the title), but interesting.



_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
p_d_swanson



Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 9714



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/21/15 1:24 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ufGlBv8Z3NU?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 9822



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/26/19 7:39 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Joe Walsh apologizes for racist comments, will run against Trump

Quote:
When asked by Stephanopoulos on Sunday to address instances of his own racism, including his promotion of the false conspiracy that Obama is Muslim and remarks against Sen. Kamala Harris, Walsh said he has reflected on his previous statements.

“I said some ugly things about President Obama that I regret,” Walsh said.

In 2017, Walsh tweeted “We LOWERED the bar for Obama. He was held to a lower standard cuz he was black.”

“I had strong policy disagreements with Barack Obama, and too often I let those policy disagreements get personal,” he said Sunday.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/joe-walsh-apologizes-for-racist-comments-will-run-against-trump/ar-AAGjjnu?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout



_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 7 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin