Replay of U.S. Senate Debate

 

57 Responses to Replay of U.S. Senate Debate

  1. MjM says:

    Ahem.  I see what you did there, Owen  (hee hee).  So,  I’ll re-post here with additional notes….

    I just finished watching [last night] the Vukmir/Baldwin debate. For those who haven’t seen it, I suggest you do.  Do not rely on the Leftstream Media’s chosen snippets.

    Both danced around some questions (moderators,for the most part, did a good job trying to get them to answer directly). Both spewed the normal talking points. But on a few issues, and overall, safe to say Vukmir kicked Stammerin’ Tammy’s kiester.

    Baldwin’s response to Tomah fell like a led balloon. “I did this” and “I did that”, while everyone in the room was thinking, “yeah, only AFTER you got caught fast asleep at the wheel”. Vukmir’s heart-felt response to Balwin’s abortion-anywhere-anytime stance left even the moderators stunned for a few seconds. You could hear a pin drop in that room.

    On the topic of “gender equal pay”, TMJ4’s Shannon Sims dropped her mask and let her liberal slant shine thru when at 35:50, addressing Vukmir, she stated, “It is FACT women earn 20% less than men on the dollar…” (listen closely how she says that line).  Now we all know that that so-called FACT has been totally debunked so I was a little surprised Vukmir didn’t catch it and call Sims on it.  However, by the same bogus calculation standards used in constructing that so-called FACT,  Baldwin lied; she did pay her females $0.74 of what she payed men.

    Funniest part was closing statements, with Baldwin having multiple Pelosi-like brownouts while trying to tie Vukmir to evil corporations (“and…….[stares off into space]………………pharmaceuticals”), and with Leah’s 10-megaton nuke second sentence (“I have to chuckle..”) pointing out Tammy’s hulking $22 million in special interest campaign cash.

     

  2. Owen Owen says:

    Yeah, thanks for the link, MjM. I was looking for a good replay.

  3. MHMaley says:

    The thud will come from women who heard the GOP candidate
    Ignore women’s right to govern their own bodies when they vote in November .
    The folks who applauded her “ late term abortion “ description were already
    Voting for the woman who voted to take away thei health care .

    That’s the # 1 issue this fall and Vukmir swirling and missed badly .

    When the Dems beat walker and Vukmir with the least telegenic
    Or capable public speake in recent history , what will the excuses be
    On this board ?

    And since when is the public charmed by a candidate who constantly interrupts with taking points and can’t come up with a single policy to address a question ?

    Wait , you’ve me on that one . He became President .

    BTW , I just celebrated 38 years of sobriety so when the cowardly ass clown
    Responds with the same tired alkie response , I beat you to it
    Needle Dick .

  4. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Hopefully Baldwin loses so we can improve from total liberal dreck to greatness.

  5. MaxwellsEQs says:

    Kevin,

    Tammy is one of the good ones! One of the few, like Bernie Sanders, and  John Mccain. Do not judge people based on conservative/liberal go for honest ones.

     

  6. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    She openly promotes a lifestyle against God’s design for marriage.

    Promoting wrong hardly makes one “good”.

  7. Le Roi du Nord says:

    So how does the marriage (within and without the burdens of marriage) practices of the current occupant of the WH  correspond with God’s design?

  8. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    He does not openly speak against and advocate a perversion of it.

  9. Le Roi du Nord says:

    So “Grab ’em by the $%#@& ! is OK in your book?

  10. Jason says:

    No one said it was Le Roy duh Floored.  To use your idiotic tripe… “This is a discussion about Baldwin and Vukmir, please cite where either said such a thing.”    Troll somewhere else.

  11. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    I already said it was not OK to say that, but he, ALLEGEDLY, said it in a locker room over 10 years ago.

    He has not said that openly as President.   Not even close.

    Baldwin has advocated her perversions of God’s design for marriage while Senator.

     

     

  12. Le Roi du Nord says:

    k:

    You are mistaken, it isn’t alleged when it is on tape, and it wasn’t in a locker room.  Is there a time limit on being a pig?

    If god created us all, why is Baldwin a perversion of god’s design?

  13. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    The tape alleged to exist, but I have not heard it. We only have word of liberals who thrived on covering any of Bill Clinton’s perversions up. So sourcing is not trustworthy.

    You question about Baldwin assumes she has no control over her carnal choices. We all choose to act with good or evil, that includes good or evil in our carnal choices. If we act on perversion, that is because one chooses it.

  14. Le Roi du Nord says:

    k:

    No, the tape exists and millions have heard it.  Denying that it never happened doesn’t make it so, except in your noggin.

    You sure are hung up on the “carnal choices” of others.  Maybe you can get treatment for that.  Never too late to try.

  15. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    You were the one that foolishly implied Baldwin was “born that way” when it comes to carnal choices. I had to correct you when you went off on the liberal identity politics. I am disgusted by identity politics. It implies our carnal choices are not choices at all. That is an utterly ridiculous position to protect any and all carnal perversions.

    I have not heard the tape. Have not looked into any authenticity issues and frankly don’t worry too much about men’s locker room talk. I already said if it happened, it is ridiculous and stupid. In scale, of open, liberal, sexual perversion advocacy, this is a nothing burger. If Trump was asked to say it was wrong, he would say it was stupid and foolish. Unlike liberals, they never say carnal choices on any level are wrong, including rape when it is done by a liberal like Clinton.

  16. Le Roi du Nord says:

    k:

    Where did I say that?

    He said it, never denied he did.  It must be tough living with all that cog dis going on…..

  17. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    When you said “why is Baldwin a perversion of God’s design”.

    You are clearly implying a “born that way”, amplifying disgusting liberal identity politics.

    If you are not implying perv carnal choices are not choices with that statement, what are you implying?

  18. Le Roi du Nord says:

    Nope, I didn’t say that.  You are clearly implying things that I did not say.  You are the creationist, not me..

  19. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    I quoted you direct.

    I even asked:  if you did not mean victim identity politics with Baldwin question, what did you mean?

    Still waiting to hear what you did mean by your Baldwin question.

    My answer was clear.   God did not make Baldwin that, she choose here own path in rejecting God’s design.

  20. Le Roi du Nord says:

    k:

    Yup, I said that, but you omitted complete sentence and the context.  Once again you are making stuff up to fit into your very narrow world view. Why wait for my answer as you made one up that fits your view.

  21. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    The part about God creating us all?   I still kept that context.

    Explain how I took you out of context?

    What I did was: totally destroy your liberal identity politics argument.

     

  22. Le Roi du Nord says:

    Nope.  It was a question asked of you.

    Nope, the only thing you destroyed was the opportunity to answer the question.  I wasn’t even hoping for a truthful response.

  23. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    And I explained, clearly, that Baldwin is not a victim of her carnal choice perversions as you implied.

    She chooses to advertise her carnal choices, which set a bad example for all.

    Keep your carnal choices to yourself.

  24. Le Roi du Nord says:

    Could you give some factual examples of how or when Baldwin “advertised” her carnal choices??  Did she advertise like your idol with a “grab em by the $#@@&” statement?

    Why are you so hung up on perversion, and the carnal choices of others?  A little jealousy, perhaps?

  25. Pat says:

    WHO CARES!

  26. Le Roi du Nord says:

    “Baldwin said she ran “to make a difference” and not to make history.”

    That’s a lot more subtle than the “grab ’em” attitude of your idol.

  27. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Pat,

    Nord took issue with my calling out Baldwin’s ongoing advocacy of her carnal choices.

    There are far more important issues. That is the main problem with Baldwin, she puts carnal choice advocacy as her top priority.

    There is no denying that.

    We need a serious Senator that is not consumed with the issue like Nord is.

    That would be Leah.

  28. Pat says:

    Again, who cares!

  29. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Clearly, Nord does.

  30. Pat says:

    I’m glad her sexuality is a non issue with you, Kevin.

  31. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    It’s only an issue when she is shouting her carnal choices out loud as something good and right.

    She can’t keep her carnal choices to herself, which is the problem.

    What happen to Clinton liberal standard: “it’s a private matter”?

    You didn’t see Bill Clinton shouting his heterosexual pride in Oval Office. He had good sense to keep his carnal choices to himself.

  32. Pat says:

    Oh, okay, it is an issue. And I thought it was an issue only for Nord.

    I guess I haven’t been paying enough attention as I don’t recall her shouting her carnal choices. I’m surprised Leah or some of her special interest groups haven’t included any of Tammy’s carnal choice sound clips in commercials. Maybe it’s a non issue for them.

  33. Le Roi du Nord says:

    k:

    You are once again exaggerating beyond belief.  How can you turn, “Baldwin said she ran “to make a difference” and not to make history” into “It’s only an issue when she is shouting her carnal choices out loud as something good and right” ?  She did no such thing.

  34. MjM says:

    Nort craps: “She did no such thing.”

    You make it too easy.

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4469703/tammy-baldwin-millennium-march-equality&start=150

    Lesbianism is her only game.

  35. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord never lets facts get in way of his feelings….

  36. Le Roi du Nord says:

    “Nord never lets facts get in way of his feelings”.

    And this is from the guy that believes the earth is only 6000 years old, denies science, and says the pope isn’t a christian, and relishes the post factual world created by his idol where truth isn’t truth.

    Here is a great quote that certainly applies, “The ultimate ignorance is the rejection of something you know nothing about, yet refuse to investigate”.

    mjm: I was correct in that the “proof” k provided proved none of his claims.    What is your game?

  37. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    Again with Pope misquote.

    What I said was: if the Pope believes in a gospel other than Jesus for forgiveness and salvation from our sin, he teaches a gospel other than the Christian gospel.

    I am concerned he teaches a gospel other than Christ from time to time.

    Try to quote me accurately. You have a big problem with that.

  38. Pat says:

    Who cares if the Pope believes, or doesn’t believe what you think he should. And who cares if Baldwin is gay and says she is. If I read the constitution correctly, both of these are none issues.

  39. Le Roi du Nord says:

    Pat:   Exactly.

  40. MjM says:

    Nort trips:  I was correct….

    No.  You, as usual, were, are, and forever shall be wrong.

    Either because of your known inability to comprehend what you read or because you simply can’t read.  And since you, here on this blog of text,  stalk Kevin every chance you get like some deranged pervert,  I’ll hafta stick with the former.

    The article cited by Kevin is chock full of Baldwin’s self-proclaimed “ELECT ME I’M GAAAYYYY!’ track record.   Perhaps it is news to you,  but it’s been well documented and demonstrated for nigh three decades.

    My game?  Well, kickn yer arse, for one.  (1≠3)

     

  41. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Pat,

    I did not bring Pope up, Nord did.

    He brings up irrelevant topics when he loses an argument.

    I merely corrected his false witness against me.

    He has done it more than once.

    If Democrats are going to have this spate of morality, we have to talk about the carnal choice advocacy Baldwin openly embraces. Unless liberals are only allowed to spout off about morality these days, which is not morality at all, it is all about finding conservatives guilty of not being liberal. So if we can live with that liberal perversion as morality, we certainly can talk about he advocacy of liberal perversions.

  42. Pat says:

    Again Kevin, who cares who she chooses to love or who you choose to love.

  43. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    When you say “love”, you mean “carnal choices”, not spiritual love of a marriage under God’s design, one man, one woman, correct?

  44. Pat says:

    What do you think I mean?

  45. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    I think you mean unfettered, irresponsible, carnal choices outside of marriage of God’s design that results in high rates of VD, health care costs, and social chaos….but I just wanted to be sure.

  46. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Sure sounds like it.

    What do you mean then?

    You are rivaling Nord  when it comes to being unclear on what you mean.

  47. Pat says:

    I thought I was clear. You should go back a read what I’ve said again.

  48. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    I’m more nuanced.

    So I was hoping you could be clear.

  49. Pat says:

    Kevin,
    I’m not sure what you’re attempting to get me to say. My leaning is more constitutional than biblical when it comes to Baldwin’s, or your, sexual orientation. Both are, constitutionally, irrelevant.

  50. Pat says:

    Kevin,

    Was I clear?

  51. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Pat,

    I am not suggesting going against constitution, but talking about the open, and active moral example the elected official sets for his/her constituents.

    Like Randy Bryce, we don’t want an unapologetic, immoral, deadbeat Dad elected, do we?

    Election time is the time to evaluate immorality and character of the candidate.

    You say that is irrelevant?

  52. Pat says:

    Kevin,

    You really don’t want to have the discussion about “morality and elected officials again do you?? That dead horse has been beaten too many times.

  53. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Pat,

    When a candidate is up for re-election, or election, yes.

    You are the one that wants to beat the dead horse about elections already decided 2 years ago.

    Election time is the time to discuss a candidate’s immoralities.

    Why do you want to bury Baldwin’s obvious flaws to traditional morality?

  54. Pat says:

    Kevin,

    For the sake of humoring you, I’ll bite.
    Besides Baldwin being gay, what wrongs is she committing morally, and based on what?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.