EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3301
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
ForTehDarkseid
8139 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28716 Posts
Answer my question. This is a discussion forum, simply giving evasive one-liners does not constitute discussing, nor contributing. I am asking you what you meant with your post, because unlike most posts, the meaning of it was ambiguous, and there is no point in crafting a reply to you when I don't know what your position is, because then you are likely to say something akin to 'I never said that'. Thus, I want you to clarify what you meant by your post. | ||
|
trulojucreathrma.com
United States327 Posts
On March 14 2016 04:14 oBlade wrote: He draws tens of thousands of people, so some protesters are inevitable, but he's definitely great at exploiting them. On another note he's really campaigning his toupee off. He's doing 3 rallies a day in 2-3 states for days on end. I don't think anyone else is going at it that hard. The point isn't the protesters. Let's ignore how much of a polarizing figure he is, for the sake of argument. Yes, it was annoying to have people keep interrupting you, having to wait until security drags them out. And yes, he is not safe standing out there. But he has called upon his supporters to use violence. When he is rallying his supporters, he is bound to try to keep them timid when something happens. If he doesn't, he is guilty already. He or anyone else. But he encourages violence. There are videos on Youtube. I gave you the keywords so you can go and find it. Now, he has been claiming his supporters have been attacked. But before Chicago, this was never captured on camera. And a lot of it was captured on camera. Usually, it was a handful of protestors that wanted to interrupt him or show signs. Not gangs of people fighting gangs of people, like apparently in Chicago, though it happened that happened only after the event was canceled and mainly outside. People have been interrupting his rallies for months. It happens at every one of this rallies. And in fact, these people have the right to do that. But the last few weeks, it has gotten worse. It is getting tv time and Trump supporters are seeing other Trump supporters on tv rough these protesters up, up to the point where they are now sucker punched, with Trump saying he will pay for the legal fees. Trump really spins everything. He regularly 'admonishes' his supporters. + Show Spoiler + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJYkm3v-Og4 He makes a joke out of everything. | ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
"If you see someone getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Knock the hell out of them. I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise." //he actually is going to pay them http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/12/11211898/donald-trumps-ideology-of-violence On the reporter Lewandowski beat on video/audio "The accusation which has only been made in the media and never addressed directly with the campaign is entirely false," http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/12/11211898/donald-trumps-ideology-of-violence Supporter: "Donald Trump was right — all these illegals need to be deported." -- Trump: "I will say that people who are following me are very passionate," Trump replied. "They love this country and they want this country to be great again."http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/12/11211898/donald-trumps-ideology-of-violence On Americans who disagree with Trump: "We're going to make it great again, but these are not the people. These are the people that are destroying our country." //note they aren't "our" country http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/12/11211898/donald-trumps-ideology-of-violence On the sucker punch: "And you know what? The audience swung back. And I thought it was very, very appropriate. He was swinging, he was hitting people and the audience hit back. And that’s what we need a little bit more of." http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/12/11211898/donald-trumps-ideology-of-violence “Missouri, I can’t believe this. There used to be consequences to protesting. There are none anymore. These people are so bad for our country, you have no idea folks.” http://www.redstate.com/saragonzales/2016/03/11/trump-used-consequences-protesting. "Bernie Sanders is lying when he says his disruptors aren't told to go to my events. Be careful Bernie, or my supporters will go to yours!" | ||
|
oBlade
United States5771 Posts
On March 14 2016 05:04 ForTehDarkseid wrote: Watched Trump live for the fist time in my life, didn't like it. When you put so much money and public attention into the virus marketing hype, you'd get no trust from critically thinking voters. How well is Bernie supported locally, btw? Hillary has been in the office for too damn long for my tastes. In Cincinnati earlier, is that what you watched? Also, have you seen the other candidates live? I'm wondering how you think they compare. | ||
|
trulojucreathrma.com
United States327 Posts
What really is the point of having 11 million people step out of the border for a second, then come inside again legally? Because that's what Trump is going to do. | ||
|
ForTehDarkseid
8139 Posts
On March 14 2016 05:22 oBlade wrote: In Cincinnati earlier, is that what you watched? Also, have you seen the other candidates live? I'm wondering how you think they compare. Bernie is the least worst live from my point of view. His socialistic ideas and anti-WS agenda doesn't bode with me that well, and his age is a concern too, but hey I simply can't stand up with Clinton and Trump. At least Bearnie is talking about economics most of the time when I hear him and I can understand where he is coming from. When it comes down to international politics, I think HIllary is the people's choice. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On March 14 2016 05:56 ForTehDarkseid wrote: Bernie is the least worst live from my point of view. His socialistic ideas and anti-WS agenda doesn't bode with me that well, and his age is a concern too, but hey I simply can't stand up with Clinton and Trump. At least Bearnie is talking about economics most of the time when I hear him and I can understand where he is coming from. When it comes down to international politics, I think HIllary is the people's choice. Join #TeamKasich | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On March 14 2016 04:42 dragonswarrior wrote: Uhm... If you're point is in critique of it, you do realize the Post is one of the most trusted and respected papers in America right now? If not then I don't see your point? It's owned by a notable friend of the Democratic establishment, someone whose ties with politics are the perfect example of a White House-Silicon Valley alliance being the stronger and stronger. But all newspaper have to be owned by someone, so more importantly it has shown terrible partiality regarding these primaries so far. | ||
|
thePunGun
598 Posts
On March 14 2016 05:56 ForTehDarkseid wrote: Bernie is the least worst live from my point of view. His socialistic ideas and anti-WS agenda doesn't bode with me that well, and his age is a concern too, but hey I simply can't stand up with Clinton and Trump. At least Bearnie is talking about economics most of the time when I hear him and I can understand where he is coming from. When it comes down to international politics, I think HIllary is the people's choice. I love Bernie, but his ideas are too radical for the average american...sadly. All this conservative propaganda about socialism is funny as hell to me, because most of that so called "soacialism" has been reality in Europe for over 5 decades! My american friends consider me as a conservative, but when I hear those republican "lobby puppets" and Trump on the other side..It's like watching a weird scary circus freak show and I'm flabbergasted, that any sane person actually buys into that nonsense. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On March 14 2016 02:33 Nebuchad wrote: Even if we grant you that version, which we don't, as it is bull, that version still has your candidate very openly lying on the stage in order to discredit her opponent. Does that bother you somewhat? Earlier you said it was disgusting that Bernie was so dishonest because he was pushing for things that you don't think he can actually do, now you have Hillary being dishonest because she's saying things that she knows are false, which is the actual definition of dishonesty. And you stand with that. How is it bull? Are you unaware that during the Clinton administration Hillary led the charge on healthcare reform? It isn't dishonesty, it's simply your ability to detect the underlying subtext to the question "where was Bernie" is wholly lacking. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12365 Posts
On March 14 2016 08:22 ticklishmusic wrote: How is it bull? Are you unaware that during the Clinton administration Hillary led the charge on healthcare reform? It isn't dishonesty, it's simply your ability to detect the underlying subtext to the question "where was Bernie" is wholly lacking. Kwizach posted the link earlier. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-119082 Let me stress once again that even if your version was true, it would still be dishonest, cause it's portraying a lack of support for an effort toward healthcare because it's not good enough as a lack of support for healthcare in general. It is in the same vein as the auto bail-out comment, in which the intent is to pretend the vote against wall street bailout, a widely popular position, is actually a vote against the auto bail-out, a perception that is certainly not bound to help you in Michigan. | ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
White feelings of loss = Barack Obama crushed the illusion of white supremacy in this country. Two times he was elected without the majority consent of whites in this country and put black people in charge of justice. Though illegitimate, that is a real feeling of loss for the aged and under-educated Trump supporters who had so little left to lose. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12365 Posts
On March 14 2016 08:40 JW_DTLA wrote: I am so done with these arguments over who was more liberal back in the 90s. A bunch of angels dancing on the head of a pin nonsense. What are you going to do now? How will it work? You say this as if both Hillary and Bernie hadn't exposed very extensively and very substantially what their vision and objectives were for America. They did this, and on top of this they are attacking each other's character. I believe character is important, cause it informs me on how likely it is that the candidate may follow up on what he said. If someone says he's going to fight for health care and that's what he's been doing all his life, I believe that's important added information. If instead he had no part in anything remotely related to health care and suddenly he wanted to make it a big issue, I would perceive his policy position differently. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23491 Posts
On March 14 2016 08:22 ticklishmusic wrote: How is it bull? Are you unaware that during the Clinton administration Hillary led the charge on healthcare reform? It isn't dishonesty, it's simply your ability to detect the underlying subtext to the question "where was Bernie" is wholly lacking. Just so you know only Clinton supporters are buying this explaining away thanking Bernie multiple times on record for his help as "yeah he was in the background but I didn't know where he was" It was actually worse than the John Lewis smear about not seeing him in the civil rights struggle. It's just sad really. As for the Washington Post they have like 1 writer doing a decent job of election coverage, but they also have Capehart who has acted as a Clinton smear agent (may or may not have something to do with his alleged lover being a long time Clintonite). Hillary defends her support of the crime bill by saying there was some good stuff in it and Bernie voted for it, knowing perfectly well he was against it (the bad stuff) and that if he had, she would be on stage saying he supported gun makers and voted against the AWB and Violence against women act. Lewis, WP, and many others attack the validity of Bernie's civil rights record and after Capehart lies and says the man in the picture is Bruce Rappaport we find out that Capehart didn't even talk to the photog who took the photo, and more than a month before Capehart's revival of an old Time piece, had already said he knew it was Bernie. Auto Bailout, wall st regulation, etc... The Clinton machine has repeatedly lied/misled with these attacks and the American people are sick of it. If you see someone (pundit) on a news clip as a "Clinton supporter" the majority of the time they are being paid to say what they are saying by the Clinton camp or some extension (even if it's never mentioned). | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On March 14 2016 08:30 Nebuchad wrote: Kwizach posted the link earlier. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-119082 Let me stress once again that even if your version was true, it would still be dishonest, cause it's portraying a lack of support for an effort toward healthcare because it's not good enough as a lack of support for healthcare in general. It is in the same vein as the auto bail-out comment, in which the intent is to pretend the vote against wall street bailout, a widely popular position, is actually a vote against the auto bail-out, a perception that is certainly not bound to help you in Michigan. No it's not. Bernie has a record of minimal impact on issues he professes to care about. He talks the talk, but rarely has he walked the walk. Sure he gets a certificate of participation for healthcare, but that's about it. They both supported the initial version of the auto bailout, which failed. Later, a combined bill that provided funding for both the banks and the auto industry came around, and Bernie voted against it. That's pretty clear cut. Bernie chose his hatred of Wall Street over the people of Michigan. On March 14 2016 08:58 GreenHorizons wrote: Just so you know only Clinton supporters are buying this explaining away thanking Bernie multiple times on record for his help as "yeah he was in the background but I didn't know where he was" It was actually worse than the John Lewis smear about not seeing him in the civil rights struggle. It's just sad really. As for the Washington Post they have like 1 writer doing a decent job of election coverage, but they also have Capehart who has acted as a Clinton smear agent (may or may not have something to do with his alleged lover being a long time Clintonite). Hillary defends her support of the crime bill by saying there was some good stuff in it and Bernie voted for it, knowing perfectly well he was against it (the bad stuff) and that if he had, she would be on stage saying he supported gun makers and voted against the AWB and Violence against women act. Lewis, WP, and many others attack the validity of Bernie's civil rights record and after Capehart lies and says the man in the picture is Bruce Rappaport we find out that Capehart didn't even talk to the photog who took the photo, and more than a month before Capehart's revival of an old Time piece, had already said he knew it was Bernie. Auto Bailout, wall st regulation, etc... The Clinton machine has repeatedly lied/misled with these attacks and the American people are sick of it. If you see someone (pundit) on a news clip as a "Clinton supporter" the majority of the time they are being paid to say what they are saying by the Clinton camp or some extension (even if it's never mentioned). You were doing okay until you started with the conspiracy theories. | ||
|
trulojucreathrma.com
United States327 Posts
He may believe left wing people are pussies. But they are not. In countries were gun violence is 100 times lower than the US, in countries with no history of political assassinations, which the US has plenty of, there have been left-wing people assassinating very right wing demagogue intolerant politicians. When he calls for violence, he also calls for violence against himself. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23491 Posts
On March 14 2016 09:05 ticklishmusic wrote: No it's not. Bernie has a record of minimal impact on issues he professes to care about. He talks the talk, but rarely has he walked the walk. Sure he gets a certificate of participation for healthcare, but that's about it. They both supported the initial version of the auto bailout, which failed. Later, a combined bill that provided funding for both the banks and the auto industry came around, and Bernie voted against it. That's pretty clear cut. Bernie chose his hatred of Wall Street over the people of Michigan. Clinton supporters seem not to realize the wing of the D party that likes her the most is also the wing that stood in the way of Obama (and Bernie for that matter) on several issues when he had 60 in the Senate. Clinton's embrace of Rahm is an example of establishment Dems that would rather keep their power and the status quo than to call out garbage. I think Bernie will match or improve on his support from black Americans between MI and IL as a result. You were doing okay until you started with the conspiracy theories. If Capehart wants to go the "I'm just woefully incapable of doing the most basic parts of my job" route I suppose that's cool too. Of course he never admitted any fault and instead taunted people for calling out his lie. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the energy that he is mobilizing could be more effectively channeled by someone not so dimly radical | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18132 Posts
On March 14 2016 09:10 trulojucreathrma.com wrote: Trump needs to not only tone down his tone but also call upon his own supporters to stop with violence. Not only because of the safety of people at political events, but also for his own safety. He may believe left wing people are pussies. But they are not. In countries were gun violence is 100 times lower than the US, in countries with no history of political assassinations, which the US has plenty of, there have been left-wing people assassinating very right wing demagogue intolerant politicians. When he calls for violence, he also calls for violence against himself. Are you calling Pim Fortuyn a demagogue? Because while I didn't agree with him he actually had policy plans that would work, and discussed things civilly. As opposed to Wilders and his merry clan of blowhards. E: but on your actual point, I do agree with you. | ||
| ||
