|
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. |
On March 16 2016 00:16 oneofthem wrote:
hillary actually hates politics. kind of like her attitude towards reddit. she is just not that good at it.
anyway celebrity sighting i just passed by jim webb a while ago
Reason number 1 why her presumed dominance in the general is suspect.
|
On March 16 2016 01:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 01:22 Erasme wrote:On March 16 2016 01:15 FiWiFaKi wrote:
You know what makes me upset?
That people want a democracy and give people the right to have a voice... And then the moment that people use their vote to vote for Trump, all these liberals will start spewing articles on my news feed about how he's a bad person, the media is campaigning and spending tens of millions of dollars campaigning against him and feeding people propaganda, taken quotes completely out of context, and doing everything so he doesn't get into office.
Its just really sad, that the exact same people who are proponents of free speech now try and manipulate other people to vote for what they want. Its like if you're agreeing with them, yeah choice is great. Then the moment you have a different view (and all the people you've been trying to make liberal secretly aren't), you are now against them and make them seem like awful people. The media categorizes the Trump supports as racists and so forth, even though he has 40%+ in polls against Hillary and Bernie.
Does that make 40% of the US population awful people? And if so, then what kind of people who want to be in politics and see America united shit on 40%+ of the population at one time? Seriously, fuck the media in this process, get educated, and go out to vote for what you believe in. When you have a debate, why do you have to have the media analyze for you who won and who lost... You watched it, can't you use your head to see what you agree with?
/rantover This remind me of that episode of south park where they conclude that yes, at least 25% of the americans are retards. And as always pointed out, head to head polls are wildly inaccurate and a lot of polling does not accurately represent how the population will vote. And apparently freedom to decide and vote means freedom from criticism by the media and population. But there will always be a section of the US population that is racist and politicians willing to listen to them.
But the criticisms are often not factual. What the media and other politicians are doing to Trump is just dirty. Instead all I see time and time again is quote taken out of context with a pose of Trump in a not so friendly position. Trump doesn't have these attack ads - Trump insults the opposition in his speeches, but not like what is currently being campaigned by the democrats and republicans.
Tell people to watch the debates, to view their opinions on important issues, don't tell people Trump is bad because of something that you're lying about. I don't automatically assume Hillary or Bernie are bad, neither Rubio or Kasich, I suppose Cruz is the one I had significant preconceived notions about, but I try to eliminate that as much as I can.
|
On March 16 2016 01:21 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 00:19 LegalLord wrote:On March 16 2016 00:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) — Facing a backlash from Appalachian Democrats, Hillary Clinton's campaign on Monday tried to reaffirm her commitment to coal communities one day after declaring on national television she was going to "to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business."
Clinton's comments came during a Sunday night appearance on CNN, where she was asked a question about how her policies would benefit poor white people in southern states who generally vote Republican.
"I'm the only candidate, which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity, using clean renewable energy as the key, into coal country. Because we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business," Clinton said. "We're going to make it clear that we don't want to forget those people."
Clinton was touting a plan she released last year that would set aside $30 billion to protect the health benefits for coal miners and their families. But her quip about putting coal miners out of business gave Republicans a perfect soundbite to use against her in states like Kentucky and West Virginia, where the party has made historic gains in coal communities in recent years by running against President Barack Obama's energy policies. Source This is the kind of thing that gets people to say Hillary is a flip flopper. If Bernie had hammered her for it as hard as Obama had, he'd probably be ahead right now. How could her stance lead someone to see her as a flip flopper? She clearly said that she would do her best, and had a plan, to help those who have suffered and would suffer from the coal industry's decline. Where is the flip flop?
Maybe because she thinks $70 billion for college access is unrealistic but $30 billion for coal miners health benefits (when we could just have at least a government option or even single payer) is reasonable?
She's a straight panderbear.
Just want to remind Bernie supporters to hit the phones and facebanking for GOTV though 
|
On March 16 2016 01:41 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 01:33 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2016 01:22 Erasme wrote:On March 16 2016 01:15 FiWiFaKi wrote:
You know what makes me upset?
That people want a democracy and give people the right to have a voice... And then the moment that people use their vote to vote for Trump, all these liberals will start spewing articles on my news feed about how he's a bad person, the media is campaigning and spending tens of millions of dollars campaigning against him and feeding people propaganda, taken quotes completely out of context, and doing everything so he doesn't get into office.
Its just really sad, that the exact same people who are proponents of free speech now try and manipulate other people to vote for what they want. Its like if you're agreeing with them, yeah choice is great. Then the moment you have a different view (and all the people you've been trying to make liberal secretly aren't), you are now against them and make them seem like awful people. The media categorizes the Trump supports as racists and so forth, even though he has 40%+ in polls against Hillary and Bernie.
Does that make 40% of the US population awful people? And if so, then what kind of people who want to be in politics and see America united shit on 40%+ of the population at one time? Seriously, fuck the media in this process, get educated, and go out to vote for what you believe in. When you have a debate, why do you have to have the media analyze for you who won and who lost... You watched it, can't you use your head to see what you agree with?
/rantover This remind me of that episode of south park where they conclude that yes, at least 25% of the americans are retards. And as always pointed out, head to head polls are wildly inaccurate and a lot of polling does not accurately represent how the population will vote. And apparently freedom to decide and vote means freedom from criticism by the media and population. But there will always be a section of the US population that is racist and politicians willing to listen to them. But the criticisms are often not factual. What the media and other politicians are doing to Trump is just dirty. Instead all I see time and time again is quote taken out of context with a pose of Trump in a not so friendly position. Trump doesn't have these attach adds - Trump insults the opposition in his speeches, but not like what is currently being campaigned by the democrats and republicans.
Gotta agree here. While I agree that Trump is divisive, I think a lot of the comparisons to Hitler and whatnot are really unwarranted. He is truly not nearly as bad as the media makes you think. I think he's bad, but he's not the thread to society that people seem to suggest.
|
On March 16 2016 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 01:41 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 16 2016 01:33 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2016 01:22 Erasme wrote:On March 16 2016 01:15 FiWiFaKi wrote:
You know what makes me upset?
That people want a democracy and give people the right to have a voice... And then the moment that people use their vote to vote for Trump, all these liberals will start spewing articles on my news feed about how he's a bad person, the media is campaigning and spending tens of millions of dollars campaigning against him and feeding people propaganda, taken quotes completely out of context, and doing everything so he doesn't get into office.
Its just really sad, that the exact same people who are proponents of free speech now try and manipulate other people to vote for what they want. Its like if you're agreeing with them, yeah choice is great. Then the moment you have a different view (and all the people you've been trying to make liberal secretly aren't), you are now against them and make them seem like awful people. The media categorizes the Trump supports as racists and so forth, even though he has 40%+ in polls against Hillary and Bernie.
Does that make 40% of the US population awful people? And if so, then what kind of people who want to be in politics and see America united shit on 40%+ of the population at one time? Seriously, fuck the media in this process, get educated, and go out to vote for what you believe in. When you have a debate, why do you have to have the media analyze for you who won and who lost... You watched it, can't you use your head to see what you agree with?
/rantover This remind me of that episode of south park where they conclude that yes, at least 25% of the americans are retards. And as always pointed out, head to head polls are wildly inaccurate and a lot of polling does not accurately represent how the population will vote. And apparently freedom to decide and vote means freedom from criticism by the media and population. But there will always be a section of the US population that is racist and politicians willing to listen to them. But the criticisms are often not factual. What the media and other politicians are doing to Trump is just dirty. Instead all I see time and time again is quote taken out of context with a pose of Trump in a not so friendly position. Trump doesn't have these attach adds - Trump insults the opposition in his speeches, but not like what is currently being campaigned by the democrats and republicans. Gotta agree here. While I agree that Trump is divisive, I think a lot of the comparisons to Hitler and whatnot are really unwarranted. He is truly not nearly as bad as the media makes you think. I think he's bad, but he's not the thread to society that people seem to suggest.
If Trump wanted to spark a race/religious war, he's a hell of a lot closer than McVeigh ever got. So right now he's not nearly as bad as either of them but the potential for him to be end up somewhere in between... we are at his mercy in that aspect.
|
On March 16 2016 01:15 FiWiFaKi wrote:
You know what makes me upset?
That people want a democracy and give people the right to have a voice... And then the moment that people use their vote to vote for Trump, all these liberals will start spewing articles on my news feed about how he's a bad person, the media is campaigning and spending tens of millions of dollars campaigning against him and feeding people propaganda, taken quotes completely out of context, and doing everything so he doesn't get into office.
Its just really sad, that the exact same people who are proponents of free speech now try and manipulate other people to vote for what they want. Its like if you're agreeing with them, yeah choice is great. Then the moment you have a different view (and all the people you've been trying to make liberal secretly aren't), you are now against them and make them seem like awful people. The media categorizes the Trump supports as racists and so forth, even though he has 40%+ in polls against Hillary and Bernie.
Does that make 40% of the US population awful people? And if so, then what kind of people who want to be in politics and see America united shit on 40%+ of the population at one time? Seriously, fuck the media in this process, get educated, and go out to vote for what you believe in. When you have a debate, why do you have to have the media analyze for you who won and who lost... You watched it, can't you use your head to see what you agree with?
/rantover
1. There is nothing contradictory in both supporting freedom of speech and disagreeing with someone. If you're being sexist, I'm not going to want to have you arrested -- you have the right, under the Constitution, to voice sexist comments. Yet why should this mean that I should have to support or agree with your comments? How do you make the logical leap that because I support free speech, I should not disagree with what you're going to say? That makes zero sense. I can both support your right to free speech and condemn what you are saying and the positions you are defending if I strongly disagree with them.
2. I have yet to see someone seriously make the case that all of Trump's supporters are racist. Feel free to show me where in this thread a poster has seriously argued that all of the people voting for Trump are racist. To me, this is a clear example of a strawman construed in order to be able to play the victim. What is true, however, is that (a) Trump has been making plenty xenophobic and sexist comments, and (b) there are many people supporting Trump who indeed hold racist and bigoted views. This doesn't mean that all, or even a majority, of his supporters are racist, obviously. But there is a higher proportion of racists and bigots voting for Trump than for other candidates, including the other remaining Republican candidates. This is well documented. And even if those voters did not exist, I see no reason why one could not be critical of voting for someone who regularly makes bigoted comments, even if the people voting for him are not bigoted themselves. Again, the fact that you support everyone's right to vote doesn't mean that you have to support the positions of every candidate receiving votes and abstain from criticizing them. There is no logical connection between the two.
|
On March 16 2016 01:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:On March 16 2016 01:41 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 16 2016 01:33 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2016 01:22 Erasme wrote:On March 16 2016 01:15 FiWiFaKi wrote:
You know what makes me upset?
That people want a democracy and give people the right to have a voice... And then the moment that people use their vote to vote for Trump, all these liberals will start spewing articles on my news feed about how he's a bad person, the media is campaigning and spending tens of millions of dollars campaigning against him and feeding people propaganda, taken quotes completely out of context, and doing everything so he doesn't get into office.
Its just really sad, that the exact same people who are proponents of free speech now try and manipulate other people to vote for what they want. Its like if you're agreeing with them, yeah choice is great. Then the moment you have a different view (and all the people you've been trying to make liberal secretly aren't), you are now against them and make them seem like awful people. The media categorizes the Trump supports as racists and so forth, even though he has 40%+ in polls against Hillary and Bernie.
Does that make 40% of the US population awful people? And if so, then what kind of people who want to be in politics and see America united shit on 40%+ of the population at one time? Seriously, fuck the media in this process, get educated, and go out to vote for what you believe in. When you have a debate, why do you have to have the media analyze for you who won and who lost... You watched it, can't you use your head to see what you agree with?
/rantover This remind me of that episode of south park where they conclude that yes, at least 25% of the americans are retards. And as always pointed out, head to head polls are wildly inaccurate and a lot of polling does not accurately represent how the population will vote. And apparently freedom to decide and vote means freedom from criticism by the media and population. But there will always be a section of the US population that is racist and politicians willing to listen to them. But the criticisms are often not factual. What the media and other politicians are doing to Trump is just dirty. Instead all I see time and time again is quote taken out of context with a pose of Trump in a not so friendly position. Trump doesn't have these attach adds - Trump insults the opposition in his speeches, but not like what is currently being campaigned by the democrats and republicans. Gotta agree here. While I agree that Trump is divisive, I think a lot of the comparisons to Hitler and whatnot are really unwarranted. He is truly not nearly as bad as the media makes you think. I think he's bad, but he's not the thread to society that people seem to suggest. If Trump wanted to spark a race/religious war, he's a hell of a lot closer than McVeigh ever got. So right now he's not nearly as bad as either of them but the potential for him to be end up somewhere in between... we are at his mercy in that aspect.
You're right, but not entirely by his own design. Let's not forget just how divided as a country we have been the past few years. Government shutdown, refusal to meet, refusal to read, the list goes on and on. Trump seized a perfect opportunity to ride the anger wave, and he addressed his message to capitalize on it. But these issues have been here a while. He's just the first person to openly campaign in support of all this right wing rage for the establishment and american society in general.
|
On March 16 2016 01:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 00:16 oneofthem wrote:
hillary actually hates politics. kind of like her attitude towards reddit. she is just not that good at it.
anyway celebrity sighting i just passed by jim webb a while ago Reason number 1 why her presumed dominance in the general is suspect.
Still not ready to accept my bet offer?
|
On March 16 2016 01:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 01:21 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2016 00:19 LegalLord wrote:On March 16 2016 00:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) — Facing a backlash from Appalachian Democrats, Hillary Clinton's campaign on Monday tried to reaffirm her commitment to coal communities one day after declaring on national television she was going to "to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business."
Clinton's comments came during a Sunday night appearance on CNN, where she was asked a question about how her policies would benefit poor white people in southern states who generally vote Republican.
"I'm the only candidate, which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity, using clean renewable energy as the key, into coal country. Because we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business," Clinton said. "We're going to make it clear that we don't want to forget those people."
Clinton was touting a plan she released last year that would set aside $30 billion to protect the health benefits for coal miners and their families. But her quip about putting coal miners out of business gave Republicans a perfect soundbite to use against her in states like Kentucky and West Virginia, where the party has made historic gains in coal communities in recent years by running against President Barack Obama's energy policies. Source This is the kind of thing that gets people to say Hillary is a flip flopper. If Bernie had hammered her for it as hard as Obama had, he'd probably be ahead right now. How could her stance lead someone to see her as a flip flopper? She clearly said that she would do her best, and had a plan, to help those who have suffered and would suffer from the coal industry's decline. Where is the flip flop? Maybe because she thinks $70 billion for college access is unrealistic but $30 billion for coal miners health benefits (when we could just have at least a government option or even single payer) is reasonable? She's a straight panderbear. Just want to remind Bernie supporters to hit the phones and facebanking for GOTV though
A simplistic and misleading portrayal of her positions, and not a flip flop in any case, which is what I was talking about.
|
On March 16 2016 01:49 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 01:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2016 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:On March 16 2016 01:41 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 16 2016 01:33 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2016 01:22 Erasme wrote:On March 16 2016 01:15 FiWiFaKi wrote:
You know what makes me upset?
That people want a democracy and give people the right to have a voice... And then the moment that people use their vote to vote for Trump, all these liberals will start spewing articles on my news feed about how he's a bad person, the media is campaigning and spending tens of millions of dollars campaigning against him and feeding people propaganda, taken quotes completely out of context, and doing everything so he doesn't get into office.
Its just really sad, that the exact same people who are proponents of free speech now try and manipulate other people to vote for what they want. Its like if you're agreeing with them, yeah choice is great. Then the moment you have a different view (and all the people you've been trying to make liberal secretly aren't), you are now against them and make them seem like awful people. The media categorizes the Trump supports as racists and so forth, even though he has 40%+ in polls against Hillary and Bernie.
Does that make 40% of the US population awful people? And if so, then what kind of people who want to be in politics and see America united shit on 40%+ of the population at one time? Seriously, fuck the media in this process, get educated, and go out to vote for what you believe in. When you have a debate, why do you have to have the media analyze for you who won and who lost... You watched it, can't you use your head to see what you agree with?
/rantover This remind me of that episode of south park where they conclude that yes, at least 25% of the americans are retards. And as always pointed out, head to head polls are wildly inaccurate and a lot of polling does not accurately represent how the population will vote. And apparently freedom to decide and vote means freedom from criticism by the media and population. But there will always be a section of the US population that is racist and politicians willing to listen to them. But the criticisms are often not factual. What the media and other politicians are doing to Trump is just dirty. Instead all I see time and time again is quote taken out of context with a pose of Trump in a not so friendly position. Trump doesn't have these attach adds - Trump insults the opposition in his speeches, but not like what is currently being campaigned by the democrats and republicans. Gotta agree here. While I agree that Trump is divisive, I think a lot of the comparisons to Hitler and whatnot are really unwarranted. He is truly not nearly as bad as the media makes you think. I think he's bad, but he's not the thread to society that people seem to suggest. If Trump wanted to spark a race/religious war, he's a hell of a lot closer than McVeigh ever got. So right now he's not nearly as bad as either of them but the potential for him to be end up somewhere in between... we are at his mercy in that aspect. You're right, but not entirely by his own design. Let's not forget just how divided as a country we have been the past few years. Government shutdown, refusal to meet, refusal to read, the list goes on and on. Trump seized a perfect opportunity to ride the anger wave, and he addressed his message to capitalize on it. But these issues have been here a while. He's just the first person to openly campaign in support of all this right wing rage for the establishment and american society in general.
Trump isn't Hitler, but that's what informed people are generally talking about. Hitler didn't invent antisemitism or Germany's economic situation, but he sure rode the hole hell out of it.
On March 16 2016 01:51 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 01:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2016 01:21 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2016 00:19 LegalLord wrote:On March 16 2016 00:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) — Facing a backlash from Appalachian Democrats, Hillary Clinton's campaign on Monday tried to reaffirm her commitment to coal communities one day after declaring on national television she was going to "to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business."
Clinton's comments came during a Sunday night appearance on CNN, where she was asked a question about how her policies would benefit poor white people in southern states who generally vote Republican.
"I'm the only candidate, which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity, using clean renewable energy as the key, into coal country. Because we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business," Clinton said. "We're going to make it clear that we don't want to forget those people."
Clinton was touting a plan she released last year that would set aside $30 billion to protect the health benefits for coal miners and their families. But her quip about putting coal miners out of business gave Republicans a perfect soundbite to use against her in states like Kentucky and West Virginia, where the party has made historic gains in coal communities in recent years by running against President Barack Obama's energy policies. Source This is the kind of thing that gets people to say Hillary is a flip flopper. If Bernie had hammered her for it as hard as Obama had, he'd probably be ahead right now. How could her stance lead someone to see her as a flip flopper? She clearly said that she would do her best, and had a plan, to help those who have suffered and would suffer from the coal industry's decline. Where is the flip flop? Maybe because she thinks $70 billion for college access is unrealistic but $30 billion for coal miners health benefits (when we could just have at least a government option or even single payer) is reasonable? She's a straight panderbear. Just want to remind Bernie supporters to hit the phones and facebanking for GOTV though A simplistic and misleading portrayal of her positions, and not a flip flop in any case, which is what I was talking about.
She doesn't think we can get $70 billion for education but is ready to tell people she'll spend $30 billion on coal miners just for health insurance.
What's misleading? I'll grant you it's not a typical "flip-flop", it's just bullshit.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
not sure healthcare is the best way to spend that money. relocate these dudes to a more vibrant place and give them jobs training/subsidized programs for employment
|
United States43278 Posts
On March 16 2016 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 01:41 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 16 2016 01:33 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2016 01:22 Erasme wrote:On March 16 2016 01:15 FiWiFaKi wrote:
You know what makes me upset?
That people want a democracy and give people the right to have a voice... And then the moment that people use their vote to vote for Trump, all these liberals will start spewing articles on my news feed about how he's a bad person, the media is campaigning and spending tens of millions of dollars campaigning against him and feeding people propaganda, taken quotes completely out of context, and doing everything so he doesn't get into office.
Its just really sad, that the exact same people who are proponents of free speech now try and manipulate other people to vote for what they want. Its like if you're agreeing with them, yeah choice is great. Then the moment you have a different view (and all the people you've been trying to make liberal secretly aren't), you are now against them and make them seem like awful people. The media categorizes the Trump supports as racists and so forth, even though he has 40%+ in polls against Hillary and Bernie.
Does that make 40% of the US population awful people? And if so, then what kind of people who want to be in politics and see America united shit on 40%+ of the population at one time? Seriously, fuck the media in this process, get educated, and go out to vote for what you believe in. When you have a debate, why do you have to have the media analyze for you who won and who lost... You watched it, can't you use your head to see what you agree with?
/rantover This remind me of that episode of south park where they conclude that yes, at least 25% of the americans are retards. And as always pointed out, head to head polls are wildly inaccurate and a lot of polling does not accurately represent how the population will vote. And apparently freedom to decide and vote means freedom from criticism by the media and population. But there will always be a section of the US population that is racist and politicians willing to listen to them. But the criticisms are often not factual. What the media and other politicians are doing to Trump is just dirty. Instead all I see time and time again is quote taken out of context with a pose of Trump in a not so friendly position. Trump doesn't have these attach adds - Trump insults the opposition in his speeches, but not like what is currently being campaigned by the democrats and republicans. Gotta agree here. While I agree that Trump is divisive, I think a lot of the comparisons to Hitler and whatnot are really unwarranted. He is truly not nearly as bad as the media makes you think. I think he's bad, but he's not the thread to society that people seem to suggest.
Nobody is comparing him to 1945 Hitler. They're comparing him to 1931 Hitler. They're not arguing that he plunged the world into war and then gassed all the Jews, they're arguing he's a dangerous xenophobic demagogue and pointing out how badly the last one turned out.
There would be no point waiting until after Trump gasses the Jews and then going "and that finally proves that Trump is like Hitler" because at that point we wouldn't be using Hitler as our byword for bad, we'd already be using Trump and Trump is literally Trump.
|
On March 16 2016 01:41 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 01:33 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2016 01:22 Erasme wrote:On March 16 2016 01:15 FiWiFaKi wrote:
You know what makes me upset?
That people want a democracy and give people the right to have a voice... And then the moment that people use their vote to vote for Trump, all these liberals will start spewing articles on my news feed about how he's a bad person, the media is campaigning and spending tens of millions of dollars campaigning against him and feeding people propaganda, taken quotes completely out of context, and doing everything so he doesn't get into office.
Its just really sad, that the exact same people who are proponents of free speech now try and manipulate other people to vote for what they want. Its like if you're agreeing with them, yeah choice is great. Then the moment you have a different view (and all the people you've been trying to make liberal secretly aren't), you are now against them and make them seem like awful people. The media categorizes the Trump supports as racists and so forth, even though he has 40%+ in polls against Hillary and Bernie.
Does that make 40% of the US population awful people? And if so, then what kind of people who want to be in politics and see America united shit on 40%+ of the population at one time? Seriously, fuck the media in this process, get educated, and go out to vote for what you believe in. When you have a debate, why do you have to have the media analyze for you who won and who lost... You watched it, can't you use your head to see what you agree with?
/rantover This remind me of that episode of south park where they conclude that yes, at least 25% of the americans are retards. And as always pointed out, head to head polls are wildly inaccurate and a lot of polling does not accurately represent how the population will vote. And apparently freedom to decide and vote means freedom from criticism by the media and population. But there will always be a section of the US population that is racist and politicians willing to listen to them. But the criticisms are often not factual. What the media and other politicians are doing to Trump is just dirty. Instead all I see time and time again is quote taken out of context with a pose of Trump in a not so friendly position. Trump doesn't have these attack ads - Trump insults the opposition in his speeches, but not like what is currently being campaigned by the democrats and republicans. Tell people to watch the debates, to view their opinions on important issues, don't tell people Trump is bad because of something that you're lying about. I don't automatically assume Hillary or Bernie are bad, neither Rubio or Kasich, I suppose Cruz is the one I had significant preconceived notions about, but I try to eliminate that as much as I can.
Although the full Hitler comparisons are a bit off, a lot of his tactics are questionable. His continued push for violence against protesters is specifically troubling and cannot be disputed. He has said several times that he believes the response to protester is violence, saying “He missed when they lefts on stretchers.”
http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-kent-state/
He has offered to pay their legal fees and provided other encouragement. He has said over and over at his rallies that violence is the response to protesters and he finds its acceptable. Of course, he denies this. But the evidence providing him wrong overwhelming and most of it is directly from his mouth.
He has received endorsements from white supremacist and refused to denounce them until backed into a corner to do so. Specifically with David Duke, Trump claimed not to know who he was, even though he has previously called Duke a racist. His son accepted an interview with a white supremacist talk show and Trump had a pastor on stage that previously stated all gays should be executed.
People think Trump is bad because they believe he is dangerous and will be harmful the country. I have said before that one of our close friends is Muslim and their family is terrified of Trump and the people voting for him. And that was months ago, before the violence at rallies.
There are plenty of reasons to draw comparisons between Trump and the worst people in history that held office.
|
I have classes today, so I won't be able to respond for a while. That said, I did post an article maybe 5-7 days back of a study that the proportion of racist remarks for Trump was very comparable with the other 3 candidates, he was 2nd of the four all within a couple of percentage points, and all four of them were higher than the Democratic candidates.
Also, I think the term racist is misused a tremendous amount of time. I'll post later today explaining my views, clarifying some of my statements, and providing sources for my arguments.
|
On March 16 2016 01:54 oneofthem wrote:
not sure healthcare is the best way to spend that money. relocate these dudes to a more vibrant place and give them jobs training/subsidized programs for employment
Let's relocate you from a place you've spent generations working and living in with promises of "vibrancy" and see how you take it. Especially coming from HRC, that would be rather rich.
|
On March 16 2016 00:12 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 00:07 IgnE wrote:On March 15 2016 23:40 oneofthem wrote:
there are multiple issues involved with every case and while the reed one has some that are not relevant to gmo labeling the discussion on standard of scrutiny is broad reaching for similar speech cases. ge food does not satisfy the strict standard which in this area requires a material difference in the food category. there is no such difference and it wasnt even the argument by advocates of the regulation because even they know there is nondifference in the food itself Come on, you can't argue that the food is both patentable and nondifferent. the food is not patented it is a product involved in the making of the food that is patented
The seeds are patented. Not sure what distinction you are trying to make. Let's imagine a Bowman v. Monsanto with grafting instead of seeds.
|
On March 16 2016 02:06 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 01:54 oneofthem wrote:
not sure healthcare is the best way to spend that money. relocate these dudes to a more vibrant place and give them jobs training/subsidized programs for employment Let's relocate you from a place you've spent generations working and living in with promises of "vibrancy" and see how you take it. Especially coming from HRC, that would be rather rich.
Let's focus on what Hillary has actually said. What else than what she's proposing do you suggest doing for the people working in the coal industry?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 16 2016 02:06 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 01:54 oneofthem wrote:
not sure healthcare is the best way to spend that money. relocate these dudes to a more vibrant place and give them jobs training/subsidized programs for employment Let's relocate you from a place you've spent generations working and living in with promises of "vibrancy" and see how you take it. Especially coming from HRC, that would be rather rich.
uh if they stay behind it's bad for them. the more mobile and resourced are already out. spending money to prop up unviable regions is not a long term solution.
i'm not saying they need to be forcefully relocated, but given resources so that they can move, or the second generation can move.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 16 2016 02:07 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 00:12 oneofthem wrote:On March 16 2016 00:07 IgnE wrote:On March 15 2016 23:40 oneofthem wrote:
there are multiple issues involved with every case and while the reed one has some that are not relevant to gmo labeling the discussion on standard of scrutiny is broad reaching for similar speech cases. ge food does not satisfy the strict standard which in this area requires a material difference in the food category. there is no such difference and it wasnt even the argument by advocates of the regulation because even they know there is nondifference in the food itself Come on, you can't argue that the food is both patentable and nondifferent.
the food is not patented it is a product involved in the making of the food that is patented The seeds are patented. Not sure what distinction you are trying to make. Let's imagine a Bowman v. Monsanto with grafting instead of seeds.
please read your own post. i bolded the relevant part.
|
On March 16 2016 01:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 01:41 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 16 2016 01:33 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2016 01:22 Erasme wrote:On March 16 2016 01:15 FiWiFaKi wrote:
You know what makes me upset?
That people want a democracy and give people the right to have a voice... And then the moment that people use their vote to vote for Trump, all these liberals will start spewing articles on my news feed about how he's a bad person, the media is campaigning and spending tens of millions of dollars campaigning against him and feeding people propaganda, taken quotes completely out of context, and doing everything so he doesn't get into office.
Its just really sad, that the exact same people who are proponents of free speech now try and manipulate other people to vote for what they want. Its like if you're agreeing with them, yeah choice is great. Then the moment you have a different view (and all the people you've been trying to make liberal secretly aren't), you are now against them and make them seem like awful people. The media categorizes the Trump supports as racists and so forth, even though he has 40%+ in polls against Hillary and Bernie.
Does that make 40% of the US population awful people? And if so, then what kind of people who want to be in politics and see America united shit on 40%+ of the population at one time? Seriously, fuck the media in this process, get educated, and go out to vote for what you believe in. When you have a debate, why do you have to have the media analyze for you who won and who lost... You watched it, can't you use your head to see what you agree with?
/rantover This remind me of that episode of south park where they conclude that yes, at least 25% of the americans are retards. And as always pointed out, head to head polls are wildly inaccurate and a lot of polling does not accurately represent how the population will vote. And apparently freedom to decide and vote means freedom from criticism by the media and population. But there will always be a section of the US population that is racist and politicians willing to listen to them. But the criticisms are often not factual. What the media and other politicians are doing to Trump is just dirty. Instead all I see time and time again is quote taken out of context with a pose of Trump in a not so friendly position. Trump doesn't have these attack ads - Trump insults the opposition in his speeches, but not like what is currently being campaigned by the democrats and republicans. Tell people to watch the debates, to view their opinions on important issues, don't tell people Trump is bad because of something that you're lying about. I don't automatically assume Hillary or Bernie are bad, neither Rubio or Kasich, I suppose Cruz is the one I had significant preconceived notions about, but I try to eliminate that as much as I can. He has received endorsements from white supremacist and refused to denounce them until backed into a corner to do so. Specifically with David Duke, Trump claimed not to know who he was, even though he has previously called Duke a racist.
I'm thinking there's no way he could have handled that that would have satisfied you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
