|
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 May 31 2016 04:54 Introvert wrote:
An independent run will only take the blame for a loss from where it belongs (Trump) and move it elsewhere. Trump and Trumpism should be allowed to lose, and lose badly, so hopefully we never see it again.
Man, politics is sure going to create some odd bedmates soon.
|
Wow, both parties have really dropped the ball haven't they? It's like they are trying to one-up each other on unlikeable candidates. An Obama, Romney or McCain (without Palin) would absolutely dominate this election.
|
At the same time you have to look at the argument that trump might be going "2nd southern strategy" and be getting a lot more voters from going full asshole. It worked in Minnesota with the Jessie ventura governor election and Minnesota's as slightly left but mostly moderate as you can get.
|
United States44271 Posts
On May 31 2016 06:25 Bagration wrote:
Wow, both parties have really dropped the ball haven't they? It's like they are trying to one-up each other on unlikeable candidates. An Obama, Romney or McCain (without Palin) would absolutely dominate this election.
McCain has grown in me over time and hell, even Jeb Bush would be far easier to swallow than Trump. But that's part of the problem, people like me aren't going to vote Republican either way so a candidate I'd recognize as a sane, honest and reasonable man isn't worth shit unless I plan to follow through with an actual vote. There are no benefits for Republicans pitching for a middle that won't vote for them, the youtube comment demographic will at least turn out and vote for one of their own.
The strange thing was I was on the right in my country and still view myself as such but there is just no middle ground for me and the current Republican party to find. Maybe in 30 years when they've reinvented themselves I'll give them the time of day.
|
Primaries tend to bring out the crazies; some other voting systems would favor bland moderate candidates.
Of course, on the Dem side, there wasn't much choice, as Hillary has been the probable candidate for oh so very long; and while disliked as a candidate, she had decent ratings when actually in the senate and as sec of state, and has a strong grasp of policy issues.
|
|
|
On May 31 2016 06:25 Bagration wrote:
Wow, both parties have really dropped the ball haven't they? It's like they are trying to one-up each other on unlikeable candidates. An Obama, Romney or McCain (without Palin) would absolutely dominate this election.
Until the Democrats renounce the regressive left, which seems bent on tearing the United States apart you will continue seeing candidates like Crooked Hillary, who doesn't deserve ANY votes, getting the Democrat nomination.
|
United States44271 Posts
On May 31 2016 07:07 Ravianna26 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2016 06:25 Bagration wrote:
Wow, both parties have really dropped the ball haven't they? It's like they are trying to one-up each other on unlikeable candidates. An Obama, Romney or McCain (without Palin) would absolutely dominate this election. Until the Democrats renounce the regressive left, which seems bent on tearing the United States apart you will continue seeing candidates like Crooked Hillary, who doesn't deserve ANY votes, getting the Democrat nomination.
Until the Republican party starts offering people who are even slightly electable you will be ruled by the likes of Hillary.
|
Donald is electable if you trust the USA's system of checks and balances.
|
United States44271 Posts
Let's agree to disagree on that one.
|
On May 31 2016 07:13 SK.Testie wrote:
Donald is electable if you trust the USA's system of checks and balances.
The US could do without another 8 years of complete political inaction.
Also if your preferred candidate is only electable because you trust in the checks build into the system then your candidate is shit.
|
On May 31 2016 07:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2016 07:07 Ravianna26 wrote:On May 31 2016 06:25 Bagration wrote:
Wow, both parties have really dropped the ball haven't they? It's like they are trying to one-up each other on unlikeable candidates. An Obama, Romney or McCain (without Palin) would absolutely dominate this election. Until the Democrats renounce the regressive left, which seems bent on tearing the United States apart you will continue seeing candidates like Crooked Hillary, who doesn't deserve ANY votes, getting the Democrat nomination. you will be ruled by the likes of Hillary.
And by "the likes of Hillary", you mean a progressive candidate with a proven record, who's as competent and qualified for the job of president as one can get, right?
|
On May 31 2016 07:17 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2016 07:10 KwarK wrote:On May 31 2016 07:07 Ravianna26 wrote:On May 31 2016 06:25 Bagration wrote:
Wow, both parties have really dropped the ball haven't they? It's like they are trying to one-up each other on unlikeable candidates. An Obama, Romney or McCain (without Palin) would absolutely dominate this election. Until the Democrats renounce the regressive left, which seems bent on tearing the United States apart you will continue seeing candidates like Crooked Hillary, who doesn't deserve ANY votes, getting the Democrat nomination. you will be ruled by the likes of Hillary. And by "the likes of Hillary", you mean a progressive candidate with a proven record, who's as competent and qualified for the job of president as one can get, right?
He mean a crooked politicians.
|
On May 31 2016 07:07 Ravianna26 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2016 06:25 Bagration wrote:
Wow, both parties have really dropped the ball haven't they? It's like they are trying to one-up each other on unlikeable candidates. An Obama, Romney or McCain (without Palin) would absolutely dominate this election. Until the Democrats renounce the regressive left, which seems bent on tearing the United States apart you will continue seeing candidates like Crooked Hillary, who doesn't deserve ANY votes, getting the Democrat nomination.
i wonder what it'd look like if only low bias voters voted; probably not much different.
oh well, until we find a better system than democracy we'll keep at it.
|
On May 31 2016 07:39 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2016 07:17 kwizach wrote:On May 31 2016 07:10 KwarK wrote:On May 31 2016 07:07 Ravianna26 wrote:On May 31 2016 06:25 Bagration wrote:
Wow, both parties have really dropped the ball haven't they? It's like they are trying to one-up each other on unlikeable candidates. An Obama, Romney or McCain (without Palin) would absolutely dominate this election. Until the Democrats renounce the regressive left, which seems bent on tearing the United States apart you will continue seeing candidates like Crooked Hillary, who doesn't deserve ANY votes, getting the Democrat nomination. you will be ruled by the likes of Hillary. And by "the likes of Hillary", you mean a progressive candidate with a proven record, who's as competent and qualified for the job of president as one can get, right? He mean a crooked politicians.
Feel free to present your case as to why Hillary is particularly crooked -- without using Trump/GOP propaganda.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On May 31 2016 07:44 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2016 07:39 WhiteDog wrote:On May 31 2016 07:17 kwizach wrote:On May 31 2016 07:10 KwarK wrote:On May 31 2016 07:07 Ravianna26 wrote:On May 31 2016 06:25 Bagration wrote:
Wow, both parties have really dropped the ball haven't they? It's like they are trying to one-up each other on unlikeable candidates. An Obama, Romney or McCain (without Palin) would absolutely dominate this election. Until the Democrats renounce the regressive left, which seems bent on tearing the United States apart you will continue seeing candidates like Crooked Hillary, who doesn't deserve ANY votes, getting the Democrat nomination. you will be ruled by the likes of Hillary. And by "the likes of Hillary", you mean a progressive candidate with a proven record, who's as competent and qualified for the job of president as one can get, right? He mean a crooked politicians. Feel free to present your case as to why Hillary is particularly crooked -- without using Trump/GOP propaganda.
Are you allowing him to use the emails as a reason?
|
On May 31 2016 07:17 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2016 07:13 SK.Testie wrote:
Donald is electable if you trust the USA's system of checks and balances. The US could do without another 8 years of complete political inaction. Also if your preferred candidate is only electable because you trust in the checks build into the system then your candidate is shit.
I don't get it, if this were 2008 and someone said Obama wanted to repeal the second amendment, and you said not to worry, that's not in the president's power, and they said "if that's your only defense he's a shit candidate," are they not just as correct?
|
On May 31 2016 07:54 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2016 07:44 kwizach wrote:On May 31 2016 07:39 WhiteDog wrote:On May 31 2016 07:17 kwizach wrote:On May 31 2016 07:10 KwarK wrote:On May 31 2016 07:07 Ravianna26 wrote:On May 31 2016 06:25 Bagration wrote:
Wow, both parties have really dropped the ball haven't they? It's like they are trying to one-up each other on unlikeable candidates. An Obama, Romney or McCain (without Palin) would absolutely dominate this election. Until the Democrats renounce the regressive left, which seems bent on tearing the United States apart you will continue seeing candidates like Crooked Hillary, who doesn't deserve ANY votes, getting the Democrat nomination. you will be ruled by the likes of Hillary. And by "the likes of Hillary", you mean a progressive candidate with a proven record, who's as competent and qualified for the job of president as one can get, right? He mean a crooked politicians. Feel free to present your case as to why Hillary is particularly crooked -- without using Trump/GOP propaganda. Are you allowing him to use the emails as a reason?
If her e-mails are the substance of the criticism against Hillary, that makes it the most ludicrous charge against a politician ever. It's unreal how much attention something as unimportant as this is getting. Never mind that the opposition denies the reality of climate change, supports the use torture, wants to ban more than one billion people from potentially entering the U.S., routinely promotes ridiculous conspiracy theories, and basically lies non-stop and gets everything wrong on every level when it comes to facts and policy -- Hillary broke a couple of internal state department rules out of unfamiliarity with computers and personal convenience for her use of e-mails (and admitted she made a mistake), so let's burn her at the stake. Unreal.
|
On May 31 2016 08:01 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2016 07:17 Gorsameth wrote:On May 31 2016 07:13 SK.Testie wrote:
Donald is electable if you trust the USA's system of checks and balances. The US could do without another 8 years of complete political inaction. Also if your preferred candidate is only electable because you trust in the checks build into the system then your candidate is shit. I don't get it, if this were 2008 and someone said Obama wanted to repeal the second amendment, and you said not to worry, that's not in the president's power, and they said "if that's your only defense he's a shit candidate," are they not just as correct?
Lets go back to the conversation in question shall we?
Until the Republican party starts offering people who are even slightly electable you will be ruled by the likes of Hillary.
Donald is electable if you trust the USA's system of checks and balances.
When your defense against the opinion that Trump is un-electable is "the system will keep him in check" then maybe you should be looking for a better candidate. One where you don't need to trust in the system to keep him in check but who is working within the system instead.
Your argument is non sense because Obama was never in danger of being un-electable because he didn't make such retarded statements.
Unlike Trump
|
It's basically sounding like the only difference between the two examples is you personally don't like one of the candidates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
