|
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 June 07 2016 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol @ people claiming the corporate media isn't in the tank for Hillary. Kwiz must be one of those folks who thinks Chelsea's first job was totally legit.
If you wish to join the discussion, GreenHorizons, do so as an adult and present us with arguments or facts to explain how the AP calling the race for Hillary today means that it is "in the tank for Hillary". I'm "one of those folks" who likes discussions to have substance instead of consisting in baseless mud-slinging.
|
On June 07 2016 11:58 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2016 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol @ people claiming the corporate media isn't in the tank for Hillary. Kwiz must be one of those folks who thinks Chelsea's first job was totally legit. I am looking so forward to what you say tomorrow.
That splitting the electorate into thirds is very possible, especially if the Libertarians also get into the debates? One would only need ~34% (maybe less) of the vote to win many states and Bernie, Trump, or Hillary could do it (presuming the delegates don't have a change of heart and vote Bernie)?
I'm not voting for someone who gets foreign policy advice from Kissinger, so both Hillary and Trump are non-starters for me.
On June 07 2016 12:02 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2016 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol @ people claiming the corporate media isn't in the tank for Hillary. Kwiz must be one of those folks who thinks Chelsea's first job was totally legit. If you wish to join the discussion, GreenHorizons, do so as an adult and present us with arguments or facts to explain how the AP calling the race for Hillary today means that it is "in the tank for Hillary". I'm "one of those folks" who likes discussions to have substance instead of consisting in baseless mud-slinging.
I'm not saying the AP calling it is evidence, though it is a dumb move, I'm saying there was more than enough before. I don't really care to join in a discussion about it though. At least not after whatever explanation you'd give for Chelsea's "job" at MSNBC.
|
On June 07 2016 12:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2016 12:02 kwizach wrote:On June 07 2016 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol @ people claiming the corporate media isn't in the tank for Hillary. Kwiz must be one of those folks who thinks Chelsea's first job was totally legit. If you wish to join the discussion, GreenHorizons, do so as an adult and present us with arguments or facts to explain how the AP calling the race for Hillary today means that it is "in the tank for Hillary". I'm "one of those folks" who likes discussions to have substance instead of consisting in baseless mud-slinging. I'm not saying the AP calling it is evidence, though it is a dumb move, I'm saying there was more than enough before. I don't really care to join in a discussion about it though. At least not after whatever explanation you'd give for Chelsea's "job" at MSNBC.
Right, so you have nothing of substance to contribute to what was being discussed. I'm glad we cleared that up.
|
On June 07 2016 11:22 oneofthem wrote:
the nature of the fracture is quite different, at least for some not insubstantial segment of sanders people.
sure, a big majority of sanders supporters would be voting for clinton, but a lot more would not be voting compared to 08.
this is especially true for rural bernie supporters with no strong ties to the democratic party. the youth will come around.
Really think the long time rural supporters are going to drop out? The young first time voters seem to be the 'Bernie or nothing' faction.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 07 2016 12:12 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2016 11:22 oneofthem wrote:
the nature of the fracture is quite different, at least for some not insubstantial segment of sanders people.
sure, a big majority of sanders supporters would be voting for clinton, but a lot more would not be voting compared to 08.
this is especially true for rural bernie supporters with no strong ties to the democratic party. the youth will come around. Really think the long time rural supporters are going to drop out? The young first time voters seem to be the 'Bernie or nothing' faction.
a lot of the rural folks are rather conservative 'independents' who are primarily motivated by anger vs establishment. young people are just positively excited, which is less entrenched at the end of the day.
sanders winning rural conservative parts is pretty consistent across all the states, and the basic breakdown of that vote is pretty resentment fueled suspicion of 'establishment politics.' it's a very appealing formula for trump
|
On June 07 2016 12:11 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2016 12:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2016 12:02 kwizach wrote:On June 07 2016 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol @ people claiming the corporate media isn't in the tank for Hillary. Kwiz must be one of those folks who thinks Chelsea's first job was totally legit. If you wish to join the discussion, GreenHorizons, do so as an adult and present us with arguments or facts to explain how the AP calling the race for Hillary today means that it is "in the tank for Hillary". I'm "one of those folks" who likes discussions to have substance instead of consisting in baseless mud-slinging. I'm not saying the AP calling it is evidence, though it is a dumb move, I'm saying there was more than enough before. I don't really care to join in a discussion about it though. At least not after whatever explanation you'd give for Chelsea's "job" at MSNBC. Right, so you have nothing of substance to contribute to what was being discussed. I'm glad we cleared that up.
Why bring sand to the beach right? Just curious, are you arguing the AP call isn't evidence, or that corporate media doesn't favor Hillary?
|
Hey xDaunt or Testie, why are people who hated Romney's flip floping beind fine with Trump being even worse about it?
|
On May 25 2016 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 01:43 ticklishmusic wrote:
GH will keep making unfounded accusations about money laundering, etc, etc.
Anyways, I've finally decided what I want from that bet way back (you were so confident that Sanders would close the gap after Washington remember?). The topics are LGBT rights, financial industry reform/ regulation, trade and healthcare. Legislation, advocacy, current and former positions (spoiler alert: pretty much consistent). Have fun. You're going to have to find what you said you wanted about them, I don't remember any more. But it's not "unfounded accusations about money laundering" lol.
Unfortunately I got mega distracted by a surprise work trip... but anyways seems like a good time bring this back.
Original terms
One month from now (so April 29) we'll see how the numbers have changed. If Bernie has closed the gap in pledged delegate count from what it is today, I will donate $27 to his campaign (or your favorite charity/ whoever else I have no moral objection to giving to) and provide proof of the transaction. If not, I will provide you with a short list of questions about Hillary's record I want you to read up on and have you post your findings here. Does that sound fair?
We will use The Green Papers for the results. As of right now, the total stands at 1266 - 1038 (Clinton +228). This is the "soft" total and estimates the outcome of the most recent contests, while the "hard" one does not take those into account. If Clinton leads by more than 228 delegates, I am considered the winner. If her lead is smaller then 228 delegates, you are. To account for potential adjustments as the numbers shake out, if the lead has changed by less than 10 delegates we will call it a wash.
Pretty straightforward. You read up on the 4 topics and Hillary's record on them and post what you learn. Goes without saying that I expect you to put reasonable effort into it.
|
On June 07 2016 12:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2016 12:11 kwizach wrote:On June 07 2016 12:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2016 12:02 kwizach wrote:On June 07 2016 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol @ people claiming the corporate media isn't in the tank for Hillary. Kwiz must be one of those folks who thinks Chelsea's first job was totally legit. If you wish to join the discussion, GreenHorizons, do so as an adult and present us with arguments or facts to explain how the AP calling the race for Hillary today means that it is "in the tank for Hillary". I'm "one of those folks" who likes discussions to have substance instead of consisting in baseless mud-slinging. I'm not saying the AP calling it is evidence, though it is a dumb move, I'm saying there was more than enough before. I don't really care to join in a discussion about it though. At least not after whatever explanation you'd give for Chelsea's "job" at MSNBC. Right, so you have nothing of substance to contribute to what was being discussed. I'm glad we cleared that up. Why bring sand to the beach right? Just curious, are you arguing the AP call isn't evidence, or that corporate media doesn't favor Hillary?
I asked a straightforward question to xDaunt. He argued that the AP calling the race was evidence of "how badly the mainstream media is in the tank for Hillary". I asked him how that was the case. You decided to join the discussion in order to proceed with your usual Clinton-bashing, while recognizing you had nothing to say about what I was specifically addressing. If you want to answer how the AP calling the race for Clinton today is evidence of the AP being "in the tank for Hillary", do so. If you don't want to answer that, kindly stop replying to my posts.
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
announcing the winner can also make hillary supporters not vote. people who want to buy into the sanders campaign narrative fail to see the other effect of the announcement.
|
On June 07 2016 12:25 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2016 12:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2016 12:11 kwizach wrote:On June 07 2016 12:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2016 12:02 kwizach wrote:On June 07 2016 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol @ people claiming the corporate media isn't in the tank for Hillary. Kwiz must be one of those folks who thinks Chelsea's first job was totally legit. If you wish to join the discussion, GreenHorizons, do so as an adult and present us with arguments or facts to explain how the AP calling the race for Hillary today means that it is "in the tank for Hillary". I'm "one of those folks" who likes discussions to have substance instead of consisting in baseless mud-slinging. I'm not saying the AP calling it is evidence, though it is a dumb move, I'm saying there was more than enough before. I don't really care to join in a discussion about it though. At least not after whatever explanation you'd give for Chelsea's "job" at MSNBC. Right, so you have nothing of substance to contribute to what was being discussed. I'm glad we cleared that up. Why bring sand to the beach right? Just curious, are you arguing the AP call isn't evidence, or that corporate media doesn't favor Hillary? I asked a straightforward question to xDaunt. He argued that the AP calling the race was evidence of "how badly the mainstream media is in the tank for Hillary". I asked him how that was the case. You decided to join the discussion in order to proceed with your usual Clinton-bashing, while recognizing you had nothing to say about what I was specifically addressing. If you want to answer how the AP calling the race for Clinton today is evidence of the AP being "in the tank for Hillary", do so. If you don't want to answer that, kindly stop replying to my posts.
Thought so, was just checking. Carry on good soldier.
Alright Ticklish, fair is fair. Write up what I learn on the four topics (if you could PM them it would be easier to make sure I don't forget).
|
On June 07 2016 12:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2016 12:25 kwizach wrote:On June 07 2016 12:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2016 12:11 kwizach wrote:On June 07 2016 12:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2016 12:02 kwizach wrote:On June 07 2016 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol @ people claiming the corporate media isn't in the tank for Hillary. Kwiz must be one of those folks who thinks Chelsea's first job was totally legit. If you wish to join the discussion, GreenHorizons, do so as an adult and present us with arguments or facts to explain how the AP calling the race for Hillary today means that it is "in the tank for Hillary". I'm "one of those folks" who likes discussions to have substance instead of consisting in baseless mud-slinging. I'm not saying the AP calling it is evidence, though it is a dumb move, I'm saying there was more than enough before. I don't really care to join in a discussion about it though. At least not after whatever explanation you'd give for Chelsea's "job" at MSNBC. Right, so you have nothing of substance to contribute to what was being discussed. I'm glad we cleared that up. Why bring sand to the beach right? Just curious, are you arguing the AP call isn't evidence, or that corporate media doesn't favor Hillary? I asked a straightforward question to xDaunt. He argued that the AP calling the race was evidence of "how badly the mainstream media is in the tank for Hillary". I asked him how that was the case. You decided to join the discussion in order to proceed with your usual Clinton-bashing, while recognizing you had nothing to say about what I was specifically addressing. If you want to answer how the AP calling the race for Clinton today is evidence of the AP being "in the tank for Hillary", do so. If you don't want to answer that, kindly stop replying to my posts. Thought so, was just checking. Carry on good soldier.
You weren't "checking" anything, you simply decided to hijack yet another discussion to take your usual cheap shots at the Clintons. But like I said, if you want to answer how the AP calling the race for Clinton today is evidence of the AP being "in the tank for Hillary", feel free to do so. xDaunt is certainly not going to reply, because as usual he's not interested in facts, only in his own narrative.
|
On June 07 2016 12:18 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Hey xDaunt or Testie, why are people who hated Romney's flip floping beind fine with Trump being even worse about it?
I can not speak for them but one of the reasons imo is that whenever he flip flops, he never backs down and his poll numbers always go up.
|
On June 07 2016 12:41 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2016 12:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2016 12:25 kwizach wrote:On June 07 2016 12:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2016 12:11 kwizach wrote:On June 07 2016 12:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2016 12:02 kwizach wrote:On June 07 2016 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol @ people claiming the corporate media isn't in the tank for Hillary. Kwiz must be one of those folks who thinks Chelsea's first job was totally legit. If you wish to join the discussion, GreenHorizons, do so as an adult and present us with arguments or facts to explain how the AP calling the race for Hillary today means that it is "in the tank for Hillary". I'm "one of those folks" who likes discussions to have substance instead of consisting in baseless mud-slinging. I'm not saying the AP calling it is evidence, though it is a dumb move, I'm saying there was more than enough before. I don't really care to join in a discussion about it though. At least not after whatever explanation you'd give for Chelsea's "job" at MSNBC. Right, so you have nothing of substance to contribute to what was being discussed. I'm glad we cleared that up. Why bring sand to the beach right? Just curious, are you arguing the AP call isn't evidence, or that corporate media doesn't favor Hillary? I asked a straightforward question to xDaunt. He argued that the AP calling the race was evidence of "how badly the mainstream media is in the tank for Hillary". I asked him how that was the case. You decided to join the discussion in order to proceed with your usual Clinton-bashing, while recognizing you had nothing to say about what I was specifically addressing. If you want to answer how the AP calling the race for Clinton today is evidence of the AP being "in the tank for Hillary", do so. If you don't want to answer that, kindly stop replying to my posts. Thought so, was just checking. Carry on good soldier. You weren't "checking" anything, you simply decided to hijack yet another discussion to take your usual cheap shots at the Clintons. But like I said, if you want to answer how the AP calling the race for Clinton today is evidence of the AP being "in the tank for Hillary", feel free to do so. xDaunt is certainly not going to reply, because as usual he's not interested in facts, only in his own narrative.
I'm not interested in replying to obnoxious posters who never directly respond to posts, always (intentionally or through stupidity) obfuscate the issues that I raise, and generally display a complete lack of good faith in the process of the argument. Thanks, but no thanks. I'm more than happy to talk facts, but certainly not with you.
|
On June 07 2016 12:18 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Hey xDaunt or Testie, why are people who hated Romney's flip floping beind fine with Trump being even worse about it?
Because there are lots of reasons to like Trump in spite of his copious warts.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
romney was viewed with suspicion because he's a slick wall street guy. there is a lot of anti-elite sentiment fueling trump. his lack of polish and crude values plays well in large swathes of america
|
Yay the New Jersey primary has arrived!
+ Show Spoiler +In a few hours, I'll be voting for Bernie Sanders. In a few months, I'll be voting for Hillary Clinton.
|
On June 07 2016 12:18 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Hey xDaunt or Testie, why are people who hated Romney's flip floping beind fine with Trump being even worse about it?
What do you feel he has flip flopped the most on? I feel like most Trump supporters know his positions. I'll try to go through some and you can tell me which specific case he's flipped on or how wrong I am etc. I don't mind because I actually buy into the neocon / neoliberalism plan of Hillary as well or whatever the hell it's called nowadays. It's pretty murderous, but it certainly protects the petrodollar. We just all have to admit we're a little complicit in the murder and subjugation of other people now aren't we? Otherwise we'd say, 'no we can't murder people!' and vote Jill Stein and crash this country with no survivors.
I was for Obama in 08 / 12. And was a lefty who demonized any conservative source & ate up Jon Stew & Steven Colbert & thought Bill Maher wasn't just a shill (he is). Because I feel I can see when he knows he's lying for his team now. In highschool I was so left after reading a book on Osama that I was like, "oooh he has a point. It's because we're fucking up shit over there that we get attacked". Now, nay.
But after having my own business and supporting people monetarily I've changed a lot. I think that should almost be a pre-requisite for voting that you should have a kid or know what it's like to spend your own $ on someone to vote. Especially after this election. Once you've supported someone else on your own dime with not much coming back your way in return you have a different perspective on the economy. To me, business is the most important thing. I think I've changed on almost every position or gotten a better look at the other side of the story to realize they have very relevant points.
The Economy - If we go by a lot of what the left constantly says about the American people is that they're stupid.
Simplifying the tax codes and lowering tax burdens is the best way to help out any person in America start a business or simply grow their own personal wealth. They get to save more of what they keep and maybe even start their own hairdressers or restaurant etc and they can make it their own small family business. Restrictions, taxes, and regulations are actually good for corporations because they are the ones who can dodge all of these with their strong legal departments, corporate loopholes, and regulations limits competition for them. It retains the monopolies. But to open up a new business when the costs & fees are astronomical are pretty overwhelming. I'm not libertarian where I think you should be able to sell heroin to 5 year olds, or that safety inspectors are bad or that kitchen inspections are bad either (though they're probably corrupt anyway). I just think it's overly stifling and kills communities and relegates them to worse jobs like being a wal-mart greeter. I also think every country needs some manufacturing at least. There's plenty of people who are quite simply good with their hands and problem solvers in a very visual way and they may not be able to get through an engineering degree but there are plenty of hicks that people would write off as stupid, but are very capable self sufficient people. They can hunt, cook, clean, and fix almost everything around them in their own lives. But they may not have the best education. I feel that his style of economics will allow the people to once again see their own dollar go further eventually. Even if you don't make more money, you have more purchasing power. I also feel that his plans would actually take more out of the pockets of the super elite wealthy as well. Which is why they are funding everyone but Trump so very desperately. They spent a lot of money on Republican candidates, and they're going to spend a lot on Hillary as well.
On this point: KwarK & others destroyed me on the estate tax and I must begrudgingly agree that it is part of giving back to the country that you benefited from. Though I still think 80-90% is too high. But I could possibly see 40-65% etc.
Energy - I used to be more of an environmentalist as well. But I agree that he should open up coal plants, open up oil exploration for the oil companies, and allow fracking & renew the keystone pipeline. Obama nerfed our economy pretty hard when he killed that and our economy tanked right away because Harper went all in on oil. In this instance again it's a lot more jobs for a lot more people. And this in itself is a great thing because at least you have a useful happy populace rather than one that is forced to lose their dignity and collect unemployment insurance or other benefits. A fiat currency is not meant to be redistributed so much as it is to be grown and expanded. Trump knows where money comes from and how to make more of it. "haha he was bankrupt 4 times" - Aka he used bankruptcy 4 times to get out of shitty places and his other 9582989258 successful businesses were doing swell.
The Military & rule of law - It's very obvious he's going to be the best option for the military as he has called out things that other politicians simply haven't during the campaign. The rule of law has been completely eroded as the left and police are demonized and that's somehow allowed. The riots cannot stand. The police, the border patrol, and the military stand with Trump. The military is a necessary tool for keeping Americas interests in tact. I'm most definitely sickened by the riots. I feel that no matter what happens to me in my life, I will never act violently towards another human being. An inanimate object? Sure. But another human being? Unless it's a fight for survival, then there's no chance of that. The left's constant outright disrespect of laws is deeply concerning. And it has been constant for years and getting worse. And the fact that the Trump supporters are thanking police officers as they walk by them personally, giving them handshakes and having small talk with them shows a better sense of community as a whole. This next sentence could be classified as bullshit, but they genuinely seem like better people who care more about the country than they do themselves. Meanwhile people on the left seem to come off as, "what the fuck has this country done for me?" Even if you're in a terrible position in America, you're lucky to be there by default. You just are.
Immigration - Again, another position I changed on. The left is arguing for a slave class that is consistently dependent on welfare. Again, after owning my own business. "I do not work for you. Nor do I work for a foreign invader that did not respect our laws to begin with." Harsh words, but if Canada's economy were shit, and I just decided to up and move to Japan because I liked their country best without any skills or knowing the language, I think I'd be a questionable person to do that. I think that's kinda.. a shitty thing to do to another country. Entering it against it's will. Isn't that rape? Raping a country?! Ok hyperbole and bad jokes aside. But it is intertwined with the rule of law. These people broke a law. They did not care about your country to begin with, we owe them no allegiance in return.
So the slave class they prefer they get paid low wages and must use welfare. The girl on the view let it out, "but who will do the jobs we don't want to do?!" Americans will do the jobs, but give them at least a decent wage. An American president no longer feels comfortable to tell people what should be done for the country because individual freedoms are above what's in the best interest for the country. If that's the case forever, the country is sure to fall to it's own debt and lack of accountability. On Muslims, I am very anti-Islam. It's a conquering political and religious ideology. I do not see assimilation to the host country, which I think is vital. At this point in history, it is very different from Christianity. A fair assessment on it. I am amazed that lefties will say, "yeah but the crusades!" The years apart are too different. + Show Spoiler + Also - wtf is with criminals who've been deported 5-10 times getting access back into the country over and over? How does anyone remotely try to justify that?
I've written a lot so I'll just say:
The Media - Trump is right on them. Dishonest, unfair, and complete bullshit at times.
There's other issues as well but I'll leave them off the table and ask what you think he will flip flop on or what he's flip flopped on? I think his core has been pretty solid while he's fumbled around and learned more and more.
Overall, Hillary's more globalist position may be better than Trumps mix of promoting nationalism but still taxing heavy globalists that just want to pay workers shit wages because there's no labour laws there. But globalists have to remember that they are arguing for abject slavery and inhumane work conditions to other countries. "We care about foreign peoples! But we don't give a shit if they jump off the roofs in iphone factories!" By activism and protesting at home you are not fixing labour laws in Bangladesh. Ever. There is so much conflicting information on this topic (which is clearly what everyone who is protecting their own interests wants) that it's probably well over anyone's head who is not directly working in a very high position so we're all probably just guessing and having biased information thrown at us about what's most beneficial for us.
Build wall. MAGA. Trump 2016. No drugs, no alcohol, no cigarettes.
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 07 2016 13:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2016 12:41 kwizach wrote:On June 07 2016 12:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2016 12:25 kwizach wrote:On June 07 2016 12:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2016 12:11 kwizach wrote:On June 07 2016 12:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2016 12:02 kwizach wrote:On June 07 2016 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol @ people claiming the corporate media isn't in the tank for Hillary. Kwiz must be one of those folks who thinks Chelsea's first job was totally legit. If you wish to join the discussion, GreenHorizons, do so as an adult and present us with arguments or facts to explain how the AP calling the race for Hillary today means that it is "in the tank for Hillary". I'm "one of those folks" who likes discussions to have substance instead of consisting in baseless mud-slinging. I'm not saying the AP calling it is evidence, though it is a dumb move, I'm saying there was more than enough before. I don't really care to join in a discussion about it though. At least not after whatever explanation you'd give for Chelsea's "job" at MSNBC. Right, so you have nothing of substance to contribute to what was being discussed. I'm glad we cleared that up. Why bring sand to the beach right? Just curious, are you arguing the AP call isn't evidence, or that corporate media doesn't favor Hillary? I asked a straightforward question to xDaunt. He argued that the AP calling the race was evidence of "how badly the mainstream media is in the tank for Hillary". I asked him how that was the case. You decided to join the discussion in order to proceed with your usual Clinton-bashing, while recognizing you had nothing to say about what I was specifically addressing. If you want to answer how the AP calling the race for Clinton today is evidence of the AP being "in the tank for Hillary", do so. If you don't want to answer that, kindly stop replying to my posts. Thought so, was just checking. Carry on good soldier. You weren't "checking" anything, you simply decided to hijack yet another discussion to take your usual cheap shots at the Clintons. But like I said, if you want to answer how the AP calling the race for Clinton today is evidence of the AP being "in the tank for Hillary", feel free to do so. xDaunt is certainly not going to reply, because as usual he's not interested in facts, only in his own narrative. I'm not interested in replying to obnoxious posters who never directly respond to posts, always (intentionally or through stupidity) obfuscate the issues that I raise, and generally display a complete lack of good faith in the process of the argument. Thanks, but no thanks. I'm more than happy to talk facts, but certainly not with you.
+ Show Spoiler [Response to xDaunt's deflection] +That's an interesting new excuse -- feel free to point to any example of me not "directly respond[ing]" to an argument you were making, or to a post of yours in general, in a discussion we were having. I can point to plenty of instances of you hightailing out of exchanges with me after I addressed claims you were making, so I must say I find it quite surprising to see you attempt to attack me on that front. I'll welcome any example supporting your other charges as well (whether in PM to avoid derailing the thread, or here if you prefer), but coming from the guy who routinely misrepresents other posters' views and rails against "liberal" strawmen every chance he gets, it's just as funny.
It's a pretty simple question, really. How is the AP calling the race today evidence of "how badly the mainstream media is in the tank for Hillary"? Which "facts" support that statement, as it relates to the AP call?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://2static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Most+adorable+kawaii+anime+political+art+sauce+wwwpixivnet+memberphp+id+7933104+being+posted_bc8496_5852985.jpg)
