| 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. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7917 Posts
On August 01 2016 00:39 Slaughter wrote: Holy shit be more of a hypocrite. Trump "used" stuff like that several times during the RNC I think you misunderstood me. Just reread my post. That's the the right wing narrative | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On August 01 2016 11:41 LegalLord wrote: To those who support Hillary as a candidate who will "hold the line" on progressive social issues, I have a question for you. Say she does a really botched job as president, something akin to Bush. This would likely fracture the Democratic base and set the goals of the progressive movements back a decade. Do you think this is a risk worth considering when trying to make a "vote for the lesser of two evils" argument? If the representative of the progressive movement is bad and undermines the cause, isn't that worse than 1-2 terms for the opposition? Fracturing the democratic vote would be an improvement to US politics, especially assuming that the republic party is going through the same thing (didn't a lot of republicans basically abandon the party for this election after Trump?). Four or five major parties would be much better than what you currently have. Maybe some revisions in the various election processes of the states and whatnot would be good to go along with that. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Weird system, but it's what we have and there is little political will to change it. If a change came to a vote it would fail. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23468 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On August 01 2016 11:41 LegalLord wrote: To those who support Hillary as a candidate who will "hold the line" on progressive social issues, I have a question for you. Say she does a really botched job as president, something akin to Bush. This would likely fracture the Democratic base and set the goals of the progressive movements back a decade. Do you think this is a risk worth considering when trying to make a "vote for the lesser of two evils" argument? If the representative of the progressive movement is bad and undermines the cause, isn't that worse than 1-2 terms for the opposition? I personally think a Bernie presidency would have been more hurtful to progressive causes than either Bush or Reagan's presidencies. So I'm super happy that we got the only sane candidate in the progressive ticket. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On August 01 2016 17:28 GreenHorizons wrote: Even if we're stuck with two parties for the foreseeable future, it doesn't mean they are going to be the same two parties as we know them now. We are stuck with two amalgamations of many parties. The DNC and the RNC represents organized groups of many many parties all uniting in order to pass something whose average is better than the opponent's average. This whole "Only 2 parties" bullshit is one of the worst mindsets in American politics. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6306 Posts
On August 01 2016 15:06 MasterCynical wrote: This is incredible. The entire US media is working to take down trump. I've never seen anything like this. It's actually quite pathetic that they can't take him down even after months of large-scale coordinated smear campaigns. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/je4Rj8N.jpg) | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On August 01 2016 17:51 zeo wrote: It's actually quite pathetic that they can't take him down even after months of large-scale coordinated smear campaigns. The difference between your 2 posters is the context of what they were doing. The RNC had someone on stage who wrongly blamed her sons death on Hilary which was shameful whereas Khan did not blame his sons death on Trump. His purpose was to showcase that there are Muslims in america who are good american and patriots and heroes who have been completely ignored. The response by Trump was probably more shameful than the actual speech itself. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On August 01 2016 17:51 zeo wrote: It's actually quite pathetic that they can't take him down even after months of large-scale coordinated smear campaigns. Media is in panic mode, they've thrown all the shit they can think off at Trump and he keeps getting more popular. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On August 01 2016 22:20 Nevuk wrote: https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/760086594858602496 "Donald Trump's word are terrible, rude and I condone them strongly. But just the words, Donald Trump is a good, genuine man at heart who occasionally misspeaks." | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
So basically the parents stood in the DNC 12 years later saying Trump hasn't read the constitution and that his son would have never fought to defend the U.S. if he was president. I can't find the actual quote so if someone has it I'll replace it in. Trump's reply was: "Captain Humayun Khan was a hero to our country and we should honour all who have made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our country safe," he said. "The real problem here are the radical Islamic terrorists who killed him, and the efforts of these radicals to enter our country to do us further harm." But Mr Trump rejected Mr Khan's criticism. "While I feel deeply for the loss of his son, Mr Khan, who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution, (which is false) and say many other inaccurate things," he said. I honestly don't see how this is so terrible to say. Did I miss something? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 01 2016 22:35 GoTuNk! wrote: So I tried to read up on what Khan/Trump actually said.. and Humayun Khan died in 2004. So basically the parents stood in the DNC 12 years later saying Trump hasn't read the constitution and that his son would have never fought to defend the U.S. if he was president. I can't find the actual quote so if someone has it I'll replace it in. Trump's reply was: "Captain Humayun Khan was a hero to our country and we should honour all who have made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our country safe," he said. "The real problem here are the radical Islamic terrorists who killed him, and the efforts of these radicals to enter our country to do us further harm." But Mr Trump rejected Mr Khan's criticism. "While I feel deeply for the loss of his son, Mr Khan, who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution, (which is false) and say many other inaccurate things," he said. I honestly don't see how this is so terrible to say. Did I miss something? It's the liberal echo chamber at its finest. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On August 01 2016 12:36 LegalLord wrote: Republican party hasn't been able to push its presidential candidates with any success for the past 3 elections, and you'd be a fool not to think the major reason isn't Bush. They've pushed themselves into a corner where they need to embrace their radical elements just to stay politically relevant through midterm victories. I wouldn't say that the party isn't in trouble. It would be worse for the Dems too because particularly ideologically "principled" Dems don't vote like Republicans do. I'm not a fool, and I don't think the major reason Republicans haven't been winning presidential elections is Bush. Maybe for the first one in '08, but after that; and, come to think of it, we've only actually completed 2 elections since Bush. The first is right after Bush (wherein yeah the anti-bush vote woudl do a lot) then in '12, wherein Incumbent presidents tend to do well, and the Reps did reasonably. And now, where the election isn't completed yet. I prefer this article's explanations: http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-political-party-success-president-governor-congress-mayor.html | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
and that hes made "the best" sacrifices | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 01 2016 22:35 GoTuNk! wrote: So I tried to read up on what Khan/Trump actually said.. and Humayun Khan died in 2004. So basically the parents stood in the DNC 12 years later saying Trump hasn't read the constitution and that his son would have never fought to defend the U.S. if he was president. I can't find the actual quote so if someone has it I'll replace it in. Trump's reply was: "Captain Humayun Khan was a hero to our country and we should honour all who have made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our country safe," he said. "The real problem here are the radical Islamic terrorists who killed him, and the efforts of these radicals to enter our country to do us further harm." But Mr Trump rejected Mr Khan's criticism. "While I feel deeply for the loss of his son, Mr Khan, who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution, (which is false) and say many other inaccurate things," he said. I honestly don't see how this is so terrible to say. Did I miss something? No, there is no way you missing something. You are completely correct, Trump was totally respectful of the Khans and their son’s sacrifice and that is why the media and numerous members of the GOP are denouncing his statements. And members of the armed services as well. Or those are some cherry picked quotes from a pile of garbage he has been spewing about them since they spoke. On top of wishing to physically assault some of the speakers at the DNC. Edit: LOL, liberal echo chamber. This echo chamber has a lot of Republicans calling out Trump too. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
RSL Revival
Classic vs Creator
Cure vs TriGGeR
Kung Fu Cup
GuMiho vs MaNa
herO vs ShoWTimE
Classic vs TBD
WardiTV Korean Royale
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
herO vs Gerald
ByuN vs SHIN
Kung Fu Cup
Cure vs Reynor
IPSL
ZZZero vs rasowy
Napoleon vs KameZerg
BSL 21
Tarson vs Julia
Doodle vs OldBoy
eOnzErG vs WolFix
StRyKeR vs Aeternum
Sparkling Tuna Cup
RSL Revival
Reynor vs sOs
Maru vs Ryung
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
