|
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 August 04 2016 01:37 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 01:36 TheTenthDoc wrote:On August 04 2016 01:35 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 01:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On August 04 2016 01:00 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 00:36 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2016 00:25 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 00:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 04 2016 00:09 WhiteDog wrote:On August 03 2016 23:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Well he will get in history book as a warning : this is what happens when a whole party plays the demagogy card and disregards facts and reality for a whole decade.
The GOP has been playing with fire for way, way, way too long.
The question is not whether or not Trump will be elected (he won't) or damage for a long time the GOP (he already has), but if Republican leaders are gonna learn anything from that utter fiasco. Are you the one we call to get naked pictures of Hillary ? Do you have a point in this thread or are you just there to play the cool nihilistic againt-the-system smartass french kid? The great thing of the internet is that contrarily to people i talk with in paris, there are much less of those. It's not my role on this forum to tell you what to do and how to behave, but don't expect people to take you seriously if you go around with such a vain approach. Anyway. Back on topic. How am I a nihilist ? You spend your time saying Trump is a fool, just like you were criticizing Sanders before. If your entire point is that people who run against Hillary should behave like Hillary and her campaign wants them to, one post would be sufficient. Whitedog, your posts do have this tone of dethatched pleasure at watching people struggle to deal with their nation’s populist movements. As with the Brexit, the close we get to the vote, the more personal this becomes for people. I have said it before, but we have close friends that are terrified of Trump. Their children are being told by other students that Trump will deport them. So if you bring the snark, don’t be shocked when people fire back. That's maybe because I disagree with the idea that populism is bad in itself. What permit those populist figures to gain traction is the lack of discussion and clarification over subjects. I remember CCStealthBlue saying a few pages ago that the syrian refugees that came to the US were merely women and children because it's difficult to get here ; that's the kind of clarification that is very beneficial to a political debates as it tends to calm fears. Funnily enough, the Clinton campaign never even tried to propose such clarifications, nor any kind of plan to respond to the million of people that expressed their desire to vote Trump. Instead of that, people are showing articles and videos about how Trump might be insane, how he is bad for america, how he might nuke everybody for fun and how he is hurting the GOP. How has this Khan guy contributed to anything from a political standpoint by the way ? Trump is one of the most popular candidates the GOP had for a long time, he made serious change in regard to traditional GOP positions in various topics. And, seriously speaking, how can he be hurting the GOP more than the tea party ? Just saying that no matter who wins the election, the underlying issues that placed Trump in the place he is now will remain, and the anger that people feel towards their elites will continue to grow as long as issues are not adressed. And I don't get how you get my tone through those comments but well. Relevant + Show Spoiler + Trump is absolutely NOT one of the most popular candidates the GOP has had for a long time (unless 4 years is a long time). He has higher unfavorable ratings within his own party than any other nominee running in recorded history and had a brutal time securing the nomination in comparison to almost any other nominee. The only way to believe he's transcendently popular is if you believe his lies about the size of his rallies. He had the most vote for the primary out of any republican. I don't know why you think that means he's the most popular when it's one man one vote in a field of 17. One of the most popular I wrote. Not the most. He is more popular than McCain and Romney by far at least.
As far as I know there is not a single evidenced-based metric suggesting Trump is more popular now than Romney was in 2012 or McCain was in 2008 among Republicans.
I think both of them today have lower net unfavorable ratings among Republicans compared to Trump even.
|
On August 04 2016 01:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 01:00 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 00:36 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2016 00:25 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 00:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 04 2016 00:09 WhiteDog wrote:On August 03 2016 23:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 03 2016 23:50 Doodsmack wrote:
The idea that Trump makes those jabs at Ryan and McCain out of petty revenge, at such an important time...and people actually want this guy to be president? He is a petulant child with no understanding of the issues.
It's not the media, it's Trump. To claim otherwise is dishonest. Well he will get in history book as a warning : this is what happens when a whole party plays the demagogy card and disregards facts and reality for a whole decade. The GOP has been playing with fire for way, way, way too long. The question is not whether or not Trump will be elected (he won't) or damage for a long time the GOP (he already has), but if Republican leaders are gonna learn anything from that utter fiasco. Are you the one we call to get naked pictures of Hillary ? Do you have a point in this thread or are you just there to play the cool nihilistic againt-the-system smartass french kid? The great thing of the internet is that contrarily to people i talk with in paris, there are much less of those. It's not my role on this forum to tell you what to do and how to behave, but don't expect people to take you seriously if you go around with such a vain approach. Anyway. Back on topic. How am I a nihilist ? You spend your time saying Trump is a fool, just like you were criticizing Sanders before. If your entire point is that people who run against Hillary should behave like Hillary and her campaign wants them to, one post would be sufficient. Whitedog, your posts do have this tone of dethatched pleasure at watching people struggle to deal with their nation’s populist movements. As with the Brexit, the close we get to the vote, the more personal this becomes for people. I have said it before, but we have close friends that are terrified of Trump. Their children are being told by other students that Trump will deport them. So if you bring the snark, don’t be shocked when people fire back. That's maybe because I disagree with the idea that populism is bad in itself. What permit those populist figures to gain traction is the lack of discussion and clarification over subjects. I remember CCStealthBlue saying a few pages ago that the syrian refugees that came to the US were merely women and children because it's difficult to get here ; that's the kind of clarification that is very beneficial to a political debates as it tends to calm fears. Funnily enough, the Clinton campaign never even tried to propose such clarifications, nor any kind of plan to respond to the million of people that expressed their desire to vote Trump. Instead of that, people are showing articles and videos about how Trump might be insane, how he is bad for america, how he might nuke everybody for fun and how he is hurting the GOP. How has this Khan guy contributed to anything from a political standpoint by the way ? Trump is one of the most popular candidates the GOP had for a long time, he made serious change in regard to traditional GOP positions in various topics. And, seriously speaking, how can he be hurting the GOP more than the tea party ? Just saying that no matter who wins the election, the underlying issues that placed Trump in the place he is now will remain, and the anger that people feel towards their elites will continue to grow as long as issues are not adressed. And I don't get how you get my tone through those comments but well. Relevant + Show Spoiler + Trump is absolutely NOT one of the most popular candidates the GOP has had for a long time (unless 4 years is a long time). He has higher unfavorable ratings within his own party than any other nominee running in recorded history and had a brutal time securing the nomination in comparison to almost any other nominee. And outside his party he's still the worst as far as I know. The only way to believe he's transcendently popular is if you believe his lies about the size of his rallies.
McCain got 46.7% of the primary vote, Trump got 45%, it seems pretty similar. What are the lies about his rallies?
|
On August 04 2016 01:40 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 01:37 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 01:36 TheTenthDoc wrote:On August 04 2016 01:35 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 01:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On August 04 2016 01:00 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 00:36 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2016 00:25 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 00:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 04 2016 00:09 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Are you the one we call to get naked pictures of Hillary ? Do you have a point in this thread or are you just there to play the cool nihilistic againt-the-system smartass french kid? The great thing of the internet is that contrarily to people i talk with in paris, there are much less of those. It's not my role on this forum to tell you what to do and how to behave, but don't expect people to take you seriously if you go around with such a vain approach. Anyway. Back on topic. How am I a nihilist ? You spend your time saying Trump is a fool, just like you were criticizing Sanders before. If your entire point is that people who run against Hillary should behave like Hillary and her campaign wants them to, one post would be sufficient. Whitedog, your posts do have this tone of dethatched pleasure at watching people struggle to deal with their nation’s populist movements. As with the Brexit, the close we get to the vote, the more personal this becomes for people. I have said it before, but we have close friends that are terrified of Trump. Their children are being told by other students that Trump will deport them. So if you bring the snark, don’t be shocked when people fire back. That's maybe because I disagree with the idea that populism is bad in itself. What permit those populist figures to gain traction is the lack of discussion and clarification over subjects. I remember CCStealthBlue saying a few pages ago that the syrian refugees that came to the US were merely women and children because it's difficult to get here ; that's the kind of clarification that is very beneficial to a political debates as it tends to calm fears. Funnily enough, the Clinton campaign never even tried to propose such clarifications, nor any kind of plan to respond to the million of people that expressed their desire to vote Trump. Instead of that, people are showing articles and videos about how Trump might be insane, how he is bad for america, how he might nuke everybody for fun and how he is hurting the GOP. How has this Khan guy contributed to anything from a political standpoint by the way ? Trump is one of the most popular candidates the GOP had for a long time, he made serious change in regard to traditional GOP positions in various topics. And, seriously speaking, how can he be hurting the GOP more than the tea party ? Just saying that no matter who wins the election, the underlying issues that placed Trump in the place he is now will remain, and the anger that people feel towards their elites will continue to grow as long as issues are not adressed. And I don't get how you get my tone through those comments but well. Relevant + Show Spoiler + Trump is absolutely NOT one of the most popular candidates the GOP has had for a long time (unless 4 years is a long time). He has higher unfavorable ratings within his own party than any other nominee running in recorded history and had a brutal time securing the nomination in comparison to almost any other nominee. The only way to believe he's transcendently popular is if you believe his lies about the size of his rallies. He had the most vote for the primary out of any republican. I don't know why you think that means he's the most popular when it's one man one vote in a field of 17. One of the most popular I wrote. Not the most. He is more popular than McCain and Romney by far at least. As far as I know there is not a single evidenced-based metric suggesting Trump is more popular now than Romney was in 2012 or McCain was in 2008 among Republicans. I think both of them today have lower net unfavorable ratings compared to Trump even.
Look at the post. He is clearly talking about votes received, not favorability.
|
On August 04 2016 01:40 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 01:37 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 01:36 TheTenthDoc wrote:On August 04 2016 01:35 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 01:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On August 04 2016 01:00 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 00:36 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2016 00:25 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 00:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 04 2016 00:09 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Are you the one we call to get naked pictures of Hillary ? Do you have a point in this thread or are you just there to play the cool nihilistic againt-the-system smartass french kid? The great thing of the internet is that contrarily to people i talk with in paris, there are much less of those. It's not my role on this forum to tell you what to do and how to behave, but don't expect people to take you seriously if you go around with such a vain approach. Anyway. Back on topic. How am I a nihilist ? You spend your time saying Trump is a fool, just like you were criticizing Sanders before. If your entire point is that people who run against Hillary should behave like Hillary and her campaign wants them to, one post would be sufficient. Whitedog, your posts do have this tone of dethatched pleasure at watching people struggle to deal with their nation’s populist movements. As with the Brexit, the close we get to the vote, the more personal this becomes for people. I have said it before, but we have close friends that are terrified of Trump. Their children are being told by other students that Trump will deport them. So if you bring the snark, don’t be shocked when people fire back. That's maybe because I disagree with the idea that populism is bad in itself. What permit those populist figures to gain traction is the lack of discussion and clarification over subjects. I remember CCStealthBlue saying a few pages ago that the syrian refugees that came to the US were merely women and children because it's difficult to get here ; that's the kind of clarification that is very beneficial to a political debates as it tends to calm fears. Funnily enough, the Clinton campaign never even tried to propose such clarifications, nor any kind of plan to respond to the million of people that expressed their desire to vote Trump. Instead of that, people are showing articles and videos about how Trump might be insane, how he is bad for america, how he might nuke everybody for fun and how he is hurting the GOP. How has this Khan guy contributed to anything from a political standpoint by the way ? Trump is one of the most popular candidates the GOP had for a long time, he made serious change in regard to traditional GOP positions in various topics. And, seriously speaking, how can he be hurting the GOP more than the tea party ? Just saying that no matter who wins the election, the underlying issues that placed Trump in the place he is now will remain, and the anger that people feel towards their elites will continue to grow as long as issues are not adressed. And I don't get how you get my tone through those comments but well. Relevant + Show Spoiler + Trump is absolutely NOT one of the most popular candidates the GOP has had for a long time (unless 4 years is a long time). He has higher unfavorable ratings within his own party than any other nominee running in recorded history and had a brutal time securing the nomination in comparison to almost any other nominee. The only way to believe he's transcendently popular is if you believe his lies about the size of his rallies. He had the most vote for the primary out of any republican. I don't know why you think that means he's the most popular when it's one man one vote in a field of 17. One of the most popular I wrote. Not the most. He is more popular than McCain and Romney by far at least. As far as I know there is not a single evidenced-based metric suggesting Trump is more popular now than Romney was in 2012 or McCain was in 2008 among Republicans. I think both of them today have lower net unfavorable ratings compared to Trump even.
He had more votes, but maybe my wording bad. Can we agree that he has popular support ?
|
On August 04 2016 01:35 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 01:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On August 04 2016 01:00 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 00:36 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2016 00:25 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 00:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 04 2016 00:09 WhiteDog wrote:On August 03 2016 23:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 03 2016 23:50 Doodsmack wrote:
The idea that Trump makes those jabs at Ryan and McCain out of petty revenge, at such an important time...and people actually want this guy to be president? He is a petulant child with no understanding of the issues.
It's not the media, it's Trump. To claim otherwise is dishonest. Well he will get in history book as a warning : this is what happens when a whole party plays the demagogy card and disregards facts and reality for a whole decade. The GOP has been playing with fire for way, way, way too long. The question is not whether or not Trump will be elected (he won't) or damage for a long time the GOP (he already has), but if Republican leaders are gonna learn anything from that utter fiasco. Are you the one we call to get naked pictures of Hillary ? Do you have a point in this thread or are you just there to play the cool nihilistic againt-the-system smartass french kid? The great thing of the internet is that contrarily to people i talk with in paris, there are much less of those. It's not my role on this forum to tell you what to do and how to behave, but don't expect people to take you seriously if you go around with such a vain approach. Anyway. Back on topic. How am I a nihilist ? You spend your time saying Trump is a fool, just like you were criticizing Sanders before. If your entire point is that people who run against Hillary should behave like Hillary and her campaign wants them to, one post would be sufficient. Whitedog, your posts do have this tone of dethatched pleasure at watching people struggle to deal with their nation’s populist movements. As with the Brexit, the close we get to the vote, the more personal this becomes for people. I have said it before, but we have close friends that are terrified of Trump. Their children are being told by other students that Trump will deport them. So if you bring the snark, don’t be shocked when people fire back. That's maybe because I disagree with the idea that populism is bad in itself. What permit those populist figures to gain traction is the lack of discussion and clarification over subjects. I remember CCStealthBlue saying a few pages ago that the syrian refugees that came to the US were merely women and children because it's difficult to get here ; that's the kind of clarification that is very beneficial to a political debates as it tends to calm fears. Funnily enough, the Clinton campaign never even tried to propose such clarifications, nor any kind of plan to respond to the million of people that expressed their desire to vote Trump. Instead of that, people are showing articles and videos about how Trump might be insane, how he is bad for america, how he might nuke everybody for fun and how he is hurting the GOP. How has this Khan guy contributed to anything from a political standpoint by the way ? Trump is one of the most popular candidates the GOP had for a long time, he made serious change in regard to traditional GOP positions in various topics. And, seriously speaking, how can he be hurting the GOP more than the tea party ? Just saying that no matter who wins the election, the underlying issues that placed Trump in the place he is now will remain, and the anger that people feel towards their elites will continue to grow as long as issues are not adressed. And I don't get how you get my tone through those comments but well. Relevant + Show Spoiler + Trump is absolutely NOT one of the most popular candidates the GOP has had for a long time (unless 4 years is a long time). He has higher unfavorable ratings within his own party than any other nominee running in recorded history and had a brutal time securing the nomination in comparison to almost any other nominee. The only way to believe he's transcendently popular is if you believe his lies about the size of his rallies. He had the most vote for the primary out of any republican. + Show Spoiler +
He got a lower favorability rating among Republicans than McCain '08 though
edit seeing the above posts : though yes, we can agree that he's got popular support. Else he wouldn't be the Rep candidate.
|
On August 04 2016 01:41 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 01:40 TheTenthDoc wrote:On August 04 2016 01:37 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 01:36 TheTenthDoc wrote:On August 04 2016 01:35 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 01:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On August 04 2016 01:00 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 00:36 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2016 00:25 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 00:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Do you have a point in this thread or are you just there to play the cool nihilistic againt-the-system smartass french kid?
The great thing of the internet is that contrarily to people i talk with in paris, there are much less of those.
It's not my role on this forum to tell you what to do and how to behave, but don't expect people to take you seriously if you go around with such a vain approach.
Anyway. Back on topic. How am I a nihilist ? You spend your time saying Trump is a fool, just like you were criticizing Sanders before. If your entire point is that people who run against Hillary should behave like Hillary and her campaign wants them to, one post would be sufficient. Whitedog, your posts do have this tone of dethatched pleasure at watching people struggle to deal with their nation’s populist movements. As with the Brexit, the close we get to the vote, the more personal this becomes for people. I have said it before, but we have close friends that are terrified of Trump. Their children are being told by other students that Trump will deport them. So if you bring the snark, don’t be shocked when people fire back. That's maybe because I disagree with the idea that populism is bad in itself. What permit those populist figures to gain traction is the lack of discussion and clarification over subjects. I remember CCStealthBlue saying a few pages ago that the syrian refugees that came to the US were merely women and children because it's difficult to get here ; that's the kind of clarification that is very beneficial to a political debates as it tends to calm fears. Funnily enough, the Clinton campaign never even tried to propose such clarifications, nor any kind of plan to respond to the million of people that expressed their desire to vote Trump. Instead of that, people are showing articles and videos about how Trump might be insane, how he is bad for america, how he might nuke everybody for fun and how he is hurting the GOP. How has this Khan guy contributed to anything from a political standpoint by the way ? Trump is one of the most popular candidates the GOP had for a long time, he made serious change in regard to traditional GOP positions in various topics. And, seriously speaking, how can he be hurting the GOP more than the tea party ? Just saying that no matter who wins the election, the underlying issues that placed Trump in the place he is now will remain, and the anger that people feel towards their elites will continue to grow as long as issues are not adressed. And I don't get how you get my tone through those comments but well. Relevant + Show Spoiler + Trump is absolutely NOT one of the most popular candidates the GOP has had for a long time (unless 4 years is a long time). He has higher unfavorable ratings within his own party than any other nominee running in recorded history and had a brutal time securing the nomination in comparison to almost any other nominee. The only way to believe he's transcendently popular is if you believe his lies about the size of his rallies. He had the most vote for the primary out of any republican. I don't know why you think that means he's the most popular when it's one man one vote in a field of 17. One of the most popular I wrote. Not the most. He is more popular than McCain and Romney by far at least. As far as I know there is not a single evidenced-based metric suggesting Trump is more popular now than Romney was in 2012 or McCain was in 2008 among Republicans. I think both of them today have lower net unfavorable ratings compared to Trump even. He had more votes, but maybe my wording bad. Can we agree that he has popular support ?
I think using total votes is a very bad measurement. % of votes makes more sense if you want to go that route.
|
On August 04 2016 01:41 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 01:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On August 04 2016 01:00 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 00:36 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2016 00:25 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 00:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 04 2016 00:09 WhiteDog wrote:On August 03 2016 23:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 03 2016 23:50 Doodsmack wrote:
The idea that Trump makes those jabs at Ryan and McCain out of petty revenge, at such an important time...and people actually want this guy to be president? He is a petulant child with no understanding of the issues.
It's not the media, it's Trump. To claim otherwise is dishonest. Well he will get in history book as a warning : this is what happens when a whole party plays the demagogy card and disregards facts and reality for a whole decade. The GOP has been playing with fire for way, way, way too long. The question is not whether or not Trump will be elected (he won't) or damage for a long time the GOP (he already has), but if Republican leaders are gonna learn anything from that utter fiasco. Are you the one we call to get naked pictures of Hillary ? Do you have a point in this thread or are you just there to play the cool nihilistic againt-the-system smartass french kid? The great thing of the internet is that contrarily to people i talk with in paris, there are much less of those. It's not my role on this forum to tell you what to do and how to behave, but don't expect people to take you seriously if you go around with such a vain approach. Anyway. Back on topic. How am I a nihilist ? You spend your time saying Trump is a fool, just like you were criticizing Sanders before. If your entire point is that people who run against Hillary should behave like Hillary and her campaign wants them to, one post would be sufficient. Whitedog, your posts do have this tone of dethatched pleasure at watching people struggle to deal with their nation’s populist movements. As with the Brexit, the close we get to the vote, the more personal this becomes for people. I have said it before, but we have close friends that are terrified of Trump. Their children are being told by other students that Trump will deport them. So if you bring the snark, don’t be shocked when people fire back. That's maybe because I disagree with the idea that populism is bad in itself. What permit those populist figures to gain traction is the lack of discussion and clarification over subjects. I remember CCStealthBlue saying a few pages ago that the syrian refugees that came to the US were merely women and children because it's difficult to get here ; that's the kind of clarification that is very beneficial to a political debates as it tends to calm fears. Funnily enough, the Clinton campaign never even tried to propose such clarifications, nor any kind of plan to respond to the million of people that expressed their desire to vote Trump. Instead of that, people are showing articles and videos about how Trump might be insane, how he is bad for america, how he might nuke everybody for fun and how he is hurting the GOP. How has this Khan guy contributed to anything from a political standpoint by the way ? Trump is one of the most popular candidates the GOP had for a long time, he made serious change in regard to traditional GOP positions in various topics. And, seriously speaking, how can he be hurting the GOP more than the tea party ? Just saying that no matter who wins the election, the underlying issues that placed Trump in the place he is now will remain, and the anger that people feel towards their elites will continue to grow as long as issues are not adressed. And I don't get how you get my tone through those comments but well. Relevant + Show Spoiler + Trump is absolutely NOT one of the most popular candidates the GOP has had for a long time (unless 4 years is a long time). He has higher unfavorable ratings within his own party than any other nominee running in recorded history and had a brutal time securing the nomination in comparison to almost any other nominee. And outside his party he's still the worst as far as I know. The only way to believe he's transcendently popular is if you believe his lies about the size of his rallies. McCain got 46.7% of the primary vote, Trump got 45%, it seems pretty similar. What are the lies about his rallies?
McCain clinched the nomination earlier. Moreover, there was no "never-McCain" movement beating McCain in multiple states after Super Tuesday.
First google result shows he added 23,000 attendees compared to his own campaign's statements about distributed wristbands: http://ijr.com/2016/04/595783-trump-claims-31000-attended-california-rally-the-actual-number-is-just-a-fraction-of-that/
For a bunch more: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/trump-keeps-lying-about-his-crowd-counts-and-media-letting-him
As for measuring with vote % or raw vote numbers: both ways completely ignore dislike of a candidate, which seems like a poor thing to do when evaluating popularity in a plurality setting (Jim who 37% of people love and 63% of people hate is not as popular as Jay who 25% of people love and 25% of people like).
|
On August 03 2016 20:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 19:06 Sent. wrote:It's not about Trump saying dumb things, it's about calling him literally mentally ill or adding: Note to our readers: Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S. under every article about him, even when it's irrelevant to the article. I guess it's pointless complaining because it's impossible to control the media but it's still sad to see. Hillary is and has been under WAY bigger scutiny than Trump. Fact is, nobody talks about the numerous time Trump fucked investors who trusted him in the ***, when he abused credulous young students with his fake "university" etc etc etc. or simply the fact he lies to the nation every time he opens his mouth. Meanwhile Hillary's campaign has been a mountain of minor scandals blown out of proportion and simple defamation both from the right media and the gop (there is not a single piece of evidence she's ever been corrupt for example).
cor·rupt
kəˈrəpt
adjective
1.
having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.
Hillary "showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for personal gain"
That's just an 1 example from this week. Not that Trump has any room to make the critique, but she's corrupt by definition.
I feel like this election will be in full newspeak before the end.
|
On August 04 2016 01:48 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 01:41 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 01:40 TheTenthDoc wrote:On August 04 2016 01:37 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 01:36 TheTenthDoc wrote:On August 04 2016 01:35 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 01:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On August 04 2016 01:00 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 00:36 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2016 00:25 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
How am I a nihilist ? You spend your time saying Trump is a fool, just like you were criticizing Sanders before. If your entire point is that people who run against Hillary should behave like Hillary and her campaign wants them to, one post would be sufficient. Whitedog, your posts do have this tone of dethatched pleasure at watching people struggle to deal with their nation’s populist movements. As with the Brexit, the close we get to the vote, the more personal this becomes for people. I have said it before, but we have close friends that are terrified of Trump. Their children are being told by other students that Trump will deport them. So if you bring the snark, don’t be shocked when people fire back. That's maybe because I disagree with the idea that populism is bad in itself. What permit those populist figures to gain traction is the lack of discussion and clarification over subjects. I remember CCStealthBlue saying a few pages ago that the syrian refugees that came to the US were merely women and children because it's difficult to get here ; that's the kind of clarification that is very beneficial to a political debates as it tends to calm fears. Funnily enough, the Clinton campaign never even tried to propose such clarifications, nor any kind of plan to respond to the million of people that expressed their desire to vote Trump. Instead of that, people are showing articles and videos about how Trump might be insane, how he is bad for america, how he might nuke everybody for fun and how he is hurting the GOP. How has this Khan guy contributed to anything from a political standpoint by the way ? Trump is one of the most popular candidates the GOP had for a long time, he made serious change in regard to traditional GOP positions in various topics. And, seriously speaking, how can he be hurting the GOP more than the tea party ? Just saying that no matter who wins the election, the underlying issues that placed Trump in the place he is now will remain, and the anger that people feel towards their elites will continue to grow as long as issues are not adressed. And I don't get how you get my tone through those comments but well. Relevant + Show Spoiler + Trump is absolutely NOT one of the most popular candidates the GOP has had for a long time (unless 4 years is a long time). He has higher unfavorable ratings within his own party than any other nominee running in recorded history and had a brutal time securing the nomination in comparison to almost any other nominee. The only way to believe he's transcendently popular is if you believe his lies about the size of his rallies. He had the most vote for the primary out of any republican. I don't know why you think that means he's the most popular when it's one man one vote in a field of 17. One of the most popular I wrote. Not the most. He is more popular than McCain and Romney by far at least. As far as I know there is not a single evidenced-based metric suggesting Trump is more popular now than Romney was in 2012 or McCain was in 2008 among Republicans. I think both of them today have lower net unfavorable ratings compared to Trump even. He had more votes, but maybe my wording bad. Can we agree that he has popular support ? I think using total votes is a very bad measurement. % of votes makes more sense if you want to go that route.
Especially considering that the number of people voting in the primary is so small. In total is was like 9% of the population.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 04 2016 01:37 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:
I think of the statement "people have enough of experts" as stupid when said explicitly, but that the sentiment behind it is the same kind of sentiment you would use for dismissing some of the long-winded, "data driven" biased posters in this thread who will remain unmentioned: people with some degree of expertise who twist the facts and use a biased interpretation to support a position that is less so true and more so made for personal political gain. The "experts" being referred to are in social science fields where explicit bias plays a much bigger role than in the hard sciences. While I agree with this, I think responding to those "experts" in such a dismissive way rather than engaging them in rational discourse dumbs down the discussion in a way that's thoroughly unproductive. Really, it's ignorance and laziness to just say "I don't want to deal with you".
While some do question the "experts" a lot of people are just laymen, who can at best say something is fishy about what said experts say but can't give a full rebuttal because data and data collection are in the hands of a biased party, and they themselves aren't educated enough in that field to give a proper response. For example, if the government doesn't collect race or nationality in police statistics, is it still fair for people to suspect that immigrants from the Middle East are most responsible for crimes? I think it's a reasonable low-level assertion that the "experts" have often vehemently denied with willful dismissal of facts.
Are there people who are stupidly opposing the views of the experts? Yeah. There are also people blindly following the word of biased experts which is also stupid. But "people have enough of experts" is a valid, even if stupidly worded, sentiment.
|
|
|
On August 04 2016 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 20:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 03 2016 19:06 Sent. wrote:It's not about Trump saying dumb things, it's about calling him literally mentally ill or adding: Note to our readers: Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S. under every article about him, even when it's irrelevant to the article. I guess it's pointless complaining because it's impossible to control the media but it's still sad to see. Hillary is and has been under WAY bigger scutiny than Trump. Fact is, nobody talks about the numerous time Trump fucked investors who trusted him in the ***, when he abused credulous young students with his fake "university" etc etc etc. or simply the fact he lies to the nation every time he opens his mouth. Meanwhile Hillary's campaign has been a mountain of minor scandals blown out of proportion and simple defamation both from the right media and the gop (there is not a single piece of evidence she's ever been corrupt for example). Show nested quote +cor·rupt
kəˈrəpt
adjective
1.
having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain. Hillary "showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for personal gain"That's just an 1 example from this week. Not that Trump has any room to make the critique, but she's corrupt by definition. I feel like this election will be in full newspeak before the end.
I dont consider that as corrupt. More misleading/lying and cover your ass. I would think of corruption as kick backs and favors. Also im not even a Hillary fan but if thats corruption by definition every politician is corrupt.
|
On August 04 2016 02:00 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 01:37 TheYango wrote:On August 04 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:
I think of the statement "people have enough of experts" as stupid when said explicitly, but that the sentiment behind it is the same kind of sentiment you would use for dismissing some of the long-winded, "data driven" biased posters in this thread who will remain unmentioned: people with some degree of expertise who twist the facts and use a biased interpretation to support a position that is less so true and more so made for personal political gain. The "experts" being referred to are in social science fields where explicit bias plays a much bigger role than in the hard sciences. While I agree with this, I think responding to those "experts" in such a dismissive way rather than engaging them in rational discourse dumbs down the discussion in a way that's thoroughly unproductive. Really, it's ignorance and laziness to just say "I don't want to deal with you". While some do question the "experts" a lot of people are just laymen, who can at best say something is fishy about what said experts say but can't give a full rebuttal because data and data collection are in the hands of a biased party, and they themselves aren't educated enough in that field to give a proper response. For example, if the government doesn't collect race or nationality in police statistics, is it still fair for people to suspect that immigrants from the Middle East are most responsible for crimes? I think it's a reasonable low-level assertion that the "experts" have often vehemently denied with willful dismissal of facts. Are there people who are stupidly opposing the views of the experts? Yeah. There are also people blindly following the word of biased experts which is also stupid. But "people have enough of experts" is a valid, even if stupidly worded, sentiment.
I am uncomfortable with any blanket dismissal of someone with high levels of training and knowledge on any subject. Especially when we are still trying to convince our country that climate change is real, conversion therapy is torture and we have several high level profile elected officials saying vaccines should not be mandatory. I don’t approve of people stoking fear of violence when it is down nationwide and has been for over a decade. Feeding into the fear for police when the job has never been safer.
Leadership’s job is to reassure the public and lead them forward based on the best information. Not claim that the information is biased or false based solely on the fact that isn’t what the public believes is true. That isn’t leadership.
Better known as torturing children.
|
On August 04 2016 02:04 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 03 2016 20:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 03 2016 19:06 Sent. wrote:It's not about Trump saying dumb things, it's about calling him literally mentally ill or adding: Note to our readers: Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S. under every article about him, even when it's irrelevant to the article. I guess it's pointless complaining because it's impossible to control the media but it's still sad to see. Hillary is and has been under WAY bigger scutiny than Trump. Fact is, nobody talks about the numerous time Trump fucked investors who trusted him in the ***, when he abused credulous young students with his fake "university" etc etc etc. or simply the fact he lies to the nation every time he opens his mouth. Meanwhile Hillary's campaign has been a mountain of minor scandals blown out of proportion and simple defamation both from the right media and the gop (there is not a single piece of evidence she's ever been corrupt for example). cor·rupt
kəˈrəpt
adjective
1.
having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain. Hillary "showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for personal gain"That's just an 1 example from this week. Not that Trump has any room to make the critique, but she's corrupt by definition. I feel like this election will be in full newspeak before the end. I dont consider that as corrupt. More misleading/lying and cover your ass. I would think of corruption as kick backs and favors. Also im not even a Hillary fan but if thats corruption by definition every politician is corrupt.
That's fine if you don't want to accept the definition of the word, but if someone says Hillary is corrupt, it's an accurate statement.
Separately, do you actually think this process is navigated by her without Hillary promising and receiving kickbacks/favors? Or are those just not the type of kickbacks/favors you're talking about?
I don't necessarily disagree with the premise that all politicians are corrupt, then it would be a matter of degree. Frankly arguing she's less corrupt than others would be some refreshing honesty (though still a little depressing) than the position that there's no evidence of her being corrupt.
|
On August 04 2016 01:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 01:41 oBlade wrote:On August 04 2016 01:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On August 04 2016 01:00 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 00:36 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2016 00:25 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 00:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 04 2016 00:09 WhiteDog wrote:On August 03 2016 23:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 03 2016 23:50 Doodsmack wrote:
The idea that Trump makes those jabs at Ryan and McCain out of petty revenge, at such an important time...and people actually want this guy to be president? He is a petulant child with no understanding of the issues.
It's not the media, it's Trump. To claim otherwise is dishonest. Well he will get in history book as a warning : this is what happens when a whole party plays the demagogy card and disregards facts and reality for a whole decade. The GOP has been playing with fire for way, way, way too long. The question is not whether or not Trump will be elected (he won't) or damage for a long time the GOP (he already has), but if Republican leaders are gonna learn anything from that utter fiasco. Are you the one we call to get naked pictures of Hillary ? Do you have a point in this thread or are you just there to play the cool nihilistic againt-the-system smartass french kid? The great thing of the internet is that contrarily to people i talk with in paris, there are much less of those. It's not my role on this forum to tell you what to do and how to behave, but don't expect people to take you seriously if you go around with such a vain approach. Anyway. Back on topic. How am I a nihilist ? You spend your time saying Trump is a fool, just like you were criticizing Sanders before. If your entire point is that people who run against Hillary should behave like Hillary and her campaign wants them to, one post would be sufficient. Whitedog, your posts do have this tone of dethatched pleasure at watching people struggle to deal with their nation’s populist movements. As with the Brexit, the close we get to the vote, the more personal this becomes for people. I have said it before, but we have close friends that are terrified of Trump. Their children are being told by other students that Trump will deport them. So if you bring the snark, don’t be shocked when people fire back. That's maybe because I disagree with the idea that populism is bad in itself. What permit those populist figures to gain traction is the lack of discussion and clarification over subjects. I remember CCStealthBlue saying a few pages ago that the syrian refugees that came to the US were merely women and children because it's difficult to get here ; that's the kind of clarification that is very beneficial to a political debates as it tends to calm fears. Funnily enough, the Clinton campaign never even tried to propose such clarifications, nor any kind of plan to respond to the million of people that expressed their desire to vote Trump. Instead of that, people are showing articles and videos about how Trump might be insane, how he is bad for america, how he might nuke everybody for fun and how he is hurting the GOP. How has this Khan guy contributed to anything from a political standpoint by the way ? Trump is one of the most popular candidates the GOP had for a long time, he made serious change in regard to traditional GOP positions in various topics. And, seriously speaking, how can he be hurting the GOP more than the tea party ? Just saying that no matter who wins the election, the underlying issues that placed Trump in the place he is now will remain, and the anger that people feel towards their elites will continue to grow as long as issues are not adressed. And I don't get how you get my tone through those comments but well. Relevant + Show Spoiler + Trump is absolutely NOT one of the most popular candidates the GOP has had for a long time (unless 4 years is a long time). He has higher unfavorable ratings within his own party than any other nominee running in recorded history and had a brutal time securing the nomination in comparison to almost any other nominee. And outside his party he's still the worst as far as I know. The only way to believe he's transcendently popular is if you believe his lies about the size of his rallies. McCain got 46.7% of the primary vote, Trump got 45%, it seems pretty similar. What are the lies about his rallies? McCain clinched the nomination earlier. Moreover, there was no "never-McCain" movement beating McCain in multiple states after Super Tuesday. First google result shows he added 23,000 attendees compared to his own campaign's statements about distributed wristbands: http://ijr.com/2016/04/595783-trump-claims-31000-attended-california-rally-the-actual-number-is-just-a-fraction-of-that/For a bunch more: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/trump-keeps-lying-about-his-crowd-counts-and-media-letting-him
They can both exaggerate and be blowing everyone else's rallies away. If I say I have a 20 inch third leg but it's only 15 inches, I'd still be miles inches ahead of everyone else. They hyped up a half-truth of expecting 30,000 people somewhere and "only" 20,000 people actually attended.
On August 04 2016 01:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:
As for measuring with vote % or raw vote numbers: both ways completely ignore dislike of a candidate, which seems like a poor thing to do when evaluating popularity in a plurality setting (Jim who 37% of people love and 63% of people hate is not as popular as Jay who 25% of people love and 25% of people like).
We were told "favorability ratings" were important for a long time, but if you look at both of their performances in the race itself, that doesn't seem to hold up.
|
On August 04 2016 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 02:04 Sadist wrote:On August 04 2016 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 03 2016 20:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 03 2016 19:06 Sent. wrote:It's not about Trump saying dumb things, it's about calling him literally mentally ill or adding: Note to our readers: Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S. under every article about him, even when it's irrelevant to the article. I guess it's pointless complaining because it's impossible to control the media but it's still sad to see. Hillary is and has been under WAY bigger scutiny than Trump. Fact is, nobody talks about the numerous time Trump fucked investors who trusted him in the ***, when he abused credulous young students with his fake "university" etc etc etc. or simply the fact he lies to the nation every time he opens his mouth. Meanwhile Hillary's campaign has been a mountain of minor scandals blown out of proportion and simple defamation both from the right media and the gop (there is not a single piece of evidence she's ever been corrupt for example). cor·rupt
kəˈrəpt
adjective
1.
having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain. Hillary "showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for personal gain"That's just an 1 example from this week. Not that Trump has any room to make the critique, but she's corrupt by definition. I feel like this election will be in full newspeak before the end. I dont consider that as corrupt. More misleading/lying and cover your ass. I would think of corruption as kick backs and favors. Also im not even a Hillary fan but if thats corruption by definition every politician is corrupt. That's fine if you don't want to accept the definition of the word, but if someone says Hillary is corrupt, it's an accurate statement. Separately, do you actually think this process is navigated by her without Hillary promising and receiving kickbacks/favors? Or are those just not the type of kickbacks/favors you're talking about?
Every politician promises kickbacks and favors for everything. Even you or I do in our real life if you want to get down to the "definition" of it. Its all in the nuance and what the specific kickback is. Or if it is illegal.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 04 2016 02:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 02:00 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2016 01:37 TheYango wrote:On August 04 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:
I think of the statement "people have enough of experts" as stupid when said explicitly, but that the sentiment behind it is the same kind of sentiment you would use for dismissing some of the long-winded, "data driven" biased posters in this thread who will remain unmentioned: people with some degree of expertise who twist the facts and use a biased interpretation to support a position that is less so true and more so made for personal political gain. The "experts" being referred to are in social science fields where explicit bias plays a much bigger role than in the hard sciences. While I agree with this, I think responding to those "experts" in such a dismissive way rather than engaging them in rational discourse dumbs down the discussion in a way that's thoroughly unproductive. Really, it's ignorance and laziness to just say "I don't want to deal with you". While some do question the "experts" a lot of people are just laymen, who can at best say something is fishy about what said experts say but can't give a full rebuttal because data and data collection are in the hands of a biased party, and they themselves aren't educated enough in that field to give a proper response. For example, if the government doesn't collect race or nationality in police statistics, is it still fair for people to suspect that immigrants from the Middle East are most responsible for crimes? I think it's a reasonable low-level assertion that the "experts" have often vehemently denied with willful dismissal of facts. Are there people who are stupidly opposing the views of the experts? Yeah. There are also people blindly following the word of biased experts which is also stupid. But "people have enough of experts" is a valid, even if stupidly worded, sentiment. I am uncomfortable with any blanket dismissal of someone with high levels of training and knowledge on any subject. Especially when we are still trying to convince our country that climate change is real, conversion therapy is torture and we have several high level profile elected officials saying vaccines should not be mandatory. I don’t approve of people stoking fear of violence when it is down nationwide and has been for over a decade. Feeding into the fear for police when the job has never been safer. Leadership’s job is to reassure the public and lead them forward based on the best information. Not claim that the information is biased or false based solely on the fact that isn’t what the public believes is true. That isn’t leadership.
In general this is true and most of the time the experts in any given field are correct. The problem is when the leadership starts giving credibility to biased experts (of which there are many) who will just shill for the position that the leadership wants whether or not it is accurate. That diminishes the degree of trust that people have in those experts, for good reason.
Look no further than Ben Carson if you want an example of a highly trained person who can say things that are batshit insane and that directly contradict the field they are in. You could say that he's just wrong about politics, but his dismissal of evolution is very strongly at odds with his training in medicine. A blanket dismissal of his opinion on a wide range of issues is not unwarranted.
Or the experts who said there were WMDs in Iraq. Very trustworthy.
|
On August 04 2016 02:14 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 04 2016 02:04 Sadist wrote:On August 04 2016 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 03 2016 20:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 03 2016 19:06 Sent. wrote:It's not about Trump saying dumb things, it's about calling him literally mentally ill or adding: Note to our readers: Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S. under every article about him, even when it's irrelevant to the article. I guess it's pointless complaining because it's impossible to control the media but it's still sad to see. Hillary is and has been under WAY bigger scutiny than Trump. Fact is, nobody talks about the numerous time Trump fucked investors who trusted him in the ***, when he abused credulous young students with his fake "university" etc etc etc. or simply the fact he lies to the nation every time he opens his mouth. Meanwhile Hillary's campaign has been a mountain of minor scandals blown out of proportion and simple defamation both from the right media and the gop (there is not a single piece of evidence she's ever been corrupt for example). cor·rupt
kəˈrəpt
adjective
1.
having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain. Hillary "showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for personal gain"That's just an 1 example from this week. Not that Trump has any room to make the critique, but she's corrupt by definition. I feel like this election will be in full newspeak before the end. I dont consider that as corrupt. More misleading/lying and cover your ass. I would think of corruption as kick backs and favors. Also im not even a Hillary fan but if thats corruption by definition every politician is corrupt. That's fine if you don't want to accept the definition of the word, but if someone says Hillary is corrupt, it's an accurate statement. Separately, do you actually think this process is navigated by her without Hillary promising and receiving kickbacks/favors? Or are those just not the type of kickbacks/favors you're talking about? Every politician promises kickbacks and favors for everything. Even you or I do in our real life if you want to get down to the "definition" of it. Its all in the nuance and what the specific kickback is. Or if it is illegal.
Favors and assistance is the currency of politics. White House media relations asks reporters to hold stories all the time so they can prepare a comment. And the reporters do it some times to have a continued relationship with the White House staff. Business give money in support so they can say "we supported you, can you listen to opinion on that law you are going to pass."
People are pissed at the amount of money being donated right now. But the Dems is the only party pushing to fix and or correct citizen united. Trump advocated for even more direct donations.
|
On August 04 2016 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 20:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 03 2016 19:06 Sent. wrote:It's not about Trump saying dumb things, it's about calling him literally mentally ill or adding: Note to our readers: Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S. under every article about him, even when it's irrelevant to the article. I guess it's pointless complaining because it's impossible to control the media but it's still sad to see. Hillary is and has been under WAY bigger scutiny than Trump. Fact is, nobody talks about the numerous time Trump fucked investors who trusted him in the ***, when he abused credulous young students with his fake "university" etc etc etc. or simply the fact he lies to the nation every time he opens his mouth. Meanwhile Hillary's campaign has been a mountain of minor scandals blown out of proportion and simple defamation both from the right media and the gop (there is not a single piece of evidence she's ever been corrupt for example). Show nested quote +cor·rupt
kəˈrəpt
adjective
1.
having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain. Hillary "showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for personal gain"That's just an 1 example from this week. Not that Trump has any room to make the critique, but she's corrupt by definition. I feel like this election will be in full newspeak before the end.
So the guy says that she didn't lie, and the guy says she wasn't hacked--but the still believes she's bad because it might have happened possibly even when he found no evidence it happened? That's a really weird dude.
|
On August 04 2016 02:14 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 04 2016 02:04 Sadist wrote:On August 04 2016 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 03 2016 20:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 03 2016 19:06 Sent. wrote:It's not about Trump saying dumb things, it's about calling him literally mentally ill or adding: Note to our readers: Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S. under every article about him, even when it's irrelevant to the article. I guess it's pointless complaining because it's impossible to control the media but it's still sad to see. Hillary is and has been under WAY bigger scutiny than Trump. Fact is, nobody talks about the numerous time Trump fucked investors who trusted him in the ***, when he abused credulous young students with his fake "university" etc etc etc. or simply the fact he lies to the nation every time he opens his mouth. Meanwhile Hillary's campaign has been a mountain of minor scandals blown out of proportion and simple defamation both from the right media and the gop (there is not a single piece of evidence she's ever been corrupt for example). cor·rupt
kəˈrəpt
adjective
1.
having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain. Hillary "showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for personal gain"That's just an 1 example from this week. Not that Trump has any room to make the critique, but she's corrupt by definition. I feel like this election will be in full newspeak before the end. I dont consider that as corrupt. More misleading/lying and cover your ass. I would think of corruption as kick backs and favors. Also im not even a Hillary fan but if thats corruption by definition every politician is corrupt. That's fine if you don't want to accept the definition of the word, but if someone says Hillary is corrupt, it's an accurate statement. Separately, do you actually think this process is navigated by her without Hillary promising and receiving kickbacks/favors? Or are those just not the type of kickbacks/favors you're talking about? Every politician promises kickbacks and favors for everything. Even you or I do in our real life if you want to get down to the "definition" of it. Its all in the nuance and what the specific kickback is. Or if it is illegal.
I don't see doing the practically the same act in a legal way as significantly different than doing it illegally from a moral perspective. If I lie to the public, but tell investigators the truth, then deny the truth I told them in favor of the lie I tell the public, I don't see the moral superiority to just consistently lying.
More to the point people can have fun pointing out who the bigger liar, more corrupt, etc... candidate is, but when people say they aren't lying through their teeth or corrupt they are living in an alternate universe.
On August 04 2016 02:19 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 03 2016 20:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 03 2016 19:06 Sent. wrote:It's not about Trump saying dumb things, it's about calling him literally mentally ill or adding: Note to our readers: Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S. under every article about him, even when it's irrelevant to the article. I guess it's pointless complaining because it's impossible to control the media but it's still sad to see. Hillary is and has been under WAY bigger scutiny than Trump. Fact is, nobody talks about the numerous time Trump fucked investors who trusted him in the ***, when he abused credulous young students with his fake "university" etc etc etc. or simply the fact he lies to the nation every time he opens his mouth. Meanwhile Hillary's campaign has been a mountain of minor scandals blown out of proportion and simple defamation both from the right media and the gop (there is not a single piece of evidence she's ever been corrupt for example). cor·rupt
kəˈrəpt
adjective
1.
having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain. Hillary "showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for personal gain"That's just an 1 example from this week. Not that Trump has any room to make the critique, but she's corrupt by definition. I feel like this election will be in full newspeak before the end. So the guy says that she didn't lie, and the guy says she wasn't hacked--but the still believes she's bad because it might have happened possibly even when he found no evidence it happened? That's a really weird dude.
This is the type of nonsensical dribble I'm talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://scontent-cdg2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13686602_618040571654315_5324027593429383981_n.jpg?oh=7054f123cd6ed34edd896b095c2d0cfe&oe=58597738)
![[image loading]](https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2016/06/VoteTotals_For.jpg&w=1484)
