|
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 06 2016 03:51 Mohdoo wrote:
Imagine if this happened:
Interviewer: Khan says you don't know sacrifice. What do you say to that?
Trump: Compared to him? I don't know sacrifice. His family made the ultimate, most honorable sacrifice you can make. But compared to Crooked Hilary, I know much more about sacrifice than she does. This is true for all topics. She knows nothing.
How different would things be looking right now
And to your point:
1. That's toooootally Politicking 101. Any idiot running for office should be able to deflect towards their opponent or make a slight, common sense concession (i.e., "Compared to parents who have lost brave sons and daughters, I don't know sacrifice") but still focus on their good attributes for a net positive.
2. This is like the hundredth time where Donald Trump has had an opportunity to demonstrate strategic wordplay or deflection or even coherence, and he's said the dumbest possible thing every single time.
It's like Donald Trump making the equivalent of Mitt Romney's "47 percent" comment every day for a year.
|
|
|
On August 06 2016 03:24 stilt wrote:
Will be fun seeing Clinton elected as I don't like Usa, I am totally fine with it, or I should say: I would be fine with it if I would not be in the same planet, the perspective of a cold war between China/ Russia and the nice and good looking liberals Americans is worrying me a lot because the latters seem right know crazier than any dictators.
If only I was an illumined absolutely sure that I am in the good side, it might be easier though.
I don't see any reason to worry about that, none would gain from such a scenario. It would take a series of catastrophic blows to world economy to make China even flirt with that idea.
|
I don't really get why the Trump campaign didn't just release copies of her visa or why her own words are so totally incongruous with having a work visa if what that agent is saying is true.
I guess it's more delicious irony relating to the birther movement.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Hillary will probably make a few short-sighted power plays that will weaken relations with Russia and China. She is evidently a big fan of the Wolfowitz Doctrine and has shown little interest in deviating from that general philosophy. I really really doubt she's stupid enough to provoke a potential WW3 scenario though.
|
United States42674 Posts
On August 06 2016 04:23 TheTenthDoc wrote:I don't really get why the Trump campaign didn't just release copies of her visa or why her own words are so totally incongruous with having a work visa if what that agent is saying is true.
Original long form visa. If we're gonna do this then let's do this birther style.
|
On August 06 2016 04:23 TheTenthDoc wrote:I don't really get why the Trump campaign didn't just release copies of her visa or why her own words are so totally incongruous with having a work visa if what that agent is saying is true. I guess it's more delicious irony relating to the birther movement.
we want the long form! and her college transcri--- oh wait
edit: dammit kwark
|
So basically, all this time, Melania has been lying about her visa (making up stories about having a different one), Melania and Donald and the campaign staff all currently refuse to elaborate, and now the modeling agent who could get in trouble for hiring an illegal immigrant is just making up a story so that he doesn't get in trouble.
Got it.
Edit: I generally don't go on Reddit. Being an educator taxes my patience and mental health enough as it is; if I were a Redditor on top of that, I'd probably go insane.
|
On August 06 2016 04:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2016 04:23 TheTenthDoc wrote:I don't really get why the Trump campaign didn't just release copies of her visa or why her own words are so totally incongruous with having a work visa if what that agent is saying is true. Original long form visa. If we're gonna do this then let's do this birther style.
100% agree. I hear great jokes about the hypocrisy of Trump and his demand of Obama's legal documents from comedians, but I think it wouldn't be bad to hear the occasional politician crack a joke or two about how we want to see Trump's long-form tax returns and Melania's long-form work visa.
|
A he said, she said doesn't debunk a story.
I'll wait for some facts.
|
Would be pretty funny to see Trump drop so low that it opened up the debates for Gary and Jill. Won't be surprised to find traditionally supportive outlets for Hillary try to fluff Trump back up as to not draw attention to the idea that without Trump Hillary's "But Trump" strategy loses a lot of wind.
|
On August 06 2016 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
Would be pretty funny to see Trump drop so low that it opened up the debates for Gary and Jill. Won't be surprised to find traditionally supportive outlets for Hillary try to fluff Trump back up as to not draw attention to the idea that without Trump Hillary's "But Trump" strategy loses a lot of wind.
Not even close. There is a huge continent of voters who pay little to no attention to the election and just vote D/R every time.
|
There's some hope because early on in polling for the GOP nomination, early favorites in the polls were people like Bush, Romney, and Ben Carson, but that stopped when the debates started. The only thing that might bother Trump would be that he has no leverage, you can't do two debates and then back out of the last one. Like he backed out of the last GOP debate because he had nothing to gain by putting his big lead huge significant lead at risk.
On August 06 2016 05:28 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2016 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
Would be pretty funny to see Trump drop so low that it opened up the debates for Gary and Jill. Won't be surprised to find traditionally supportive outlets for Hillary try to fluff Trump back up as to not draw attention to the idea that without Trump Hillary's "But Trump" strategy loses a lot of wind. Not even close. There is a huge continent of voters who pay little to no attention to the election and just vote D/R every time.
Those should be taken off ballots except that the first name listed would win every election.
|
On August 06 2016 05:28 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2016 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
Would be pretty funny to see Trump drop so low that it opened up the debates for Gary and Jill. Won't be surprised to find traditionally supportive outlets for Hillary try to fluff Trump back up as to not draw attention to the idea that without Trump Hillary's "But Trump" strategy loses a lot of wind. Not even close. There is a huge continent of voters who pay little to no attention to the election and just vote D/R every time.
I mean Gary is getting really close, and stands to gain the most from Trump losing ground, Jill would probably need another push from scandal for Clinton, though she's in a sort of "Trump primary zone" where it doesn't matter if she's been lying the whole time, doubles down on the lies, or is exposed as having tilted the primary with assistance from DWS to her supporters.
Except instead of it being the primary crowd it's folks terrified of a Trump presidency, if there's no chance of a Trump presidency it greatly undermines the motive for voting Clinton (for folks who weren't already in her camp).
|
On August 06 2016 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
Would be pretty funny to see Trump drop so low that it opened up the debates for Gary and Jill. Won't be surprised to find traditionally supportive outlets for Hillary try to fluff Trump back up as to not draw attention to the idea that without Trump Hillary's "But Trump" strategy loses a lot of wind.
Why in the world would you want Jill there? I supported Bernie and donated to Bernie because he was able to be really far left without going totally off the deep end. Jill goes off the deep end. Republicans make fun of the left because of people like Jill. Toss Johnson on stage, but Stein needs to stay where she is.
It is nothing short of hypocrisy to support Stein but also mock republicans for denying climate science. Science is science is science. Defying widespread scientific consensus is wildly inappropriate, regardless of if it fucks over industries I dislike.
|
On August 06 2016 05:40 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2016 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
Would be pretty funny to see Trump drop so low that it opened up the debates for Gary and Jill. Won't be surprised to find traditionally supportive outlets for Hillary try to fluff Trump back up as to not draw attention to the idea that without Trump Hillary's "But Trump" strategy loses a lot of wind. Why in the world would you want Jill there? I supported Bernie and donated to Bernie because he was able to be really far left without going totally off the deep end. Jill goes off the deep end. Republicans make fun of the left because of people like Jill. Toss Johnson on stage, but Stein needs to stay where she is. It is nothing short of hypocrisy to support Stein but also mock republicans for denying climate science. Science is science is science. Defying widespread scientific consensus is wildly inappropriate, regardless of if it fucks over industries I dislike.
When I've looked at her positions on vaccines I don't see what you see. Her position on vaccines. for example. sound reasonable. You'll have to quote me the part you find so ridiculous or whatever it is you're referencing.
If Gary's up there showing that Trump isn't everything there is on the right and Jill showing Hillary isn't everything the left has to offer is a net gain regardless.
That we got to a point where the only two "real" choices are Trump and Clinton is a prime example of how terrible our electoral system (including voters) is.
Neither of our choices can even get a majority of support, this with Trump being a walking dumpster fire.
I'd love to see some polls with Trump vs Gary or Trump vs Jill 1 on 1 just to see how much of Hillary's support is strictly "not Trump"
|
On August 06 2016 05:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2016 05:40 Mohdoo wrote:On August 06 2016 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
Would be pretty funny to see Trump drop so low that it opened up the debates for Gary and Jill. Won't be surprised to find traditionally supportive outlets for Hillary try to fluff Trump back up as to not draw attention to the idea that without Trump Hillary's "But Trump" strategy loses a lot of wind. Why in the world would you want Jill there? I supported Bernie and donated to Bernie because he was able to be really far left without going totally off the deep end. Jill goes off the deep end. Republicans make fun of the left because of people like Jill. Toss Johnson on stage, but Stein needs to stay where she is. It is nothing short of hypocrisy to support Stein but also mock republicans for denying climate science. Science is science is science. Defying widespread scientific consensus is wildly inappropriate, regardless of if it fucks over industries I dislike. When I've looked at her positions on vaccines I don't see what you see. Her position on vaccines. for example. sound reasonable. You'll have to quote me the part you find so ridiculous or whatever it is you're referencing. If Gary's up there showing that Trump isn't everything there is on the right and Jill showing Hillary isn't everything the left has to offer is a net gain regardless. That we got to a point where the only two "real" choices are Trump and Clinton is a prime example of how terrible our electoral system (including voters) is. Neither of our choices can even get a majority of support, this with Trump being a walking dumpster fire.
Her position on GMOs, pesticides and, most recently, wifi, is all spun from the same string regarding climate science. She asks for proof of a negative rather than accept widespread consensus.
In the end, the core idea is that this is not her judgment to make. There are very, very, very smart people who have dedicated a significant portion of their time and energy (many their entire career) to solving these issues. She looks at it and decides its not good enough. It really is good enough.
She wants to put a god damn moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe. That is *complete* madness. Her stance on nuclear power is similarly madness.
Again, the main point is that this has already been determined and documented *extremely* well.
|
On August 06 2016 05:54 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2016 05:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 06 2016 05:40 Mohdoo wrote:On August 06 2016 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
Would be pretty funny to see Trump drop so low that it opened up the debates for Gary and Jill. Won't be surprised to find traditionally supportive outlets for Hillary try to fluff Trump back up as to not draw attention to the idea that without Trump Hillary's "But Trump" strategy loses a lot of wind. Why in the world would you want Jill there? I supported Bernie and donated to Bernie because he was able to be really far left without going totally off the deep end. Jill goes off the deep end. Republicans make fun of the left because of people like Jill. Toss Johnson on stage, but Stein needs to stay where she is. It is nothing short of hypocrisy to support Stein but also mock republicans for denying climate science. Science is science is science. Defying widespread scientific consensus is wildly inappropriate, regardless of if it fucks over industries I dislike. When I've looked at her positions on vaccines I don't see what you see. Her position on vaccines. for example. sound reasonable. You'll have to quote me the part you find so ridiculous or whatever it is you're referencing. If Gary's up there showing that Trump isn't everything there is on the right and Jill showing Hillary isn't everything the left has to offer is a net gain regardless. That we got to a point where the only two "real" choices are Trump and Clinton is a prime example of how terrible our electoral system (including voters) is. Neither of our choices can even get a majority of support, this with Trump being a walking dumpster fire. Her position on GMOs, pesticides and, most recently, wifi, is all spun from the same string regarding climate science. She asks for proof of a negative rather than accept widespread consensus. In the end, the core idea is that this is not her judgment to make. There are very, very, very smart people who have dedicated a significant portion of their time and energy (many their entire career) to solving these issues. She looks at it and decides its not good enough. It really is good enough. She wants to put a god damn moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe. That is *complete* madness. Her stance on nuclear power is similarly madness. Again, the main point is that this has already been determined and documented *extremely* well.
Could you show me a quote (example) of what you're talking about? I honestly don't know her positions that well, I've seen this line of attack frequently, but no one shows me what they are talking about, or show something pretty easily explained and back off their position/change subjects.
|
On August 06 2016 05:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2016 05:54 Mohdoo wrote:On August 06 2016 05:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 06 2016 05:40 Mohdoo wrote:On August 06 2016 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
Would be pretty funny to see Trump drop so low that it opened up the debates for Gary and Jill. Won't be surprised to find traditionally supportive outlets for Hillary try to fluff Trump back up as to not draw attention to the idea that without Trump Hillary's "But Trump" strategy loses a lot of wind. Why in the world would you want Jill there? I supported Bernie and donated to Bernie because he was able to be really far left without going totally off the deep end. Jill goes off the deep end. Republicans make fun of the left because of people like Jill. Toss Johnson on stage, but Stein needs to stay where she is. It is nothing short of hypocrisy to support Stein but also mock republicans for denying climate science. Science is science is science. Defying widespread scientific consensus is wildly inappropriate, regardless of if it fucks over industries I dislike. When I've looked at her positions on vaccines I don't see what you see. Her position on vaccines. for example. sound reasonable. You'll have to quote me the part you find so ridiculous or whatever it is you're referencing. If Gary's up there showing that Trump isn't everything there is on the right and Jill showing Hillary isn't everything the left has to offer is a net gain regardless. That we got to a point where the only two "real" choices are Trump and Clinton is a prime example of how terrible our electoral system (including voters) is. Neither of our choices can even get a majority of support, this with Trump being a walking dumpster fire. Her position on GMOs, pesticides and, most recently, wifi, is all spun from the same string regarding climate science. She asks for proof of a negative rather than accept widespread consensus. In the end, the core idea is that this is not her judgment to make. There are very, very, very smart people who have dedicated a significant portion of their time and energy (many their entire career) to solving these issues. She looks at it and decides its not good enough. It really is good enough. She wants to put a god damn moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe. That is *complete* madness. Her stance on nuclear power is similarly madness. Again, the main point is that this has already been determined and documented *extremely* well. Could you show me a quote (example) of what you're talking about? I honestly don't know her positions that well, I've seen this line of attack frequently, but no one shows me what they are talking about, or show something pretty easily explained and back off their position/change subjects.
http://www.jill2016.com/platform
ctrl+f gmo and ctrl+f nuclear show what I am talking about.
Edit: As for WiFi:
Person from crowd: What about the wireless?
Jill Stein: We should not be subjecting kids’ brains especially to that. And we don’t follow that issue in this country, but in Europe where they do, they have good precautions around wireless—maybe not good enough, because it’s very hard to study this stuff. We make guinea pigs out of whole populations and then we discover how many die. And this is like the paradigm for how public health works in this country and it’s outrageous, you know.
http://gizmodo.com/now-jill-stein-thinks-wi-fi-might-be-hurting-kids-1784664503
Fundamentally, it is inappropriate for someone to defy scientific consensus unless they themselves are an expert who has a commanding understanding of the topic being discussed.
|
On August 06 2016 05:37 oBlade wrote:There's some hope because early on in polling for the GOP nomination, early favorites in the polls were people like Bush, Romney, and Ben Carson, but that stopped when the debates started. The only thing that might bother Trump would be that he has no leverage, you can't do two debates and then back out of the last one. Like he backed out of the last GOP debate because he had nothing to gain by putting his big lead huge significant lead at risk. Show nested quote +On August 06 2016 05:28 Gorsameth wrote:On August 06 2016 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
Would be pretty funny to see Trump drop so low that it opened up the debates for Gary and Jill. Won't be surprised to find traditionally supportive outlets for Hillary try to fluff Trump back up as to not draw attention to the idea that without Trump Hillary's "But Trump" strategy loses a lot of wind. Not even close. There is a huge continent of voters who pay little to no attention to the election and just vote D/R every time. Those should be taken off ballots except that the first name listed would win every election.
If voting were mandatory, then I agree with that concern 100%. I would think, however, since people have to go through the trouble of registering to vote, traveling to the voting booth, and possibly waiting in line, that they would at least know ahead of time who they want to vote for (thus removing the worry that the vote is either cast randomly or selected based on the first name that comes up).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
