|
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 26 2016 04:54 oBlade wrote:I don't think anyone has ever teamed up with the media to deliver an entire prepared speech about insulting and delegitimizing the other side's voters before.
What about Trump claiming he could only lose if HRC rigged the election? What about Trump calling HRC a bigot yesterday? Trump opened this line of attack against himself with gusto.
|
On August 26 2016 04:54 oBlade wrote:I don't think anyone has ever teamed up with the media to deliver an entire prepared speech about insulting and delegitimizing the other side's voters before.
When Trump started attacking the press and banning them from his events, he made his bed. Don’t be shocked if they do him no favors going forward.
|
Oh no, those meanies don't like the guy that bans them, accuses them of being bought and of rigging polls
|
he should get a rough tough guy, give him the proper authorisations and he will clean this whole press mess up in a week
|
They never did him any favors ever(after primary). A candidate with a trustworthy rating of 25% is basically allowed to skate by and dodge the media completely. The rare appearances she does make on 'interviews' she isn't even asked tough questions. If she gets a difficult question she skates around it with dry political meaningless drivel and then no follow up is asked. Very similar to trump in terms of the substance of her answers but Trump takes the brunt of negative attention by the press afterwards.
|
On August 26 2016 04:58 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 04:54 oBlade wrote:I don't think anyone has ever teamed up with the media to deliver an entire prepared speech about insulting and delegitimizing the other side's voters before. What about Trump claiming he could only lose if HRC rigged the election? What about Trump calling HRC a bigot yesterday? Trump opened this line of attack against himself with gusto.
That's not what I said. You're supposed to attack the opponent. (In point of fact Trump obviously isn't the first to call the other bigoted.) I'll be right here with you if Trump ever has a speech written and holds an event specifically to make a case that the media runs with that the voters of the other side are morally/intellectually inferior. That's new and it's creepy.
|
On August 26 2016 05:09 biology]major wrote:
Very similar to trump in terms of the substance
You are trying very hard to make Trump's exceptional lack of substance a wash and it's pretty transparent.
|
Imo Trump's shift to amnesty is more likely to cause some his supporters to become disenfranchised and stay home on election day rather than attract new voters. The people who care about amnesty and immigration have likely already made their choices this election.
|
On August 26 2016 05:14 On_Slaught wrote:
Imo Trump's shift to amnesty is more likely to cause some his supporters to become disenfranchised and stay home on election day rather than attract new voters. The people who care about amnesty and immigration on the left have already made their choices this election.
its a 5th dimensional hockey move, you just dont understand
|
The media has endlessly reported on Clinton. The issue is there is no meat on those stories. All the email stuff has no legs. The Clinton Foundation stuff is weak tea. AP tried to dig up some dirt on the foundation donors that meet with Clinton as SOS, but it was all reasonable stuff and not a huge deal. A bunch of them were about visa issues they were having for staff and wanting to know who to talk to. The attempt to paint Clinton has corrupt and terrible has reached its final form and this is the best they could do. It’s not enough. The plan failed and worst, it was done so often and for so long, the voters are totally numb to it.
But then there is Trump. Endorsed by members of the KKK and other hate groups. Viewed as a bigot by blacks. Promoted banning all Muslims and attacked service members parents because they said mean things about him. First candidate in decades upon decades to ban publications from his events.
You see, the problem with attacking the media and telling your followers they are corrupt is the media doesn’t need to give a fuck after that. The problem with banning the media form your events is it removes any illusion they had about being fine during your term if you win. When you attack the free press, the free press fights back. And some of them write really well.
|
|
|
Wrong thread. There's a shooting thread. No need to discuss gun control here.
|
United States42974 Posts
That'll show all those people who believed that humans could literally only die from guns.
Do you have any familiarity with the actual arguments used by proponents of gun control?
|
On August 26 2016 05:10 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 04:58 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On August 26 2016 04:54 oBlade wrote:I don't think anyone has ever teamed up with the media to deliver an entire prepared speech about insulting and delegitimizing the other side's voters before. What about Trump claiming he could only lose if HRC rigged the election? What about Trump calling HRC a bigot yesterday? Trump opened this line of attack against himself with gusto. That's not what I said. You're supposed to attack the opponent. (In point of fact Trump obviously isn't the first to call the other bigoted.) I'll be right here with you if Trump ever has a speech written and holds an event specifically to make a case that the media runs with that the voters of the other side are morally/intellectually inferior. That's new and it's creepy.
This is Trump literally "insulting and delegitimizing the other side's voters". Word for word. He is saying their votes are not legitimate and will be fraudulent.
"We're going to watch Pennsylvania. Go down to certain areas and watch and study and make sure other people don't come in and vote five times," he said at a rally in Altoona. "If you do that, we're not going to lose. The only way we can lose, in my opinion -- I really mean this, Pennsylvania -- is if cheating goes on."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/12/politics/donald-trump-pennsylvania-cheating/
|
The whole “watch the voting” on mass is one step away from voter intimidation. If the GOP was concerned about a specific voting space, there are set rules for having an observer at the polling place. Asking random people do it on mass is one step away from trying to scare people into not voting.
|
On August 26 2016 05:17 Plansix wrote:
The media has endlessly reported on Clinton. The issue is there is no meat on those stories. All the email stuff has no legs. The Clinton Foundation stuff is weak tea. AP tried to dig up some dirt on the foundation donors that meet with Clinton as SOS, but it was all reasonable stuff and not a huge deal. A bunch of them were about visa issues they were having for staff and wanting to know who to talk to. The attempt to paint Clinton has corrupt and terrible has reached its final form and this is the best they could do. It’s not enough. The plan failed and worst, it was done so often and for so long, the voters are totally numb to it.
But then there is Trump. Endorsed by members of the KKK and other hate groups. Viewed as a bigot by blacks. Promoted banning all Muslims and attacked service members parents because they said mean things about him. First candidate in decades upon decades to ban publications from his events.
You see, the problem with attacking the media and telling your followers they are corrupt is the media doesn’t need to give a fuck after that. The problem with banning the media form your events is it removes any illusion they had about being fine during your term if you win. When you attack the free press, the free press fights back. And some of them write really well.
We are never going to see eye to eye because the things you consider 'weak' are the opposite for me. Our values are different, you care more about appearances and political correctness rather than the outright lies and ties of corruption.
If the CF reports are so weak then why is she planning to cut ties to it if she wins presidency? If emails are no big deal why did she lie about it afterwards multiple times (public vs FBI and then again to chris wallace).
|
i thought the 2nd amendment was an important topic in the USA thread?
if its not and there is a specific thread about the 2nd amendment and gun control; sorry for posting here.
|
On August 26 2016 01:56 zlefin wrote:
I wonder what, if there is one, the best ratio of cops killing people to cops being killed is; in terms of protecting society, balancing rights, and of course the occasional sad necessities, is.
I'm not sure what you're asking- are we talking hypotheticals? A reasonable (whatever that means) number for the US in its current state? Any nation at all?
I'm can't talk about the current numbers but as far as I remember in 2015 German police killed 7 people. No officers were killed. Now I have no idea how that compares to other nations, but this seems acceptable considering they're policing 80+ million people.
|
Canada11363 Posts
On August 26 2016 05:26 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
i thought the 2nd amendment was an important topic in the USA thread?
if its not and there is a specific thread about the 2nd amendment and gun control; sorry for posting here.
The gun control debate happened so frequently that ground regular discussion to a halt with people endlessly bashing their heads against the same unchanging arguments. The debate was pulled out into it's own separate thread in order to allow other discussions some room to breathe without getting choked out with the (seemingly) weekly shooting update.
|
On August 26 2016 05:25 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 05:17 Plansix wrote:
The media has endlessly reported on Clinton. The issue is there is no meat on those stories. All the email stuff has no legs. The Clinton Foundation stuff is weak tea. AP tried to dig up some dirt on the foundation donors that meet with Clinton as SOS, but it was all reasonable stuff and not a huge deal. A bunch of them were about visa issues they were having for staff and wanting to know who to talk to. The attempt to paint Clinton has corrupt and terrible has reached its final form and this is the best they could do. It’s not enough. The plan failed and worst, it was done so often and for so long, the voters are totally numb to it.
But then there is Trump. Endorsed by members of the KKK and other hate groups. Viewed as a bigot by blacks. Promoted banning all Muslims and attacked service members parents because they said mean things about him. First candidate in decades upon decades to ban publications from his events.
You see, the problem with attacking the media and telling your followers they are corrupt is the media doesn’t need to give a fuck after that. The problem with banning the media form your events is it removes any illusion they had about being fine during your term if you win. When you attack the free press, the free press fights back. And some of them write really well.
We are never going to see eye to eye because the things you consider 'weak' are the opposite for me. Our values are different, you care more about appearances and political correctness rather than the outright lies and ties of corruption. If the CF reports are so weak then why is she planning to cut ties to it if she wins presidency? If emails are no big deal why did she lie about it afterwards multiple times (public vs FBI and then again to chris wallace).
She is cutting ties for the same reason that presidents put their investments in a blind trust when they take office. She lied about emails because she made a mistake after a very long, protracted investigation by congress. Or she is evil, depending on how you want to view it.
And then there is Trump, who outright lies, is corrupt, does not support the constitution, basic freedom of the press and is a racist, bigot who employees and is supported by racist bigots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
