|
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 October 10 2016 14:15 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 14:06 L_Master wrote:On October 10 2016 14:04 Blisse wrote:On October 10 2016 14:00 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 10 2016 13:58 Blisse wrote:On October 10 2016 13:50 Kickstart wrote:
Yes but what amazes me is that Trump can get away with not talking about policy at all. Not only is it "I will fix this", "I will make it the greatest", "I know more about this than anyone", "I will punish ISIS greatly", but then he specifically says that a policy position his running mate outlined in the vice presidential debate is one he does not agree with and they have not spoken about. About his lack of policy, I forget which section but there was one section in the debate where he talked for like a minute about what sounded like policy and then he rambled off on something random. For a second there he sounded coherent enough that I could see some sort of argument being formed, but he couldn't finish it off. His core base doesn't care about policy, they just don't want Hillary elected. And Trump just perfectly represents them, calling Hillary names and rejecting anything she says as a lie. Hillary's a perfectly fine candidate (30 years experience, big NY state senator, SoS, former First Lady) but Republicans have been smearing the Clinton name for 20 years (regardless whether you think it's true or false) and these are the people who buy into that completely. His core base doesn't care about policy but his core base is inconsequential. He's got their vote wrapped up already. He's gotta get independents in his camp and they're going to want some actual adult thoughts put together. I agree, I was just talking about how off-topic he can be and how his rhetoric can still support so many voters. Because the vast majority of people don't vote based on policy, rationality or rhetoric. They vote based on emotions. We can even see this in debates where people routinely have different opinions on who "won" a debate is they listened to audio only or where able to watch it live. Yes but I'm sure this is the first time a candidate can openly discriminate against multiple races, likely sexually assault numerous women while crudely and inappropriately commenting on them, fuel a hate-based campaign, allude to assassinations, encourage assault, encourage foreign hacking, and be completely ignorant of any kind of policy discussion, yet still have a significant chance of winning the presidency. We will vote based on emotions, but generally we all still have bloody standards for people in charge. Trump somehow managed to bypass all of that.
It's the first time the left has thrown a hissy fit of this size. Fuck, if Hillary wasn't guilty of half this or Romney wasn't accused of half of this, the election wouldn't be close and for good reason.
We will vote based on emotions, but generally we all still have bloody standards for people in charge. Hillary somehow managed to bypass all of that.
Better luck next primary.
|
On October 10 2016 14:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 14:15 Blisse wrote:On October 10 2016 14:06 L_Master wrote:On October 10 2016 14:04 Blisse wrote:On October 10 2016 14:00 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 10 2016 13:58 Blisse wrote:On October 10 2016 13:50 Kickstart wrote:
Yes but what amazes me is that Trump can get away with not talking about policy at all. Not only is it "I will fix this", "I will make it the greatest", "I know more about this than anyone", "I will punish ISIS greatly", but then he specifically says that a policy position his running mate outlined in the vice presidential debate is one he does not agree with and they have not spoken about. About his lack of policy, I forget which section but there was one section in the debate where he talked for like a minute about what sounded like policy and then he rambled off on something random. For a second there he sounded coherent enough that I could see some sort of argument being formed, but he couldn't finish it off. His core base doesn't care about policy, they just don't want Hillary elected. And Trump just perfectly represents them, calling Hillary names and rejecting anything she says as a lie. Hillary's a perfectly fine candidate (30 years experience, big NY state senator, SoS, former First Lady) but Republicans have been smearing the Clinton name for 20 years (regardless whether you think it's true or false) and these are the people who buy into that completely. His core base doesn't care about policy but his core base is inconsequential. He's got their vote wrapped up already. He's gotta get independents in his camp and they're going to want some actual adult thoughts put together. I agree, I was just talking about how off-topic he can be and how his rhetoric can still support so many voters. Because the vast majority of people don't vote based on policy, rationality or rhetoric. They vote based on emotions. We can even see this in debates where people routinely have different opinions on who "won" a debate is they listened to audio only or where able to watch it live. Yes but I'm sure this is the first time a candidate can openly discriminate against multiple races, likely sexually assault numerous women while crudely and inappropriately commenting on them, fuel a hate-based campaign, allude to assassinations, encourage assault, encourage foreign hacking, and be completely ignorant of any kind of policy discussion, yet still have a significant chance of winning the presidency. We will vote based on emotions, but generally we all still have bloody standards for people in charge. Trump somehow managed to bypass all of that. It's the first time the left has thrown a hissy fit of this size. Fuck, if Hillary wasn't guilty of half this or Romney wasn't accused of half of this, the election wouldn't be close and for good reason. Show nested quote +We will vote based on emotions, but generally we all still have bloody standards for people in charge. Hillary somehow managed to bypass all of that. Better luck next primary.
Please show some actual sources of hilary being guilty of any of this  And no, breitbart and infowars don't count.
|
On October 10 2016 14:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I mean,, the poor Yemeni's have been getting bombarded by Saudi/USweapons simply for protesting for like a decade now and no one bothers to notice because its not "an active war zone". Its like someone throwing a wet matchstick at you after you burned their house down at this point.
|
|
|
So why can you vote without being logged in to an account?
|
I promise to take this thread seriously from now on and at least not purposely try to make it worse.
Anyways, Trump had such a drastic improvement from the first debate, but I think it's not enough, especially if the Apprentice producers actually release the alleged awful tapes of him (they should)
|
Cringe worthy debate. At least Clinton went into something resembling a plan for a few things, Trump just talks general everything. "We're going to produce steel here. We're going to do this. It's going to be great, it's going to be fantastic. I'm going to do this. No one knows more about this than me. No one has more x than me.. blah blah blah".
I can't believe people buy this crap. Like honestly, I'm not a conservative, but there are many brilliant conservatives who I can listen to out there and at least understand their opinions and ideas. Trump just talks about how great everything he does is, and how terrible everyone else is. It's daunting to listen to after awhile. You can smell it from a mile away.
And I don't really care for Clinton all that much either, don't get me wrong... but honestly, at least she is something resembling a politician. Trump reminds me more of a snake salesman... Yikes. What a tire fire.
|
|
|
|
|
So Presidential. Obviously the kind of guy to lead the free world.
|
I'm assuming the term "family box" literally means only family can sit in it?
|
On October 10 2016 14:48 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 14:42 Danglars wrote:On October 10 2016 14:15 Blisse wrote:On October 10 2016 14:06 L_Master wrote:On October 10 2016 14:04 Blisse wrote:On October 10 2016 14:00 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 10 2016 13:58 Blisse wrote:On October 10 2016 13:50 Kickstart wrote:
Yes but what amazes me is that Trump can get away with not talking about policy at all. Not only is it "I will fix this", "I will make it the greatest", "I know more about this than anyone", "I will punish ISIS greatly", but then he specifically says that a policy position his running mate outlined in the vice presidential debate is one he does not agree with and they have not spoken about. About his lack of policy, I forget which section but there was one section in the debate where he talked for like a minute about what sounded like policy and then he rambled off on something random. For a second there he sounded coherent enough that I could see some sort of argument being formed, but he couldn't finish it off. His core base doesn't care about policy, they just don't want Hillary elected. And Trump just perfectly represents them, calling Hillary names and rejecting anything she says as a lie. Hillary's a perfectly fine candidate (30 years experience, big NY state senator, SoS, former First Lady) but Republicans have been smearing the Clinton name for 20 years (regardless whether you think it's true or false) and these are the people who buy into that completely. His core base doesn't care about policy but his core base is inconsequential. He's got their vote wrapped up already. He's gotta get independents in his camp and they're going to want some actual adult thoughts put together. I agree, I was just talking about how off-topic he can be and how his rhetoric can still support so many voters. Because the vast majority of people don't vote based on policy, rationality or rhetoric. They vote based on emotions. We can even see this in debates where people routinely have different opinions on who "won" a debate is they listened to audio only or where able to watch it live. Yes but I'm sure this is the first time a candidate can openly discriminate against multiple races, likely sexually assault numerous women while crudely and inappropriately commenting on them, fuel a hate-based campaign, allude to assassinations, encourage assault, encourage foreign hacking, and be completely ignorant of any kind of policy discussion, yet still have a significant chance of winning the presidency. We will vote based on emotions, but generally we all still have bloody standards for people in charge. Trump somehow managed to bypass all of that. It's the first time the left has thrown a hissy fit of this size. Fuck, if Hillary wasn't guilty of half this or Romney wasn't accused of half of this, the election wouldn't be close and for good reason. We will vote based on emotions, but generally we all still have bloody standards for people in charge. Hillary somehow managed to bypass all of that. Better luck next primary. Please show some actual sources of hilary being guilty of any of this And no, breitbart and infowars don't count.
Now don't be so droll, everybody's long since made up their minds by now. I think the only win here is to keep asking until people get tired of repeating themselves. The man wants to offer up his laundry list of accusations and it's terribly funny the conclusion of "yet have a significant chance of winning the presidency." When you diagnose the problem, then find all the evidence that your diagnosis is wrong, the answer isn't to appear shocked that the evidence exists ... it's to question your diagnosis first.
Better luck next primary.
|
On October 10 2016 15:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 14:48 hunts wrote:On October 10 2016 14:42 Danglars wrote:On October 10 2016 14:15 Blisse wrote:On October 10 2016 14:06 L_Master wrote:On October 10 2016 14:04 Blisse wrote:On October 10 2016 14:00 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 10 2016 13:58 Blisse wrote:On October 10 2016 13:50 Kickstart wrote:
Yes but what amazes me is that Trump can get away with not talking about policy at all. Not only is it "I will fix this", "I will make it the greatest", "I know more about this than anyone", "I will punish ISIS greatly", but then he specifically says that a policy position his running mate outlined in the vice presidential debate is one he does not agree with and they have not spoken about. About his lack of policy, I forget which section but there was one section in the debate where he talked for like a minute about what sounded like policy and then he rambled off on something random. For a second there he sounded coherent enough that I could see some sort of argument being formed, but he couldn't finish it off. His core base doesn't care about policy, they just don't want Hillary elected. And Trump just perfectly represents them, calling Hillary names and rejecting anything she says as a lie. Hillary's a perfectly fine candidate (30 years experience, big NY state senator, SoS, former First Lady) but Republicans have been smearing the Clinton name for 20 years (regardless whether you think it's true or false) and these are the people who buy into that completely. His core base doesn't care about policy but his core base is inconsequential. He's got their vote wrapped up already. He's gotta get independents in his camp and they're going to want some actual adult thoughts put together. I agree, I was just talking about how off-topic he can be and how his rhetoric can still support so many voters. Because the vast majority of people don't vote based on policy, rationality or rhetoric. They vote based on emotions. We can even see this in debates where people routinely have different opinions on who "won" a debate is they listened to audio only or where able to watch it live. Yes but I'm sure this is the first time a candidate can openly discriminate against multiple races, likely sexually assault numerous women while crudely and inappropriately commenting on them, fuel a hate-based campaign, allude to assassinations, encourage assault, encourage foreign hacking, and be completely ignorant of any kind of policy discussion, yet still have a significant chance of winning the presidency. We will vote based on emotions, but generally we all still have bloody standards for people in charge. Trump somehow managed to bypass all of that. It's the first time the left has thrown a hissy fit of this size. Fuck, if Hillary wasn't guilty of half this or Romney wasn't accused of half of this, the election wouldn't be close and for good reason. We will vote based on emotions, but generally we all still have bloody standards for people in charge. Hillary somehow managed to bypass all of that. Better luck next primary. Please show some actual sources of hilary being guilty of any of this And no, breitbart and infowars don't count. Now don't be so droll, everybody's long since made up their minds by now. I think the only win here is to keep asking until people get tired of repeating themselves. The man wants to offer up his laundry list of accusations and it's terribly funny the conclusion of "yet have a significant chance of winning the presidency." When you diagnose the problem, then find all the evidence that your diagnosis is wrong, the answer isn't to appear shocked that the evidence exists ... it's to question your diagnosis first. Better luck next primary.
Funny, because for all this talk and probing, there has been absolutely 0 (zero) proof of corruption from Hillary, yet people like you still assume it's there while being unable to provide a single source. At the same time, you defend trump who there is actual proof of him being corrupt and breaking laws.
|
well I guess this debunks that clickbait gossip crap someone posted earlier from an "insider source" about Pence dropping off the ticket
oh internet never change
|
On October 10 2016 15:15 Danglars wrote:
Better luck next primary.
what does this even mean
|
LMFAO "big debate win." It's almost as if the republican party and reality are complete and total strangers to one another.
|
On October 10 2016 15:22 Tachion wrote:what does this even mean
You'd better look at the quote chain and not splice out that last little bit. Blisse was remarking on how stunning Trump's candidacy has been, and myself on Clinton. Can you believe this election is even close? Why isn't Hillary winning by 50 points???
On October 10 2016 15:16 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 15:15 Danglars wrote:On October 10 2016 14:48 hunts wrote:On October 10 2016 14:42 Danglars wrote:On October 10 2016 14:15 Blisse wrote:On October 10 2016 14:06 L_Master wrote:On October 10 2016 14:04 Blisse wrote:On October 10 2016 14:00 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 10 2016 13:58 Blisse wrote:On October 10 2016 13:50 Kickstart wrote:
Yes but what amazes me is that Trump can get away with not talking about policy at all. Not only is it "I will fix this", "I will make it the greatest", "I know more about this than anyone", "I will punish ISIS greatly", but then he specifically says that a policy position his running mate outlined in the vice presidential debate is one he does not agree with and they have not spoken about. About his lack of policy, I forget which section but there was one section in the debate where he talked for like a minute about what sounded like policy and then he rambled off on something random. For a second there he sounded coherent enough that I could see some sort of argument being formed, but he couldn't finish it off. His core base doesn't care about policy, they just don't want Hillary elected. And Trump just perfectly represents them, calling Hillary names and rejecting anything she says as a lie. Hillary's a perfectly fine candidate (30 years experience, big NY state senator, SoS, former First Lady) but Republicans have been smearing the Clinton name for 20 years (regardless whether you think it's true or false) and these are the people who buy into that completely. His core base doesn't care about policy but his core base is inconsequential. He's got their vote wrapped up already. He's gotta get independents in his camp and they're going to want some actual adult thoughts put together. I agree, I was just talking about how off-topic he can be and how his rhetoric can still support so many voters. Because the vast majority of people don't vote based on policy, rationality or rhetoric. They vote based on emotions. We can even see this in debates where people routinely have different opinions on who "won" a debate is they listened to audio only or where able to watch it live. Yes but I'm sure this is the first time a candidate can openly discriminate against multiple races, likely sexually assault numerous women while crudely and inappropriately commenting on them, fuel a hate-based campaign, allude to assassinations, encourage assault, encourage foreign hacking, and be completely ignorant of any kind of policy discussion, yet still have a significant chance of winning the presidency. We will vote based on emotions, but generally we all still have bloody standards for people in charge. Trump somehow managed to bypass all of that. It's the first time the left has thrown a hissy fit of this size. Fuck, if Hillary wasn't guilty of half this or Romney wasn't accused of half of this, the election wouldn't be close and for good reason. We will vote based on emotions, but generally we all still have bloody standards for people in charge. Hillary somehow managed to bypass all of that. Better luck next primary. Please show some actual sources of hilary being guilty of any of this And no, breitbart and infowars don't count. Now don't be so droll, everybody's long since made up their minds by now. I think the only win here is to keep asking until people get tired of repeating themselves. The man wants to offer up his laundry list of accusations and it's terribly funny the conclusion of "yet have a significant chance of winning the presidency." When you diagnose the problem, then find all the evidence that your diagnosis is wrong, the answer isn't to appear shocked that the evidence exists ... it's to question your diagnosis first. Better luck next primary. Funny, because for all this talk and probing, there has been absolutely 0 (zero) proof of corruption from Hillary, yet people like you still assume it's there while being unable to provide a single source. At the same time, you defend trump who there is actual proof of him being corrupt and breaking laws.
You're making my night. They both have proof, and it might require you opening your eyes. The starting point has been both their damaging scandals, the baby step is whether or not one rates higher on your subjective severity level, or are they rather close, or maybe even tied. Another martian lands every day from another planet and wonders why ever are Clinton's favorability ratings only ten points behind this monster-of-a-Trump and why her trustworthiness, with these zero scandals and corruption, lies below Trump.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Both candidates are lucky that the other one is so historically unpopular that they even have a chance at the presidency.
|
On October 10 2016 13:58 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 13:58 Netscape9 wrote:On October 10 2016 13:57 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 10 2016 13:56 Netscape9 wrote:
What is with this awful poll? What if you don't support EITHER of them? Johnson and Stein fans? Yeah the poll options are kind of whack but that doesn't matter at all if there's bots screwing it up anyway dude lol. You think it's being manipulated? a moderator already said that a site admin told him it was
Hahaha, who would do that? It's hillarious and very sad at the same time..
|
On October 10 2016 15:25 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 15:22 Tachion wrote:On October 10 2016 15:15 Danglars wrote:
Better luck next primary. what does this even mean You'd better look at the quote chain and not splice out that last little bit. Blisse was remarking on how stunning Trump's candidacy has been, and myself on Clinton. Can you believe this election is even close? Why isn't Hillary winning by 50 points??? Show nested quote +On October 10 2016 15:16 hunts wrote:On October 10 2016 15:15 Danglars wrote:On October 10 2016 14:48 hunts wrote:On October 10 2016 14:42 Danglars wrote:On October 10 2016 14:15 Blisse wrote:On October 10 2016 14:06 L_Master wrote:On October 10 2016 14:04 Blisse wrote:On October 10 2016 14:00 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 10 2016 13:58 Blisse wrote:
[quote]
About his lack of policy, I forget which section but there was one section in the debate where he talked for like a minute about what sounded like policy and then he rambled off on something random. For a second there he sounded coherent enough that I could see some sort of argument being formed, but he couldn't finish it off.
His core base doesn't care about policy, they just don't want Hillary elected. And Trump just perfectly represents them, calling Hillary names and rejecting anything she says as a lie.
Hillary's a perfectly fine candidate (30 years experience, big NY state senator, SoS, former First Lady) but Republicans have been smearing the Clinton name for 20 years (regardless whether you think it's true or false) and these are the people who buy into that completely. His core base doesn't care about policy but his core base is inconsequential. He's got their vote wrapped up already. He's gotta get independents in his camp and they're going to want some actual adult thoughts put together. I agree, I was just talking about how off-topic he can be and how his rhetoric can still support so many voters. Because the vast majority of people don't vote based on policy, rationality or rhetoric. They vote based on emotions. We can even see this in debates where people routinely have different opinions on who "won" a debate is they listened to audio only or where able to watch it live. Yes but I'm sure this is the first time a candidate can openly discriminate against multiple races, likely sexually assault numerous women while crudely and inappropriately commenting on them, fuel a hate-based campaign, allude to assassinations, encourage assault, encourage foreign hacking, and be completely ignorant of any kind of policy discussion, yet still have a significant chance of winning the presidency. We will vote based on emotions, but generally we all still have bloody standards for people in charge. Trump somehow managed to bypass all of that. It's the first time the left has thrown a hissy fit of this size. Fuck, if Hillary wasn't guilty of half this or Romney wasn't accused of half of this, the election wouldn't be close and for good reason. We will vote based on emotions, but generally we all still have bloody standards for people in charge. Hillary somehow managed to bypass all of that. Better luck next primary. Please show some actual sources of hilary being guilty of any of this And no, breitbart and infowars don't count. Now don't be so droll, everybody's long since made up their minds by now. I think the only win here is to keep asking until people get tired of repeating themselves. The man wants to offer up his laundry list of accusations and it's terribly funny the conclusion of "yet have a significant chance of winning the presidency." When you diagnose the problem, then find all the evidence that your diagnosis is wrong, the answer isn't to appear shocked that the evidence exists ... it's to question your diagnosis first. Better luck next primary. Funny, because for all this talk and probing, there has been absolutely 0 (zero) proof of corruption from Hillary, yet people like you still assume it's there while being unable to provide a single source. At the same time, you defend trump who there is actual proof of him being corrupt and breaking laws. You're making my night. They both have proof, and it might require you opening your eyes. The starting point has been both their damaging scandals, the baby step is whether or not one rates higher on your subjective severity level, or are they rather close, or maybe even tied. Another martian lands every day from another planet and wonders why ever are Clinton's favorability ratings only ten points behind this monster-of-a-Trump and why her trustworthiness, with these zero scandals and corruption, lies below Trump.
Again, all of Hillary's scandals have 1: been created and perpetuated by the right, and 2: been thoroughly investigated and shown to actually just not be scandals but made up bullshit. As for trump, his scandals have actually uncovered actual violations. If you are unable to see this, well, I guess I can see why you are a partisan republican.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
