|
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 12 2016 04:22 KwarK wrote:
I feel like the Christians are having a lot of fun trying to incorporate Trumpianity into their dogma. He's literally everything Jesus was telling people reject. This is a good year.
The last few months I have seen the very christian members of my family go from heavily disliking Trump but would vote for their party/against Clinton to complete "Trump is a horrible human being" and either writing in someone else or even voting democrat for the 1st time in their lives.
What is interesting is that they seem to have not seen a lot of his scandals until recently (even a few days ago I mentioned some they didn't know about) but they know very well about all of Clinton's.
|
On October 12 2016 04:36 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 03:27 acker wrote:On October 12 2016 02:53 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 02:45 darthfoley wrote:
I've been away from this thread for a while...
Are there any Trumps fans left? If so, do any of them actually think he still has a shot at winning? Has anyone tried to claim that sexual assault is something they've also done in locker rooms, therefore it's okay?
So many questions! The diehards are still going strong (Oblade, Nettle, Dangler) They have ignored reality sofar so why change now. Zeo is making sure this thread represents the real US dialog by playing the role of Russia But most actual Republicans seem to have realized their party elected a complete moron. And yes one of the 3 (cant remember who) has tried to claim that its perfectly normal to talk about assaulting women in the locker room. To be honest, I'm impressed that so many of the usual Republicans on TL have recognized how stupid/dangerous Trump is this election cycle. If this shitty history repeats itself for the Democratic party sometime in the future, I hope I can recognize it the way some Republicans did this time around. Legitimately, I have to hand it to Introvert out of them all. That dude hated Trump from the beginning. I disagree with him on a LOT of stuff, but I definitely at least respect the fact that he has stuck to his guns from the very beginning that Trump was a horrible, anti-conservative candidate from the get-go.
eh, at the start I was more open/ambivalent because I thought he wouldn't get anywhere. I guess you could say I gave him a chance, but it would be more accurate to say I just didn't care. But it became obvious pretty quickly that he was terrible.
On October 12 2016 04:42 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 02:31 Introvert wrote:
You think this is bad? The day he loses will be a sight to behold. Nothing is ever his fault, and his final humiliation will be no different. But in the meantime the whole GOP has to lose for his own ego.
And that's one reason why I don't post much right now. This election cycle is hot garbage, from both candidates, every single day. Yeah, I sympathize with you. Your party got hijacked by the loonie bin. But you're party is also at fault for that hijacking. You court crazy long enough and it takes over. And being the science denying run foil hat condoning party is definitely courting crazy.
I might be among the loons to some here, lol. That being said, I think there is a difference between Trump lunacy and the "crazies" I would be identified with 
|
On October 12 2016 04:32 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 04:22 KwarK wrote:
I feel like the Christians are having a lot of fun trying to incorporate Trumpianity into their dogma. He's literally everything Jesus was telling people reject. This is a good year. Now now, "the Christians" isn't really the proper title here, we're talking Evangelicals, Baptists, and Non-Denominationals for the most part. The vast majority of Catholics and most Protestant ecclesiastical polities have largely denounced Trump, though some have definitely taken longer to do it than others. IIRC the largest association of Catholic clergy manifestly denounced Trump all the way back in March or something.
Right, though can we observe that even the first part only applies to white Evangelicals, Baptists, and conservative Non-Denoms, which excludes the heavily evangelical/baptist bent of black churches.
But yeah, I hang out with a lot of clergy and biblical scholars. Haven't met any who aren't totally horrified by Trump. My own denomination and seminary have both condemned various actions of his in no uncertain terms. (And I give the Catholics due credit for their part in opposing Trump, even if it never gets reported on.)
|
On October 12 2016 04:32 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 04:22 KwarK wrote:
I feel like the Christians are having a lot of fun trying to incorporate Trumpianity into their dogma. He's literally everything Jesus was telling people reject. This is a good year. Now now, "the Christians" isn't really the proper title here, we're talking Evangelicals, Baptists, and Non-Denominationals for the most part. The vast majority of Catholics and most Protestant ecclesiastical polities have largely denounced Trump, though some have definitely taken longer to do it than others. IIRC the largest association of Catholic clergy manifestly denounced Trump all the way back in March or something.
![[image loading]](https://pics.onsizzle.com/a-good-catholic-joke-the-pope-and-trump-are-on-3064344.png)
User was warned for this post (image macro)
|
On October 12 2016 04:56 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 04:22 KwarK wrote:
I feel like the Christians are having a lot of fun trying to incorporate Trumpianity into their dogma. He's literally everything Jesus was telling people reject. This is a good year. The last few months I have seen the very christian members of my family go from heavily disliking Trump but would vote for their party/against Clinton to complete "Trump is a horrible human being" and either writing in someone else or even voting democrat for the 1st time in their lives. What is interesting is that they seem to have not seen a lot of his scandals until recently (even a few days ago I mentioned some they didn't know about) but they know very well about all of Clinton's.
I assume they watch Fox or a similar network. That is why they saw so much non-existent Clinton scandals and not see much of Trump scandals.
|
On October 12 2016 04:56 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 04:22 KwarK wrote:
I feel like the Christians are having a lot of fun trying to incorporate Trumpianity into their dogma. He's literally everything Jesus was telling people reject. This is a good year. The last few months I have seen the very christian members of my family go from heavily disliking Trump but would vote for their party/against Clinton to complete "Trump is a horrible human being" and either writing in someone else or even voting democrat for the 1st time in their lives. What is interesting is that they seem to have not seen a lot of his scandals until recently (even a few days ago I mentioned some they didn't know about) but they know very well about all of Clinton's.
The media has been downplaying his scandals and emphasizing's Clinton to an almost absurd extent.
We heard of weeks of the Clinton foundation scandal, which was not a scandal at all because there were nothing there whatsoever, and barely of the Trump's Foundation, which should be disqualifying.
I said it already but i blame gender bias.
|
On October 12 2016 05:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 04:56 Slaughter wrote:On October 12 2016 04:22 KwarK wrote:
I feel like the Christians are having a lot of fun trying to incorporate Trumpianity into their dogma. He's literally everything Jesus was telling people reject. This is a good year. The last few months I have seen the very christian members of my family go from heavily disliking Trump but would vote for their party/against Clinton to complete "Trump is a horrible human being" and either writing in someone else or even voting democrat for the 1st time in their lives. What is interesting is that they seem to have not seen a lot of his scandals until recently (even a few days ago I mentioned some they didn't know about) but they know very well about all of Clinton's. The media has been downplaying his scandals and emphasizing's Clinton to an almost absurd extent. We heard of weeks of the Clinton foundation scandal, which was not a scandal at all because there were nothing there whatsoever, and barely of the Trump's Foundation, which should be disqualifying. I said it already but i blame gender bias.
I blame profit margins and money personally.
|
On October 12 2016 05:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 04:56 Slaughter wrote:On October 12 2016 04:22 KwarK wrote:
I feel like the Christians are having a lot of fun trying to incorporate Trumpianity into their dogma. He's literally everything Jesus was telling people reject. This is a good year. The last few months I have seen the very christian members of my family go from heavily disliking Trump but would vote for their party/against Clinton to complete "Trump is a horrible human being" and either writing in someone else or even voting democrat for the 1st time in their lives. What is interesting is that they seem to have not seen a lot of his scandals until recently (even a few days ago I mentioned some they didn't know about) but they know very well about all of Clinton's. The media has been downplaying his scandals and emphasizing's Clinton to an almost absurd extent. We heard of weeks of the Clinton foundation scandal, which was not a scandal at all because there were nothing there whatsoever, and barely of the Trump's Foundation, which should be disqualifying. I said it already but i blame gender bias.
False equivalency is a hell of a thing.
|
Norway28558 Posts
On October 12 2016 01:52 Logo wrote:I feel like people are so desperate to keep this race as a 'close' one (for ratings of course) that they're flying off the handle at anything that could help it be that way. There's plenty of legitimate things to criticize Hillary for, I don't get why people constantly resort to grasping at these straws.
Because they need dirt that compares with the unquestionable dirt on Trump. And even though there are legitimate things to criticize Hillary for, there are no legitimate things to criticize her for that compares to what you might legitimately criticize Trump for. When Trump is attacked, the brunt of the force comes from a direct Trump quote, no analysis is required, his literal words are there for everyone to see. The legitimate attacks on Hillary however (from a Trumpian-scandal perspective) invariably have no legs to stand on.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Trump releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that.
|
On October 12 2016 03:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON ― The U.S. is in a shooting war in Yemen, where the American military has spent years vaporizing suspected terrorists in airstrikes and a Saudi-led coalition is busily slaughtering civilians with American refueling and intelligence support.
You wouldn’t know it from watching the second presidential debate Sunday night. Even after one of the deadliest attacks of the Saudi campaign — a series of airstrikes on a funeral in Sanaa, Yemen’s ancient capital, that killed more than 140 people Saturday — neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton was asked about whether the U.S. should keep aiding an ally that appears to be actively targeting civilians.
Since debate moderators won’t ask the presidential candidates about Yemen, we did. But neither campaign answered, and their public statements alone make it impossible to tell whether they would continue President Barack Obama’s policy of supporting the Saudi-led coalition’s war against the Houthi rebel group that now controls much of the western part of the country, including the capital.
“Shouldn’t this be something we’re discussing as a country?” asked Adam Baron, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, who lived in Yemen from 2011 to 2014. “Shouldn’t the American people be aware of the fact that the U.S. is a major part of a war in Yemen?”
Because the U.S. isn’t directly involved in the Saudi-led fight, there are no U.S. troops on the ground and both sides have committed human rights abuses, Yemen barely registers in the political consciousness of American voters. It’s hard to quantify exactly how little the electorate cares about Yemen because pollsters don’t even ask about it.
That helps explain why Clinton and Trump have been able to campaign for over a year without ever being made to outline a plan forward in the country. Source
Yet when rebels in Aleppo are about to lose to Assad/Russia, US, Britain and France were screaming full lungs "WAR CRIMES". I guess an ally to the west like Saudi and Israel in the past can commit war crimes without anyone batting an eye. US of all countries have committed more war crimes then any other country in the past decade. That's why I'm supporting Trumptard to become president and slow down west imperialism and hypocrisy even by a little, but again it's Trump so it might just get worse...
|
On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Trump releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that.
So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out?
Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated?
|
On October 12 2016 04:52 OuchyDathurts wrote:
It's possible to have a civil debate and talk nuance and substance and be cordial. Bernie and Hillary did it because they're not children and they don't have to defend the indefensible the whole time. Maybe next time the RNC won't put a clown at the head of their ticket that drags everything into the mud and then people can talk about substance the whole time. That would be pretty neato if you ask me.
The media and electorate are complicit in the fact that they already believe they only have one choice - and have partisan interests in that side. The less that people are willing to participate, even in the mere conversation about current issues, the side they don't want to deal with (or wish didn't exist) can just ignore them, in fact has no choice but to give up on them. And the side that has their unwavering support can go on its merry way not bothering to adapt.
|
|
|
On October 12 2016 05:21 raga4ka wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 03:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON ― The U.S. is in a shooting war in Yemen, where the American military has spent years vaporizing suspected terrorists in airstrikes and a Saudi-led coalition is busily slaughtering civilians with American refueling and intelligence support.
You wouldn’t know it from watching the second presidential debate Sunday night. Even after one of the deadliest attacks of the Saudi campaign — a series of airstrikes on a funeral in Sanaa, Yemen’s ancient capital, that killed more than 140 people Saturday — neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton was asked about whether the U.S. should keep aiding an ally that appears to be actively targeting civilians.
Since debate moderators won’t ask the presidential candidates about Yemen, we did. But neither campaign answered, and their public statements alone make it impossible to tell whether they would continue President Barack Obama’s policy of supporting the Saudi-led coalition’s war against the Houthi rebel group that now controls much of the western part of the country, including the capital.
“Shouldn’t this be something we’re discussing as a country?” asked Adam Baron, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, who lived in Yemen from 2011 to 2014. “Shouldn’t the American people be aware of the fact that the U.S. is a major part of a war in Yemen?”
Because the U.S. isn’t directly involved in the Saudi-led fight, there are no U.S. troops on the ground and both sides have committed human rights abuses, Yemen barely registers in the political consciousness of American voters. It’s hard to quantify exactly how little the electorate cares about Yemen because pollsters don’t even ask about it.
That helps explain why Clinton and Trump have been able to campaign for over a year without ever being made to outline a plan forward in the country. Source Yet when rebels in Aleppo are about to lose to Assad/Russia, US, Britain and France were screaming full lungs "WAR CRIMES". I guess an ally to the west like Saudi and Israel in the past can commit war crimes without anyone batting an eye. US of all countries have committed more war crimes then any other country in the past decade. That's why I'm supporting Trumptard to become president and slow down west imperialism and hypocrisy even by a little, but again it's Trump so it might just get worse...
I always love the bravery of people from other nations that tell us they are supporting Trump because the rest of the US government is bad. It’s like me rooting for some right wing moron in the UK or France, saying they deserve it and it won’t be a big problem for me.
|
On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Trump releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated?
A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Trump talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'.
Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!'
|
This man is a special level of garbage. But I am sure he has a lot of public support.
|
On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Trump releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Trump talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh so triggered right now by misogynists!!'
false equivalence and strawmanning are amazing of a drugs.
|
United States41988 Posts
On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Trump releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Trump talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!'
You understand that to illustrate your point about how we're ignoring perfectly valid Clinton scandals you had to create a fictional scandal that would be valid, right?
That doesn't make your point look good.
|
On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Trump releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Trump talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!'
Resorting to hypotheticals doesn't help your point.
On October 12 2016 05:21 raga4ka wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 03:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON ― The U.S. is in a shooting war in Yemen, where the American military has spent years vaporizing suspected terrorists in airstrikes and a Saudi-led coalition is busily slaughtering civilians with American refueling and intelligence support.
You wouldn’t know it from watching the second presidential debate Sunday night. Even after one of the deadliest attacks of the Saudi campaign — a series of airstrikes on a funeral in Sanaa, Yemen’s ancient capital, that killed more than 140 people Saturday — neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton was asked about whether the U.S. should keep aiding an ally that appears to be actively targeting civilians.
Since debate moderators won’t ask the presidential candidates about Yemen, we did. But neither campaign answered, and their public statements alone make it impossible to tell whether they would continue President Barack Obama’s policy of supporting the Saudi-led coalition’s war against the Houthi rebel group that now controls much of the western part of the country, including the capital.
“Shouldn’t this be something we’re discussing as a country?” asked Adam Baron, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, who lived in Yemen from 2011 to 2014. “Shouldn’t the American people be aware of the fact that the U.S. is a major part of a war in Yemen?”
Because the U.S. isn’t directly involved in the Saudi-led fight, there are no U.S. troops on the ground and both sides have committed human rights abuses, Yemen barely registers in the political consciousness of American voters. It’s hard to quantify exactly how little the electorate cares about Yemen because pollsters don’t even ask about it.
That helps explain why Clinton and Trump have been able to campaign for over a year without ever being made to outline a plan forward in the country. Source Yet when rebels in Aleppo are about to lose to Assad/Russia, US, Britain and France were screaming full lungs "WAR CRIMES". I guess an ally to the west like Saudi and Israel in the past can commit war crimes without anyone batting an eye. US of all countries have committed more war crimes then any other country in the past decade. That's why I'm supporting Trumptard to become president and slow down west imperialism and hypocrisy even by a little, but again it's Trump so it might just get worse...
Trump is a man who promised to end ISIS in 90 days, so he won't exactly be playing faraway foreign policy actor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
