EPTOn October 12 2016 15:35 Chris1 wrote:
You've wilfully misrepresented the Trump video.
You've wilfully misrepresented the Trump video.
Have I? What did I say which was a misrepresentation of the Trump video or what Trump said?
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5518
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
Have I? What did I say which was a misrepresentation of the Trump video or what Trump said? | ||
|
Chris1
44 Posts
On October 12 2016 15:35 Chris1 wrote: I could say you've wilfully misrepresented the Trump video. | ||
KwarK
United States43223 Posts
On October 12 2016 15:28 Chris1 wrote: Hillary laughing about the 12 year old girl in the rape case she defended, laughing about the brutal murder of Ghadaffi and apparently, talking about having Assange droned, they all mean nothing, eh? By the way we've already had a rapist in the white house with Bill Clinton and you Democrats didn't seem to mind, so why all the Trump rape hate? Bill isn't running. Trump is. Trump brags about how he likes to sexually assault women. Hillary Clinton does not. Of the two Hillary is the clear winner in that specific comparison. | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On October 12 2016 15:18 JW_DTLA wrote: Can a mod put the PBS Frontline Documentary "Confronting ISIS" in the header? It needs to be mandatory viewing before commenting on the middle east. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/confronting-isis/ Thanks for the link. Unfortunately it's blocked for me, but this interview in the related section was insightful for me. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/ash-carter-no-confusion-about-u-s-interests-in-fight-against-isis/ | ||
|
Chris1
44 Posts
On October 12 2016 15:36 KwarK wrote: Bill isn't running. Trump is. Trump brags about how he likes to sexually assault women. Hillary Clinton does not. Of the two Hillary is the clear winner in that specific comparison. Bill's not running, he wont end up in the white house, with Hilary? He's salivating at the lips at the possible secretaries he can have to himself if Hillary wins. User was banned for this post. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43223 Posts
On October 12 2016 15:35 Chris1 wrote: You've wilfully misrepresented the Trump video. Yeah but he hasn't. Trump actually bragged about how he likes to sexually assault women. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11370 Posts
Hillary laughing about the 12 year old girl in the rape case she defended We've been this over before. And now I've finally bothered to listen to the audio file. You know what she called the case? A "terrible case" You know what she laughed at? That polygraph tests were stupid "It forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs", also the incompetence of the prosecutors. Based on that, I strongly suggest you drop the 'she laughed at a 12 year old getting raped'. If you perpetuate that interpretation you are either horrendously ignorant of the original audio file, deliberately dishonest or entirely blinded by partisanship or your hatred for Hillary. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43223 Posts
On October 12 2016 15:42 Falling wrote: We've been this over before. And now I've finally bothered to listen to the audio file. You know what she called the case? A "terrible case" You know what she laughed at? That polygraph tests were stupid "It forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs." Based on that, I strongly suggest you drop the 'she laughed at a 12 year old getting raped'. If you perpetuate that interpretation you are either terribly ignorant of the original audio file, deliberately dishonest or blinded by partisanship. Pretty sure it's a troll account. He's deliberately refusing to understand any of the posts other people have made in response to his. He's worse than Reality on that front. Reality just changes the subject when you point out that what he said isn't true. Chris doubles down on the lie to see how many times you're willing to correct him. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11370 Posts
Oh he's gone now. I'm fine with that. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 12 2016 13:38 Probe1 wrote: I'm anxious too. This is the first time in living memory that a candidate has threatened to have his opponent sent to jail if he is elected. I'm really pissed at Republicans over this. I've been staunchly independent my whole life and they're making this election a joke. You for real? | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On October 12 2016 15:42 Falling wrote: We've been this over before. And now I've finally bothered to listen to the audio file. You know what she called the case? A "terrible case" You know what she laughed at? That polygraph tests were stupid "It forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs", also the incompetence of the prosecutors. Based on that, I strongly suggest you drop the 'she laughed at a 12 year old getting raped'. If you perpetuate that interpretation you are either horrendously ignorant of the original audio file, deliberately dishonest or entirely blinded by partisanship or your hatred for Hillary. If anyone else was interested, here's a link to a summary https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/11/the-facts-about-hillary-clinton-and-the-kathy-shelton-rape-case/ Here's the audio http://freebeacon.com/politics/audio-hillary-clinton-speaks-of-defense-of-child-rapist-in-newly-unearthed-tapes/ My first time actually reading into what happened with this piece. I mean, obviously it sounds very reasonable but it's good to check. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On October 12 2016 15:26 GreenHorizons wrote: Can we also not pretend this was some sort of revelation for many of the people acting disgusted? Not limited to, but including the Clintons. Yes, yes, we know already. The establishment is a circle jerk where everyone knows everyone's skeletons but keeps it hush, hush. Government is bad, so elect incompetent leaders to burn the whole thing and start over. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18117 Posts
On October 12 2016 08:27 KwarK wrote: Coal is a net cost to society. The energy unlocked by burning it isn't worth as much as the damage extracting and burning it causes. The only way the industry functions is by insisting that someone else is responsible for paying for all of the damage that it causes while they get to keep all the revenues. It's an example of the parable of the broken window. And clean coal is just coal with better marketing, it's a fiction invented by the coal lobby. No. Clean coal exists, it's just horrendously expensive. More expensive than solar or wind, at this point. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23469 Posts
On October 12 2016 16:03 WolfintheSheep wrote: Yes, yes, we know already. The establishment is a circle jerk where everyone knows everyone's skeletons but keeps it hush, hush. Government is bad, so elect incompetent leaders to burn the whole thing and start over. lol, really? Just going to go full strawman like the idea that Trump thought, said, and probably acted on this type of stuff was some top secret material. | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On October 12 2016 16:06 Acrofales wrote: No. Clean coal exists, it's just horrendously expensive. More expensive than solar or wind, at this point. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/clean-coal-carbon-capture-power-station-greenhouse-gases-climate-change-chennai-india-ccsl-a7356056.html the timing of this article lol | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
If I were to vote, I couldn't in good conscience vote for Hillary. I feel like I would be essentially endorsing the killing of civilians in countries like Syria and Yemen (this is hyperbolic, but I don't think its unfounded). You can make the argument how voting for Trump would be worse, and if I lived in the states I certainly wouldn't vote on Trump based on his suggestions for internal policies, but I don't want to vote for someone who appears to want to seek out war. I doubt Trump would be any better at foreign policy, and I also doubt that even voting for someone like Ron Paul would stop the bloodshed as this policy has been deeply ingrained into American (political) culture, but I can't vote for a war and murder-enabler like HRC. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 12 2016 16:24 a_flayer wrote: Someone once told me, "The only wasted vote is a vote for a candidate you don't support." If I were to vote, I couldn't in good conscience vote for Hillary. I feel like I would be essentially endorsing the killing of civilians in countries like Syria and Yemen (this is hyperbolic, but I don't think its unfounded). You can make the argument how voting for Trump would be worse, and if I lived in the states I certainly wouldn't vote on Trump based on his suggestions for internal policies, but I don't want to vote for someone who appears to want to seek out war. I doubt Trump would be any better at foreign policy, and I also doubt that even voting for someone like Ron Paul would stop the bloodshed as this policy has been deeply ingrained into American (political) culture, but I can't vote for a war and murder-enabler like HRC. Literally condoning sexual assault Literally a cartoon villain Literally wants to jail the opposition Don't worry about being hyperbolic. Everybody's already there. Includes Trump and Hillary campaigns. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43223 Posts
| ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On October 12 2016 16:24 a_flayer wrote: Someone once told me, "The only wasted vote is a vote for a candidate you don't support." If I were to vote, I couldn't in good conscience vote for Hillary. I feel like I would be essentially endorsing the killing of civilians in countries like Syria and Yemen (this is hyperbolic, but I don't think its unfounded). You can make the argument how voting for Trump would be worse, and if I lived in the states I certainly wouldn't vote on Trump based on his suggestions for internal policies, but I don't want to vote for someone who appears to want to seek out war. I doubt Trump would be any better at foreign policy, and I also doubt that even voting for someone like Ron Paul would stop the bloodshed as this policy has been deeply ingrained into American (political) culture, but I can't vote for a war and murder-enabler like HRC. I don't think it's hyperbolic but I think there's more to it. If you watch/read the content in the links below helps a bit, I think. On October 12 2016 15:36 Blisse wrote: Thanks for the link. Unfortunately it's blocked for me, but this interview in the related section was insightful for me. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/ash-carter-no-confusion-about-u-s-interests-in-fight-against-isis/ Kinda related, but I don't understand why people say things that sound like they believe there's only one person (Hillary) who decides all of this stuff. At most you could blame Obama/Bush, but why is Hillary brought up so much specifically as a murderer/enabler more than anyone else in the chain of command (like the secretary of defense)? Just because she's running for president? I'm not sure if the other people responsible change along with the presidency?... | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On October 12 2016 16:42 KwarK wrote: a_flayer, voting isn't that simple. It depends on the way the game is set up. There are different voting systems. In some systems it's as simple as voting for your favourite and that'll get the optimal outcome. In constituency based simple plurality, which is what is being used here, voting is tactical. I am aware of tactical voting. It happens here as well. I deliberately don't engage in that sort of thing because I feel like if you do that sort of thing, you are essentially just trying to prevent "the other side" from getting their way which is not what democracy should be about in my opinion. It'd feel like I was trying to suppress someone else's opinions. Tactical voting is not something that I can base my choice on, at any rate. I vote for someone who I can support, if I can't support any of the candidates, they're not getting my vote. If you think that is a simplistic view, then that's fine, as I am literally trying to keep it as simple for myself as possible. On October 12 2016 16:44 Blisse wrote: I don't think it's hyperbolic but I think there's more to it. If you watch/read the content in the links below helps a bit, I think. Kinda related, but I don't understand why people say things that sound like they believe there's only one person (Hillary) who decides all of this stuff. At most you could blame Obama/Bush, but why is Hillary brought up so much specifically as a murderer/enabler more than anyone else in the chain of command (like the secretary of defense)? Just because she's running for president? I'm not sure if the other people responsible change along with the presidency?... As I said, I know it is deeply ingrained into American political culture, but HRC is still supporting that same way of doing things, hence she would not get my vote. I certainly don't blame her for everything, that would be ridiculous. It is as you said: she is running for president. I'm fairly certain I could easily point out a couple of dozen American politicians that I have a similar opinion about if I cared enough to look any of them up. + Show Spoiler + Also, as I'm reading that interview with Ash Carter regarding ISIS, I quickly find myself getting annoyed with the tone regarding the Russians: We are right, they are wrong. I keep thinking about American weapons being supplied to the Saudis, American weapons falling into the hands of various rebel factions... etc etc. If the Russians are throwing gasoline on the fire, the Americans are trying to put out the fire by cheering it on like a giant fan. It's like accusing the Russians of intentionally engaging in war crimes when they accidentally kill 12 civilians while staunchly claiming that your own killings of civilians are "unavoidable accidents" and certainly don't warrant a UN investigation because your own investigation determined that they were unintentional. | ||
| ||
