|
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 November 23 2016 05:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 00:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 23 2016 00:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2016 23:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Again I think I can safely call any of you Trump supporter who rejoice of his attack on the press on the argument that the press is shit and biased, but sees no problem in him appointing the boss of the one shittiest, most propaganda based and most biased media in the landscape (namely Breitbart), a hypocrite. How is lambasting the mainstream press while tolerating (or even praising) the appointment of Bannon hypocritical? Both actions are completely consistent. I'm fine with criticizing the media, but there is only so far you can go into the double standard without people calling BS. Trump is attacking the media because the media points out his lies or is hostile to his views. And you are happy that he does so, not because the media is bad, but on the opposite, because the media keeps a (feeble) ability to call bullshit. And there has been an ungodly amount of bullshit to call in everything he's done and said. The guy has been grossly lying 20 times a day in average during his campaign, which is unprecedented, and the role of the press is to point that out, which frankly they haven't done nearly enough.
But yeah, let's reshape the narrative. True talker (lololol) The Donald taking out the unfair establishment media (should I add: "saaaaaaaad.") You don't get it. The right's hate of the media is not something that emerged in this election. The media has been torpedoing our guys for decades. The deck has been stacked against republicans and conservative figures for generations.The media has made itself our enemy, so we treat it as such. This isn't something that I expect any liberal or democrat to ever understand. But a solid 40% of the country does understand and finds Trump to be cathartic. Trump is loved because he fights and doesn't take the media's bullshit lying down like too many of our previous politicians. Look, there are two possible positions: 1- You attack the media for doing a bad job. That's ok. But then, I ask you to start with Breitbart and Fox, because they are the number one provider of desinformation, intellectual dishonesty and brutal propaganda. Otherwise I simply call you a hypocrite. The mainstream media is not meaningfully better than Fox or Breitbart. They only seem so to you because Fox and Breitbart push different narratives than what you're accustomed to. The difference between you and me is that I acknowledge that all media outlets are biased, whereas you apparently won't. Show nested quote +2- Second option, you attack medias when they are not on your side. That's an attack on plurality of opinions, on free speech and on democracy. That's what Trump is doing by the way, attacking the NYT for stories that are obviously true. And the problem is that independent journalism is essential to a democracy. If you are part of a democracy you have to accept the voice of people who don't like you. And it should REALLY worry you if the president uses his power against people who express skepticism and report on the crap he says. This is laughable. Trump put these media fools in a room and scolded them. Big deal. They'll have a big cry, some will express some anger, but they'll get over it. Wake me up when Trump starts nationalizing the media and using the force of government to shut down dissenting voices. Show nested quote +Now you will ask me: oh, but the media is liberal. That's not true. The media goes from Breitbart and Fox to the NYT and Washington Post. And the high end in terms of quality, fact checking and simple honesty is not in favour of the conservative media. Should I remind you the amazing way Fox News helped GWB to basically steal an election? This is incredibly duplicitous, and you know it. To say that media isn't liberal and justify that statement by saying that the media incorporates a range of views from Breitbart and Fox to the NYT and Washington Post completely misses the point. The preponderance of the media very clearly is liberal, especially when you look at the "legacy" media outlets. Show nested quote +Then you say ok, but the media is against Trump, even when it's conservative or neutral. But mate, look, Nobel Prize winners are against Trump, scientists are against Trump, highly educated people are against Trump, artists are against Trump, and the whole rest of the world is against Trump. Trump has 9% approval in Europe. 9 fucking percents. And all of those people can suck my balls. They can have their opinions, but I don't really care what they think. They don't have the same agenda that I and other Trump supporters do. Show nested quote +All those people are against Trump not because of another bizarre conspiracy or because they are all sold to some shadowy interest, but because he is a proto-fascist serial liar with a narcissistic personality disorder rarely seen outside of psychiatric institutions.
You attack the press for being generally hostile to your horrendous guy. And then what? Are you gonna attack the artists, nobel prize winners, scientists, educated people and the rest of the world? Or juste accept that in a free society, it may happens a lot of people think that your guy is horrendous.
It's not because the media is sold to the liberals that no serious newspaper endorsed him. It's because he is fucking terrible. And you are not doing a service to your country by cheering for a future president when he attacks one of the absolute cornerstones of democracy (if you care at all about that). This is sheer hysteria. I almost feel bad for you. You've bought the retarded mainstream media narrative on Trump so hard that you aren't even willing to wait and see what he does before damning him as a fascist and failure of a president. Have a drink. Hit a bong. Relax. You'll feel better.
Well you are really, really, really completely missing my points, aren't you?
I'll try to make it simpler then:
The media is anti Trump for the same reason that most educated people, most people who know some stuff, and all those guys that can "suck your ball" as you put it so elegantly (it seems to be a theme with you): because he has been constantly saying stuff that are either horrifying, blatantly false, or both, and has made bigotry and hatred his trademark.
It's not a conspiracy, it's that if you made it to write in a major newspaper, you have the critical abilities to see that this guy shouldn't be there. You do fail to see that, I know.
The thing is that in a democracy, you don't try to silence people who criticize you when you are in power. That's it. And that cheering for that is really really dumb, if you care a little bit about your children maybe living in a free society.
Now you "FAP FAP FAP" (that's a bit disturbing, I have to tell you) when the president says he will attack the press, on the basis that the press was not nice to him. You fail to understand why this is more than highly problematic, I'm sorry to hear it.
The alt right and the tea party has built a world view in which there is this thing called "the establishment" that hate them and is really evil and controlling everything. What the alt right call "the establishment" is the sum of all people who are actually educated, know what they are talking about, and because of that are influential. And the reason they don't like your politics is because they have the intellectual tool to see that building a wall, banning muslims, targeting civilians, torturing folks, denying climate change, undermining Europe, and a thousand more dumb proposals are just really, really, really bad ideas.
It's not personal. It's the ideas that really suck.
|
On November 23 2016 05:59 biology]major wrote:
fox is actually not bad, because the people on that channel who are openly shilling for conservatives are proud of it. They aren't hiding behind any false pretense of journalism. That's what makes CNN and the like so disingenuous, because they pretend to be news networks. There's also quite a few people on fox who are balanced and give reasonable analysis.
I disagree; cnn isn't actually shilling for people, despite unfounded accusations to the contrary.
How can you distinguish good journalism? how do you tell which is which? do you understand the structural issues which make things the way they are?
how do you prove to other people that these things are the case?
not to say that cnn is that good these days, but they're not shilling, and they are trying to do journalism, just being generically kinda poor and clickbaity.
Which people on fox do you consider to give balanced and reasonable analysis?
also, fox is bad, because they lie about it, and pretend they're journalists sometimes when they're not.
|
Let's just remember that the only moderator who did an unbiased and good job during the debates was the Fox News moderator: Chris Wallace.
|
On November 23 2016 06:08 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 05:58 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2016 05:51 Doodsmack wrote:
To be fair you weren't so hot on Trump when news that he's an embarrassment was fresh. You in fact called him a clown. Rape tapes aren't born in media newsrooms. Clearly I and a lot of other people badly underestimated Trump. He's an embarrassment who got lucky. Can you fathom Ben Carson in the cabinet?
Hardly as theres no such thing as luck. Hes a businessman/entertainer/playboy who is somewhat ignorant to politics and is learning as he goes. Hillary was that just that bad(the scandals, emails) in fact the whole opposition was so horrendous Trump stomped all over them with his charisma alone. Yes Trump is not qualified for president in the textbook sense but he is the leader this country needs right now. He deserves a chance to prove himself.
|
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/inside-donald-trumps-meeting-new-york-times/ President-elect Donald Trump disavowed the alt-right in an on-the-record interview with the New York Times on Tuesday. He also responded to questions about the possibility of prosecuting Hillary Clinton, his commitment to the First Amendment, his plans for Syria, and infrastructure investment in the United States. i don't know if it was already posted but you people are talking about questions he replied in there and you're totally missing the mark.
|
On November 23 2016 06:28 Noidberg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 06:08 Doodsmack wrote:On November 23 2016 05:58 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2016 05:51 Doodsmack wrote:
To be fair you weren't so hot on Trump when news that he's an embarrassment was fresh. You in fact called him a clown. Rape tapes aren't born in media newsrooms. Clearly I and a lot of other people badly underestimated Trump. He's an embarrassment who got lucky. Can you fathom Ben Carson in the cabinet? Hardly as theres no such thing as luck. Hes a businessman/entertainer/playboy who is somewhat ignorant in politics and is learning as he goes. Hillary was that just that bad(the scandals, emails) in fact the whole opposition was so horrendous Trump stomped all over them with his charisma alone. Yes Trump is not qualified for president in the textbook sense but he is the leader this country needs right now. He deserves a chance to prove himself.
Do you have any new evidence that hasn't already been dealt with to prove that hillary actually was that bad? I'm assuming not. So I will disregard that as the usual falsity.
I grant Trump has considerable charisma.
I'd say he's more than somewhat ignorant in politics, given his slow learning rate. (plenty of things he's had to time to be more familiar with and still wasn't, given how long his campaign has been going for)
But he's not the leader the country needs now, just the one we gonna have. The country needs someone inclusive and non-divisive and wise.
re: xdaunt
iirc cooper also did a pretty good job at moderating, though not as good as wallace.
|
On November 23 2016 06:27 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just remember that the only moderator who did an unbiased and good job during the debates was the Fox News moderator: Chris Wallace.
To be fair I think Martha Raddatz did an alright job too. The townhall style didn't do much good for the appearance of a well-structured debate though.
|
On November 23 2016 06:24 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 05:59 biology]major wrote:
fox is actually not bad, because the people on that channel who are openly shilling for conservatives are proud of it. They aren't hiding behind any false pretense of journalism. That's what makes CNN and the like so disingenuous, because they pretend to be news networks. There's also quite a few people on fox who are balanced and give reasonable analysis. I disagree; cnn isn't actually shilling for people, despite unfounded accusations to the contrary. How can you distinguish good journalism? how do you tell which is which? do you understand the structural issues which make things the way they are? how do you prove to other people that these things are the case? not to say that cnn is that good these days, but they're not shilling, and they are trying to do journalism, just being generically kinda poor and clickbaity. Which people on fox do you consider to give balanced and reasonable analysis? also, fox is bad, because they lie about it, and pretend they're journalists sometimes when they're not.
Back in the day when I used to be liberal many years ago, I used to watch fox with the same attitude most people in this thread have. Now I see them as reasonable, and I'm not sure if it's because I was ignorant then or I am ignorant now, or it's neither and I just like reinforcing my own narrative, but O'Reilly, megyn kelly, baier, CW are all good. On CNN the only person I can even tolerate is anderson cooper, I think he's pretty professional and unbiased. He was the only person who didn't have a fucking meltdown during the election night when everyone revealed their true colors.
|
On November 23 2016 06:27 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just remember that the only moderator who did an unbiased and good job during the debates was the Fox News moderator: Chris Wallace.
While he did a good job in controlling the candidates, he wasn't unbiased at all in how some of his questions were framed. For example:
"Secretary Clinton, I want to pursue your plan because in many ways, it is similar to the Obama stimulus plan in 2009, which has led to the slowest GDP growth since 1949." A common conservative talking point -- the completely wrong idea that the post-crisis recovery was slow because of the stimulus plan, instead of because a) the stimulus wasn't far-reaching enough and b) austerity policies were pursued at the local/state level in many areas.
Other examples of the biased framing of his questions towards conservative views include his questions on abortion rights, on securing the border, on the Supreme Court, and on gun rights.
edit: also, like in the other debates, there were no questions on climate change, which was a disgrace.
|
On November 23 2016 06:38 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 06:24 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 05:59 biology]major wrote:
fox is actually not bad, because the people on that channel who are openly shilling for conservatives are proud of it. They aren't hiding behind any false pretense of journalism. That's what makes CNN and the like so disingenuous, because they pretend to be news networks. There's also quite a few people on fox who are balanced and give reasonable analysis. I disagree; cnn isn't actually shilling for people, despite unfounded accusations to the contrary. How can you distinguish good journalism? how do you tell which is which? do you understand the structural issues which make things the way they are? how do you prove to other people that these things are the case? not to say that cnn is that good these days, but they're not shilling, and they are trying to do journalism, just being generically kinda poor and clickbaity. Which people on fox do you consider to give balanced and reasonable analysis? also, fox is bad, because they lie about it, and pretend they're journalists sometimes when they're not. Back in the day when I used to be liberal many years ago, I used to watch fox with the same attitude most people in this thread have. Now I see them as reasonable, and I'm not sure if it's because I was ignorant then or I am ignorant now, or it's neither and I just like reinforcing my own narrative, but O'Reilly, megyn kelly, baier, CW are all good. On CNN the only person I can even tolerate is anderson cooper, I think he's pretty professional and unbiased. He was the only person who didn't have a fucking meltdown during the election night when everyone revealed their true colors.
has your narrative/beliefs changed in that time? i.e. did you used to be liberal and now you are pretty conservative?
|
Norway28761 Posts
Fox has their crazies but I think Chris Wallace and Megyn Kelly are both highly respectable. I watched quite some of their coverage, and while there's off the wall crazy stuff like judge jenine or whatever her name is, there is decent coverage as well.
Definitely shouldn't get your entire coverage from them, but watching Wallace or Kelly to get the 'reasonable conservative' perspective makes sense.
|
On November 23 2016 06:41 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 06:38 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:24 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 05:59 biology]major wrote:
fox is actually not bad, because the people on that channel who are openly shilling for conservatives are proud of it. They aren't hiding behind any false pretense of journalism. That's what makes CNN and the like so disingenuous, because they pretend to be news networks. There's also quite a few people on fox who are balanced and give reasonable analysis. I disagree; cnn isn't actually shilling for people, despite unfounded accusations to the contrary. How can you distinguish good journalism? how do you tell which is which? do you understand the structural issues which make things the way they are? how do you prove to other people that these things are the case? not to say that cnn is that good these days, but they're not shilling, and they are trying to do journalism, just being generically kinda poor and clickbaity. Which people on fox do you consider to give balanced and reasonable analysis? also, fox is bad, because they lie about it, and pretend they're journalists sometimes when they're not. Back in the day when I used to be liberal many years ago, I used to watch fox with the same attitude most people in this thread have. Now I see them as reasonable, and I'm not sure if it's because I was ignorant then or I am ignorant now, or it's neither and I just like reinforcing my own narrative, but O'Reilly, megyn kelly, baier, CW are all good. On CNN the only person I can even tolerate is anderson cooper, I think he's pretty professional and unbiased. He was the only person who didn't have a fucking meltdown during the election night when everyone revealed their true colors. has your narrative/beliefs changed in that time? i.e. did you used to be liberal and now you are pretty conservative?
yep, it's an odd feeling thinking about how if I had posted when I first made this account I would have probably been a Plansix. I'm glad I am now more conservative in my thinking.
|
On November 23 2016 06:47 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 06:41 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 06:38 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:24 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 05:59 biology]major wrote:
fox is actually not bad, because the people on that channel who are openly shilling for conservatives are proud of it. They aren't hiding behind any false pretense of journalism. That's what makes CNN and the like so disingenuous, because they pretend to be news networks. There's also quite a few people on fox who are balanced and give reasonable analysis. I disagree; cnn isn't actually shilling for people, despite unfounded accusations to the contrary. How can you distinguish good journalism? how do you tell which is which? do you understand the structural issues which make things the way they are? how do you prove to other people that these things are the case? not to say that cnn is that good these days, but they're not shilling, and they are trying to do journalism, just being generically kinda poor and clickbaity. Which people on fox do you consider to give balanced and reasonable analysis? also, fox is bad, because they lie about it, and pretend they're journalists sometimes when they're not. Back in the day when I used to be liberal many years ago, I used to watch fox with the same attitude most people in this thread have. Now I see them as reasonable, and I'm not sure if it's because I was ignorant then or I am ignorant now, or it's neither and I just like reinforcing my own narrative, but O'Reilly, megyn kelly, baier, CW are all good. On CNN the only person I can even tolerate is anderson cooper, I think he's pretty professional and unbiased. He was the only person who didn't have a fucking meltdown during the election night when everyone revealed their true colors. has your narrative/beliefs changed in that time? i.e. did you used to be liberal and now you are pretty conservative? yep, it's an odd feeling thinking about how if I had posted when I first made this account I would have probably been a Plansix. I'm glad I am now more conservative in my thinking.
Whether you would be a plansix hasn't changed; that's largely separate from political affiliation/stance.
How do you know you're more correct now than you used to be, rather than less correct or equally correct?
Why are you glad about it?
Surely many other people have gone either liberal to conservative or conservative to liberal and they all feel they were correct and are glad they changed.
Have your standards in cleanliness changed too?
|
On November 23 2016 06:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 04:26 GreenHorizons wrote:
Have the water protectors in ND just not been on people's radar, or do the state/corporate sponsored profit enforcers just not bother people?
It's pretty horrific what's happening out there, seems peculiar that it's basically a non-event here/in corporate media. Native Americans have been disenfranchised for decades and only now do supposed progressives start to care? Oh wait, they're just a talking point progressives use to complain about democrats. So much hate.
Uh, I think you're right about some progressives, but not the one you were replying to. You're right that no one here ever talks about the abuses/problems you mention so there aren't many examples, but I did find one totally unrelated to the election cycle.
Show nested quote +On July 29 2014 08:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2014 08:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 29 2014 03:57 aksfjh wrote:On July 29 2014 03:40 Livelovedie wrote:On July 29 2014 01:33 aksfjh wrote:On July 28 2014 08:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 28 2014 06:59 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +@5:05 Hooray for succession!?! @5:50"I would support basically opting out of medicaid" @8:00 Ted Cruz is a politician I can trust "whoop whoop" @8:30 "Perry's just putttin' on a show" So it seems it's time to create a reality show for "Who Want's to Replace Texas"? Wouldn't of had my vote, but I don't live in Texas so that doesn't mean much. Isn't a desire for independence a long-running part of Texas culture? Think of it as an extension of "American exceptionalism." Texans generally have Texan pride along with American pride, which have exclusive interactions. Any time American policy lines up with Texan "beliefs," the Texan pride somewhat shifts to American pride. Any time those beliefs are at odds with American policy, you start hearing about how Texas is "strong and independent," which breeds talk about secession. We have a strange story of winning independence from another nation, as opposed to being bought or claimed by the US. Most curriculum here spends a great deal of time emphasizing it to some extent. That is partially the source of that Texan pride and the secession comments. That all said, secession is impossible and nothing more than a rallying cry to the crazies that inhabit this half-ignorant state. The curriculum that I was taught was that Texas did win independence from Mexico, although there was a border dispute as to if the border was the Nueces River (which it really should have been) or the Rio Grande. After Texas was independent we joined the US so that the Rio Grande border would be enforced. Are you saying the events were different than that? But yeah, there is a certain brand of Texas exceptionalism that transcends US exceptionalism, I go to college in Massachusetts and it took me a long time to get use to not seeing a state flag everywhere a US flag was. There are a lot of people here who cannot imagine living anywhere else in their life. The events are exactly as you described (or at least what I was taught as well). However, I do remember spending a collective of months on Texas based curriculum in History, including a lot of time on things like the Alamo and Texas Revolution. Not an absurd amount of time, but I remember that stuff better than the events surrounding the transcontinental railroad, War of 1812, and various American Imperial wars of the 1800s and 1900s. Also, I doubt Massachusetts and other states spend as much time glorifying their respective history. Maybe I'm biased though. HS was too long ago for me to remember very accurately. I do remember some extra attention to local stuff like the Salem witch trials, the Pilgrims and whatnot. Not all of that's positive though, obviously no one glorifies the witch trials  and I don't remember a crazy amount of time just spent on MA. Pretty sure 1 year of state history is standard (if not required) for most states. I got lucky and had some Native teachers in my elementary so we learned a lot about the Natives of the Pacific Northwest and probably more than most about other Natives. Universally kids all wished we were still living like the Natives of the Northwest (particularly the Puget Sound tribes). Of course that was before 8 year olds had cell phones. Although even kids (especially, really) had a hard time squaring a potlatch with traditional American values. Contrary to what most people think 'potluck' and 'potlatch' are not interchangeable, unless you don't mind being ignorant, and misappropriating another cultures term (pretty common in America). The host of a potluck gives gifts to all his guests not the other way around. the US had an unprecedented amount of religious tolerance for its time. Well, that's kind of only because India had already been tainted by colonialism. If Indian's ran their own government at the time they would of been incomparably more tolerant. But, I suppose for white's it did. However, for the less fairly complected 'religious' and 'freedom' we're not words that found themselves in proximity very often. Native religions were pretty universally banned, along with the ceremonies that included them. Potlatching was made illegal in Canada in 1884 in an amendment to the Indian Act and the United States in the late 19th century, largely at the urging of missionaries and government agents who considered it "a worse than useless custom" that was seen as wasteful, unproductive, and contrary to civilized values.
It is the great desire of every chief and even of every man to collect a large amount of property, and then to give a great potlatch, a feast in which all is distributed among his friends, and, if possible, among the neighboring tribes. These feasts are so closely connected with the religious ideas of the natives, and regulate their mode of life to such an extent, that the Christian tribes near Victoria have not given them up. Source
There are shallow opportunists on all sides of the political die, but Native issues are something I've long been acquainted with, living in Washington and all.
There are probably plenty of people you could rip on for using native struggles for political gain, but I'm not one of them.
What about their unemployment rate?
What about alcoholism and rape in tribal lands?
What about the after effects of their land and culture wrenched from them?
Shouldn't we give them reparations?
Shouldn't we give them increased funding?
Shouldn't we give them more and more of their land back?
Insanely high, though not as bad here as other states.
Horrifying, but we can't forget about the many missing women as well.
Something we regularly deal with in WA
Yes
Yes
Yes, or make an honest deal from the weak position of already owing them the land.
|
On November 23 2016 06:33 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 06:28 Noidberg wrote:On November 23 2016 06:08 Doodsmack wrote:On November 23 2016 05:58 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2016 05:51 Doodsmack wrote:
To be fair you weren't so hot on Trump when news that he's an embarrassment was fresh. You in fact called him a clown. Rape tapes aren't born in media newsrooms. Clearly I and a lot of other people badly underestimated Trump. He's an embarrassment who got lucky. Can you fathom Ben Carson in the cabinet? Hardly as theres no such thing as luck. Hes a businessman/entertainer/playboy who is somewhat ignorant in politics and is learning as he goes. Hillary was that just that bad(the scandals, emails) in fact the whole opposition was so horrendous Trump stomped all over them with his charisma alone. Yes Trump is not qualified for president in the textbook sense but he is the leader this country needs right now. He deserves a chance to prove himself. Do you have any new evidence that hasn't already been dealt with to prove that hillary actually was that bad? I'm assuming not. So I will disregard that as the usual falsity. .
Want dirt on Hillary? Get in line. Wait until Jan 20th once Trump is sworn in then his AG will double down investigating. Word of mouth is Trump wont make a move with the threat of Obama pardon so hes playing nice.
|
On November 23 2016 06:59 Noidberg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 06:33 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 06:28 Noidberg wrote:On November 23 2016 06:08 Doodsmack wrote:On November 23 2016 05:58 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2016 05:51 Doodsmack wrote:
To be fair you weren't so hot on Trump when news that he's an embarrassment was fresh. You in fact called him a clown. Rape tapes aren't born in media newsrooms. Clearly I and a lot of other people badly underestimated Trump. He's an embarrassment who got lucky. Can you fathom Ben Carson in the cabinet? Hardly as theres no such thing as luck. Hes a businessman/entertainer/playboy who is somewhat ignorant in politics and is learning as he goes. Hillary was that just that bad(the scandals, emails) in fact the whole opposition was so horrendous Trump stomped all over them with his charisma alone. Yes Trump is not qualified for president in the textbook sense but he is the leader this country needs right now. He deserves a chance to prove himself. Do you have any new evidence that hasn't already been dealt with to prove that hillary actually was that bad? I'm assuming not. So I will disregard that as the usual falsity. . Want dirt on Hillary? Get in line. Wait until Jan 20th once Trump is sworn in then his AG will double down investigating. Word of mouth is Trump wont make a move with the threat of Obama pardon so hes playing nice.
an odd way to answer; I'll take that to mean you don't have any actual dirt on hillary and are just relying on the usual misinformation.
|
On November 23 2016 06:28 Noidberg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 06:08 Doodsmack wrote:On November 23 2016 05:58 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2016 05:51 Doodsmack wrote:
To be fair you weren't so hot on Trump when news that he's an embarrassment was fresh. You in fact called him a clown. Rape tapes aren't born in media newsrooms. Clearly I and a lot of other people badly underestimated Trump. He's an embarrassment who got lucky. Can you fathom Ben Carson in the cabinet? Hardly as theres no such thing as luck. Hes a businessman/entertainer/playboy who is somewhat ignorant to politics and is learning as he goes. Hillary was that just that bad(the scandals, emails) in fact the whole opposition was so horrendous Trump stomped all over them with his charisma alone. Yes Trump is not qualified for president in the textbook sense but he is the leader this country needs right now. He deserves a chance to prove himself.
Not qualified is not qualified. Even your "playboy" claim is disproved by the rape tape and subsequent allegations.
|
On November 23 2016 06:59 Noidberg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 06:33 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 06:28 Noidberg wrote:On November 23 2016 06:08 Doodsmack wrote:On November 23 2016 05:58 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2016 05:51 Doodsmack wrote:
To be fair you weren't so hot on Trump when news that he's an embarrassment was fresh. You in fact called him a clown. Rape tapes aren't born in media newsrooms. Clearly I and a lot of other people badly underestimated Trump. He's an embarrassment who got lucky. Can you fathom Ben Carson in the cabinet? Hardly as theres no such thing as luck. Hes a businessman/entertainer/playboy who is somewhat ignorant in politics and is learning as he goes. Hillary was that just that bad(the scandals, emails) in fact the whole opposition was so horrendous Trump stomped all over them with his charisma alone. Yes Trump is not qualified for president in the textbook sense but he is the leader this country needs right now. He deserves a chance to prove himself. Do you have any new evidence that hasn't already been dealt with to prove that hillary actually was that bad? I'm assuming not. So I will disregard that as the usual falsity. . Want dirt on Hillary? Get in line. Wait until Jan 20th once Trump is sworn in then his AG will double down investigating. Word of mouth is Trump wont make a move with the threat of Obama pardon so hes playing nice.
Word of mouth? You mean some random dude on Twitter?
|
On November 23 2016 07:03 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 06:59 Noidberg wrote:On November 23 2016 06:33 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 06:28 Noidberg wrote:On November 23 2016 06:08 Doodsmack wrote:On November 23 2016 05:58 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2016 05:51 Doodsmack wrote:
To be fair you weren't so hot on Trump when news that he's an embarrassment was fresh. You in fact called him a clown. Rape tapes aren't born in media newsrooms. Clearly I and a lot of other people badly underestimated Trump. He's an embarrassment who got lucky. Can you fathom Ben Carson in the cabinet? Hardly as theres no such thing as luck. Hes a businessman/entertainer/playboy who is somewhat ignorant in politics and is learning as he goes. Hillary was that just that bad(the scandals, emails) in fact the whole opposition was so horrendous Trump stomped all over them with his charisma alone. Yes Trump is not qualified for president in the textbook sense but he is the leader this country needs right now. He deserves a chance to prove himself. Do you have any new evidence that hasn't already been dealt with to prove that hillary actually was that bad? I'm assuming not. So I will disregard that as the usual falsity. . Want dirt on Hillary? Get in line. Wait until Jan 20th once Trump is sworn in then his AG will double down investigating. Word of mouth is Trump wont make a move with the threat of Obama pardon so hes playing nice. an odd way to answer; I'll take that to mean you don't have any actual dirt on hillary and are just relying on the usual misinformation.
Heh, nobody does. All we have is circumstantial evidence(bar email server) that allegedly links her to criminal behavior without proof of intent. Leave it to the professionals and unless she admits guilt so just wait until the 20th.
On November 23 2016 07:03 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 06:28 Noidberg wrote:On November 23 2016 06:08 Doodsmack wrote:On November 23 2016 05:58 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2016 05:51 Doodsmack wrote:
To be fair you weren't so hot on Trump when news that he's an embarrassment was fresh. You in fact called him a clown. Rape tapes aren't born in media newsrooms. Clearly I and a lot of other people badly underestimated Trump. He's an embarrassment who got lucky. Can you fathom Ben Carson in the cabinet? Hardly as theres no such thing as luck. Hes a businessman/entertainer/playboy who is somewhat ignorant to politics and is learning as he goes. Hillary was that just that bad(the scandals, emails) in fact the whole opposition was so horrendous Trump stomped all over them with his charisma alone. Yes Trump is not qualified for president in the textbook sense but he is the leader this country needs right now. He deserves a chance to prove himself. Not qualified is not qualified. Even your "playboy" claim is disproved by the rape tape and subsequent allegations.
Dude never doubt for a second people in power are angels. I dont want to get into conspiracy here as this forum holds a standard but we had 2 choices this election and i firmly believe i choose the lesser evil.
|
Okay but I'd say you have a tenuous relationship with the evidence if you're calling Trump a playboy. He puts tic tacs in his mouth and then kisses, on the hope she won't resist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
