|
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 February 18 2018 02:56 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2018 02:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2018 02:00 zlefin wrote:On February 18 2018 01:56 Dromar wrote:On February 18 2018 01:02 GoTuNk! wrote:On February 18 2018 00:27 Acrofales wrote:On February 17 2018 23:50 sc-darkness wrote:
Have democrats announced who will be their next candidate to be president? Hopefully Sanders but I doubt it. You hope it'll be Sanders because you think he'll lose? From what you were doing in the UK politics thread you seem pretty opposed to virtually everything Sanders wants? A full blown socialist like Sanders would wreck the U.S. and hit the world pretty hard, I'd rather he not run in the off chance he could win. he is a thousand years old though. That he's old is the primary argument against him running. But honestly the guy is pretty healthy. I don't get it. He's in better shape, both mentally and physically, than Trump is in now. And it's not even particularly close. being better than trump isn't much of a bar, nor is being quite a bit better than trump; that's still a very low bar. Was and is healthier than Hillary too. If her health wasn't disqualifying I don't know how his could be (for Hillary voters anyway). He's not my first pick, but he's a hell of a lot better than someone like Kamala Harris or Corey Booker. Perhaps I should outline all of my problems with every potential Democratic candidate soon, as to preempt more accusations of being manipulated by Russians without evidence (even though we have a very clear example of liberals being manipulated with US propaganda, and a second less obvious example). Something tells me it won't matter, any criticism of Democrats from the left is pure Russian propaganda forever I imagine. what citations/basis do you have for his current health/health then? at any rate; I agree it wasn't disqualifying last cycle; but by the next one it's really getting a bit too old. also, be less of a jerk and/or don't respond to me.
Probably Joe Rogan's podcast or something equally silly. She was overwhelmed on a hot day, therefore she's dying.
|
On February 18 2018 04:16 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2018 02:56 zlefin wrote:On February 18 2018 02:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2018 02:00 zlefin wrote:On February 18 2018 01:56 Dromar wrote:On February 18 2018 01:02 GoTuNk! wrote:On February 18 2018 00:27 Acrofales wrote:On February 17 2018 23:50 sc-darkness wrote:
Have democrats announced who will be their next candidate to be president? Hopefully Sanders but I doubt it. You hope it'll be Sanders because you think he'll lose? From what you were doing in the UK politics thread you seem pretty opposed to virtually everything Sanders wants? A full blown socialist like Sanders would wreck the U.S. and hit the world pretty hard, I'd rather he not run in the off chance he could win. he is a thousand years old though. That he's old is the primary argument against him running. But honestly the guy is pretty healthy. I don't get it. He's in better shape, both mentally and physically, than Trump is in now. And it's not even particularly close. being better than trump isn't much of a bar, nor is being quite a bit better than trump; that's still a very low bar. Was and is healthier than Hillary too. If her health wasn't disqualifying I don't know how his could be (for Hillary voters anyway). He's not my first pick, but he's a hell of a lot better than someone like Kamala Harris or Corey Booker. Perhaps I should outline all of my problems with every potential Democratic candidate soon, as to preempt more accusations of being manipulated by Russians without evidence (even though we have a very clear example of liberals being manipulated with US propaganda, and a second less obvious example). Something tells me it won't matter, any criticism of Democrats from the left is pure Russian propaganda forever I imagine. what citations/basis do you have for his current health/health then? at any rate; I agree it wasn't disqualifying last cycle; but by the next one it's really getting a bit too old. also, be less of a jerk and/or don't respond to me. Probably Joe Rogan's podcast or something equally silly. She was overwhelmed on a hot day, therefore she's dying.
I love how a 60+ years old woman who traveled 956000 miles during her time as SoS without ever looking like she lacked combativity, or who could stand tough as a nail for 11 hours in front of the Benghazi comitee is definitly in terrible shape.
|
On February 18 2018 04:16 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2018 02:56 zlefin wrote:On February 18 2018 02:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2018 02:00 zlefin wrote:On February 18 2018 01:56 Dromar wrote:On February 18 2018 01:02 GoTuNk! wrote:On February 18 2018 00:27 Acrofales wrote:On February 17 2018 23:50 sc-darkness wrote:
Have democrats announced who will be their next candidate to be president? Hopefully Sanders but I doubt it. You hope it'll be Sanders because you think he'll lose? From what you were doing in the UK politics thread you seem pretty opposed to virtually everything Sanders wants? A full blown socialist like Sanders would wreck the U.S. and hit the world pretty hard, I'd rather he not run in the off chance he could win. he is a thousand years old though. That he's old is the primary argument against him running. But honestly the guy is pretty healthy. I don't get it. He's in better shape, both mentally and physically, than Trump is in now. And it's not even particularly close. being better than trump isn't much of a bar, nor is being quite a bit better than trump; that's still a very low bar. Was and is healthier than Hillary too. If her health wasn't disqualifying I don't know how his could be (for Hillary voters anyway). He's not my first pick, but he's a hell of a lot better than someone like Kamala Harris or Corey Booker. Perhaps I should outline all of my problems with every potential Democratic candidate soon, as to preempt more accusations of being manipulated by Russians without evidence (even though we have a very clear example of liberals being manipulated with US propaganda, and a second less obvious example). Something tells me it won't matter, any criticism of Democrats from the left is pure Russian propaganda forever I imagine. what citations/basis do you have for his current health/health then? at any rate; I agree it wasn't disqualifying last cycle; but by the next one it's really getting a bit too old. also, be less of a jerk and/or don't respond to me. Probably Joe Rogan's podcast or something equally silly. She was overwhelmed on a hot day, therefore she's dying.
I love that this is not only not a good answer to GH's post, but it's actually not even a good answer to the zlefin post being quoted.
|
On February 17 2018 23:50 sc-darkness wrote:
Have democrats announced who will be their next candidate to be president? Hopefully Sanders but I doubt it.
Please now, sanders is so bad that I might actually have to vote republican. He has no fucking clue how the government is supposed to function, and can't admit that he doesn't know something when pressed. He has not accomplished a single thing in his decades as a politician other than pissing off every other politician and ensuring that no one would want to work with him. Not to mention he is obviously the preferred russian candidate, given they sponsored pro bernie ads.
|
On February 18 2018 04:51 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 23:50 sc-darkness wrote:
Have democrats announced who will be their next candidate to be president? Hopefully Sanders but I doubt it. Please now, sanders is so bad that I might actually have to vote republican. He has no fucking clue how the government is supposed to function, and can't admit that he doesn't know something when pressed. He has not accomplished a single thing in his decades as a politician other than pissing off every other politician and ensuring that no one would want to work with him. Not to mention he is obviously the preferred russian candidate, given they sponsored pro bernie ads.
They sponsored pro Bernie ads because it draws a divide with Hillary, the Democratic nominee and expected President. Not because they think a Bernie Presidency would be good for Russia.
Russia's #1 goal was chaos and internal division. Trump winning was just a massive (unexpected) bonus.
|
The cynic in me says Clinton take three.
|
He registered the MAGA trademark in 2012, made an announcement in 2011 saying that he almost ran for president but decided not to, and tweeted in 2014 about running for president and “MAGA.” So what does it say that he would tweet such a blatant lie?
|
On February 18 2018 04:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2018 04:51 hunts wrote:On February 17 2018 23:50 sc-darkness wrote:
Have democrats announced who will be their next candidate to be president? Hopefully Sanders but I doubt it. Please now, sanders is so bad that I might actually have to vote republican. He has no fucking clue how the government is supposed to function, and can't admit that he doesn't know something when pressed. He has not accomplished a single thing in his decades as a politician other than pissing off every other politician and ensuring that no one would want to work with him. Not to mention he is obviously the preferred russian candidate, given they sponsored pro bernie ads. They sponsored pro Bernie ads because it draws a divide with Hillary, the Democratic nominee and expected President. Not because they think a Bernie Presidency would be good for Russia. Russia's #1 goal was chaos and internal division. Trump winning was just a massive (unexpected) bonus.
Given bernie has shown to not know a single thing about international (or even intranational) politics, he would certainly be better for russia than someone like Hillary. Besides, after all the idiotic comments I've had to read from bernie bros and people like GH, I would be willing to bite off the nose to spite the face if he ever ran for anything. TBH I'm not sure he would be all that much worse than trump, he wouldn't get anything done, and he would probably fuck up our international relations similarly, although for different reasons. Bernie was bad, and those following him shouting never clinton are almost as bad as those supporting trump.
|
On February 18 2018 04:57 Doodsmack wrote:
He registered the MAGA trademark in 2012, made an announcement in 2011 saying that he almost ran for president but decided not to, and tweeted in 2014 about running for president and “MAGA.” So what does it say that he would tweet such a blatant lie?
He has also tweeted how he won on the first time he ran, despite having run before.
Your talking about someone who's such a narcissist that it changes the entire way in which he perceives and remembers the world around him.
He constructs a way to explain what is happening away and goes for it. Even if that tweet was 100% true (which it isn't) it would in no way, shape or form reduce the possibility of him working(conspiring) with Russia.
|
On February 18 2018 05:00 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2018 04:54 Gorsameth wrote:On February 18 2018 04:51 hunts wrote:On February 17 2018 23:50 sc-darkness wrote:
Have democrats announced who will be their next candidate to be president? Hopefully Sanders but I doubt it. Please now, sanders is so bad that I might actually have to vote republican. He has no fucking clue how the government is supposed to function, and can't admit that he doesn't know something when pressed. He has not accomplished a single thing in his decades as a politician other than pissing off every other politician and ensuring that no one would want to work with him. Not to mention he is obviously the preferred russian candidate, given they sponsored pro bernie ads. They sponsored pro Bernie ads because it draws a divide with Hillary, the Democratic nominee and expected President. Not because they think a Bernie Presidency would be good for Russia. Russia's #1 goal was chaos and internal division. Trump winning was just a massive (unexpected) bonus. Given bernie has shown to not know a single thing about international (or even intranational) politics, he would certainly be better for russia than someone like Hillary. Besides, after all the idiotic comments I've had to read from bernie bros and people like GH, I would be willing to bite off the nose to spite the face if he ever ran for anything. TBH I'm not sure he would be all that much worse than trump, he wouldn't get anything done, and he would probably fuck up our international relations similarly, although for different reasons. Bernie was bad, and those following him shouting never clinton are almost as bad as those supporting trump.
Bernie's lack of knowledge on how to accomplish key parts of his program was indeed disappointing, we talking about it in this thread during the primary and it was the reason some(most) of the lefties in the thread favored Hillary over Bernie.
I would however most certainly not go as far to see he would be as bad as Trump, both nationally and internationally.
And wanting to purposefully spite him for it makes you no better then the 'BernieBro's' you so despise.
|
On February 18 2018 04:57 Doodsmack wrote:He registered the MAGA trademark in 2012, made an announcement in 2011 saying that he almost ran for president but decided not to, and tweeted in 2014 about running for president and “MAGA.” So what does it say that he would tweet such a blatant lie? https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/964949269374529538
Funny how this is entirely disproven by searching for any decently credible source that clearly states 2014 as the start of the scheme. I found some articles on The Atlantic, NYT, and the WSJ for one. The purpose is to sow enough distrust in any news source that isn't on his narrative among people too lazy to perform a simple Google search to realize it's complete BS. Not every outlet mentioned 2014 sure, but if he's going to paint the monolithic "Lying News Media" as never mentioning 2014, it's just a classic Trump-ism.
|
On February 18 2018 02:27 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2018 01:02 GoTuNk! wrote:On February 18 2018 00:27 Acrofales wrote:On February 17 2018 23:50 sc-darkness wrote:
Have democrats announced who will be their next candidate to be president? Hopefully Sanders but I doubt it. You hope it'll be Sanders because you think he'll lose? From what you were doing in the UK politics thread you seem pretty opposed to virtually everything Sanders wants? A full blown socialist like Sanders would wreck the U.S. and hit the world pretty hard, I'd rather he not run in the off chance he could win. he is a thousand years old though. This is a load of unsubstantiated crap that can only come from a place of fearmongering the likes of which the US encouraged in Chile through support for men like Pinochet.
Bernie Sanders is a full blown socialist, fan of the worse latin american presidents including dictators like Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro; not even withdrawing support when shit hits the fan on Venezuela, but rather "refusing to comment" on them shows EXACTLY his character.
He is moderated by the DNC and the U.S. system of check and balances at large, and if he became president of the U.S. he would be forced to be moderate, but that doesn't change who he is or what he believes in.
|
U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller unveiled the details of a widespread and coordinated campaign by Russians to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of Donald Trump, delivering on his initial mandate by the Justice Department.
In an indictment announced Friday in Washington, Mueller describes a years-long, multimillion-dollar conspiracy by hundreds of Russians aimed at criticizing Hillary Clinton and supporting Senator Bernie Sanders and Trump. Mueller charged 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities and accused them of defrauding the U.S. government by interfering with the political process.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-16/u-s-charges-13-russians-3-companies-for-hacking-election
|
What I like about the September '14 tweet, is it suggests that his voters are haters and losers.
Which makes me a winner, baby.
|
On February 17 2018 17:18 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 05:43 Wulfey_LA wrote:Did you see the goalposts get moved there? A year ago we debated if the Russians were even acting. Months ago we were debating whether there was collusion. Then we debated whether it was illegal. Now they are pushing a new line and I expect to be seeing this argument pushed by the usual suspects on here.
But it didn't affect the outcome of the election. FOX is going to be pushing that line hard, since so many people are taking plea deals and there are so many indictments being handed out. That sounds EXTREMELY familiar. First it was "the DNC isn't rigging the primary", "Sure there was favoritism but it wasn't a coordinated thing", "okay, they worked together to push Bernie out but it wasn't against the rules", "Okay it was against the spirit of the rules but they are just suggestions and It didn't affect the outcome!" I'm not going to say that Republicans don't tend to follow remarkably crazier patterns in general, but I think some reflection on how this stuff works would do liberals some good. Why do you maintain such outrage over the DNC "rigging" the primaries, yet are so dismissive of the Russia investigation where actual illegal activity occurred? Do you think the former is a graver offense than the latter?
I will also point out primaries are purely a creation of our parties; as disgusting as that sounds. They are not really part of our election in proper which is why some primaries are as dumb as people just gather to sides of a room to show support. So "rigging" a primary election vs "rigging" an actual election aren't quite the same, it's also the whole crap about the RNC could choose a candidate to run for them that wasn't Trump because primaries at the end of the day are not official.
|
On February 18 2018 04:51 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 23:50 sc-darkness wrote:
Have democrats announced who will be their next candidate to be president? Hopefully Sanders but I doubt it. Please now, sanders is so bad that I might actually have to vote republican.
I can't wait.
|
|
|
He is technically correct that 56% is the majority. But that doesn't mean you can discount the effect of the other 44%.
|
|
|
On February 18 2018 04:09 LegalLord wrote:
Sean Spicer?
That's the one, thanks.
re: Bernie; I sincerely hope he doesn't get the nomination because he almost guarantees 4 more years of Trump. The hysteria that a politician with the vaguest of left wing policies causes in America would likely motivate tons of people who don't normally vote and give Trump a giant target to go after and weaponise.
You need someone almost depressingly conventional to take Trump down, someone non-controversial, preferably a woman as that brings out all of Trump's worst qualities, who Trump is going to motivate people to vote against him because he's so goddamn awful.
Of course, that depends on the state of the US economy come election time. If Trump can run around shouting 'I made America Great Again' and has some numbers that actually back it up, he's not going anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
