|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
And Beto O'Rourke with the 2-3 sentences of Spanish! Sorry, Castro
|
Beto is such a zero. Or to mirror his answer, Beto es un cero. He is all platitudes. No policies at all.
|
Did Beto just....go bilingual?
|
Spartacus gave a pretty good, direct answer.
|
|
|
United States41991 Posts
On June 27 2019 10:04 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2019 09:50 KwarK wrote:On June 27 2019 09:46 IgnE wrote:On June 27 2019 08:45 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On June 27 2019 02:37 IgnE wrote:On June 27 2019 02:09 Doodsmack wrote:
Here's Trump saying that hes glad McCain is dead, and he hopes McCain went to hell. I'm confused why this isn't garnering headlines.
probably because that’s not what he said. he did not say he “hoped” mccain was in hell. we just had someone in this thread explicitly wish that Duncan Hunter fall into a volcano and now you are criticizing Trump for being “glad that [McCain is] gone.” it is possible to be glad someone is gone without being glad they are dead per se I agree, the tweet did not have Trump saying that he hoped mccain, or anyone, was in hell (even though he did choose to explicitly mention the possibility). Trump is an elected representative with a huge amount of power and influence, not a semi-anonymous person ranting on a web forum. It's a LITTLE different when he says something expressing happiness at someone's death. I agree, it is possible to be glad someone is gone without being glad they are dead, in general. And it can even be possible to communicate this. What is emphatically not possible is that a tweet that basically reads They're gone. Dead. Possibly to hell. I'm so glad they're gone is not communicating happiness at the death thing. The whole death bit, and deliberate choice to mention the hell possibility, removes the possibility entirely. A kid who has just processed why their goldfish mysteriously changed shape and colour one morning could figure out that the death and happiness bits of the tweet were connected. Unless you are just mentioning that last sentence of possibility for lulz. Like I'm sure Trump mentioned the less green pastures for lulz. The whole pretending context doesn't matter shtick gets old really fast, and is not a good look. ah well i hope you guys remember this conversation if Trump suddenly dies in office “i’m glad he is gone good riddance . . . what? of course death is a tragedy” May I refer you to my comments following the death of Scalia? I said I was glad he was gone. If you'd like clarification over whether I'd rather he were dead than stayed on the Supreme Court the answer is yes. If Trump left office I'd be glad. If it's due to his syphilis finally finishing him off, still glad. well if you were of the opinion that it’s perfectly fine to be happy an opponent is dead all along why didn’t you say so?
Because for whatever reason you decided to argue about how it was totally ambiguous to be glad that the dead guy was gone and that even though he was only gone because he died of cancer that doesn't mean you were glad that he died of cancer, only that you're glad that something (brain cancer) took him.
The Pope didn't buy that shit when Henry II tried it and I won't buy it now.
|
With no opening statements and back to Warren already some of the candidates might not even speak lol
On June 27 2019 10:09 Nebuchad wrote:
Beto is a massive joke
Yup. I mean I guess he's hoping to hang on till Nevada or just run for Senate.
|
Poor Castro. What a garbage question for him to answer for his debut.
|
On June 27 2019 10:09 xDaunt wrote:
Spartacus gave a pretty good, direct answer.
A lot of people like normal Booker, maybe he tries to actually be that person. it's less fun though.
|
On June 27 2019 10:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2019 10:04 IgnE wrote:On June 27 2019 09:50 KwarK wrote:On June 27 2019 09:46 IgnE wrote:On June 27 2019 08:45 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On June 27 2019 02:37 IgnE wrote:probably because that’s not what he said. he did not say he “hoped” mccain was in hell. we just had someone in this thread explicitly wish that Duncan Hunter fall into a volcano and now you are criticizing Trump for being “glad that [McCain is] gone.” it is possible to be glad someone is gone without being glad they are dead per se I agree, the tweet did not have Trump saying that he hoped mccain, or anyone, was in hell (even though he did choose to explicitly mention the possibility). Trump is an elected representative with a huge amount of power and influence, not a semi-anonymous person ranting on a web forum. It's a LITTLE different when he says something expressing happiness at someone's death. I agree, it is possible to be glad someone is gone without being glad they are dead, in general. And it can even be possible to communicate this. What is emphatically not possible is that a tweet that basically reads They're gone. Dead. Possibly to hell. I'm so glad they're gone is not communicating happiness at the death thing. The whole death bit, and deliberate choice to mention the hell possibility, removes the possibility entirely. A kid who has just processed why their goldfish mysteriously changed shape and colour one morning could figure out that the death and happiness bits of the tweet were connected. Unless you are just mentioning that last sentence of possibility for lulz. Like I'm sure Trump mentioned the less green pastures for lulz. The whole pretending context doesn't matter shtick gets old really fast, and is not a good look. ah well i hope you guys remember this conversation if Trump suddenly dies in office “i’m glad he is gone good riddance . . . what? of course death is a tragedy” May I refer you to my comments following the death of Scalia? I said I was glad he was gone. If you'd like clarification over whether I'd rather he were dead than stayed on the Supreme Court the answer is yes. If Trump left office I'd be glad. If it's due to his syphilis finally finishing him off, still glad. well if you were of the opinion that it’s perfectly fine to be happy an opponent is dead all along why didn’t you say so? Because for whatever reason you decided to argue about how it was totally ambiguous to be glad that the dead guy was gone and that even though he was only gone because he died of cancer that doesn't mean you were glad that he died of cancer, only that you're glad that something (brain cancer) took him. The Pope didn't buy that shit when Henry II tried it and I won't buy it now.
i prefer to think of my position as an ethically nuanced one rather than the ethical tribalism or nihilism you seem to be espousing
|
I think Tulsi just confused everyone. No one knew what the hell she was answering,
|
That was good from de Blasio
|
wasn't tulsi asked a question about income inequality
|
De Blasio desperately wants to average above 1%
edit: or is it 0%
|
Good for Inslee, he’s the first to go at Trump.
|
On June 27 2019 10:13 xDaunt wrote:
I think Tulsi just confused everyone. No one knew what the hell she was answering,
She knew that might be her only chance to answer a question before most viewers stop paying attention.
On June 27 2019 10:15 CorsairHero wrote:
wasn't tulsi asked a question about income inequality
Equal pay for women which she could have tied into her service but she probably panicked and just stuck with her stump opener/"hey man I'm legit" response to skeptical voters.
|
Ryan is too stiff, white, and male for this Democrat party.
|
Warren again, huh? Looks like the fix is in.
|
United States41991 Posts
On June 27 2019 10:12 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2019 10:09 KwarK wrote:On June 27 2019 10:04 IgnE wrote:On June 27 2019 09:50 KwarK wrote:On June 27 2019 09:46 IgnE wrote:On June 27 2019 08:45 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On June 27 2019 02:37 IgnE wrote:probably because that’s not what he said. he did not say he “hoped” mccain was in hell. we just had someone in this thread explicitly wish that Duncan Hunter fall into a volcano and now you are criticizing Trump for being “glad that [McCain is] gone.” it is possible to be glad someone is gone without being glad they are dead per se I agree, the tweet did not have Trump saying that he hoped mccain, or anyone, was in hell (even though he did choose to explicitly mention the possibility). Trump is an elected representative with a huge amount of power and influence, not a semi-anonymous person ranting on a web forum. It's a LITTLE different when he says something expressing happiness at someone's death. I agree, it is possible to be glad someone is gone without being glad they are dead, in general. And it can even be possible to communicate this. What is emphatically not possible is that a tweet that basically reads They're gone. Dead. Possibly to hell. I'm so glad they're gone is not communicating happiness at the death thing. The whole death bit, and deliberate choice to mention the hell possibility, removes the possibility entirely. A kid who has just processed why their goldfish mysteriously changed shape and colour one morning could figure out that the death and happiness bits of the tweet were connected. Unless you are just mentioning that last sentence of possibility for lulz. Like I'm sure Trump mentioned the less green pastures for lulz. The whole pretending context doesn't matter shtick gets old really fast, and is not a good look. ah well i hope you guys remember this conversation if Trump suddenly dies in office “i’m glad he is gone good riddance . . . what? of course death is a tragedy” May I refer you to my comments following the death of Scalia? I said I was glad he was gone. If you'd like clarification over whether I'd rather he were dead than stayed on the Supreme Court the answer is yes. If Trump left office I'd be glad. If it's due to his syphilis finally finishing him off, still glad. well if you were of the opinion that it’s perfectly fine to be happy an opponent is dead all along why didn’t you say so? Because for whatever reason you decided to argue about how it was totally ambiguous to be glad that the dead guy was gone and that even though he was only gone because he died of cancer that doesn't mean you were glad that he died of cancer, only that you're glad that something (brain cancer) took him. The Pope didn't buy that shit when Henry II tried it and I won't buy it now. i prefer to think of my position as an ethically nuanced one rather than the ethical tribalism or nihilism you seem to be espousing
Do I come across as especially tribal? I wouldn't consider myself a fan of either US party, it's just I only have so much anger at political stupidity to give and the current administration is sucking it all out of me. You'll find plenty of attacks on Corbyn by me in the UK topic though and he's far left of the Democrats. You'll also note that I don't stand behind members of the tribe, such as advocating that if Omar defrauded the government she should resign.
|
Double: But man Warren is talking a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
