I don't get why people are focusing on the "nasty woman" thing. That's typical Trump, talking trash about his opponents. The fact that some people are suggesting that calling his opponent nasty is sexist or emblematic of his lack of respect for women because she happens to be a woman is really obnoxious.
It's because he's a misogynist of the highest order. Or do we need to play the bevy of clips that clearly show he is? He can't stand losing to begin with, but losing to a woman? Yeah that's what's driving him the most insane right now, without a doubt.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Man, your priorities are completely screwed. He's pretty clearly a lech, a predator, and has no respect for women. But keying on that statement as something significant is just such a reach. And as usual, it distracts from the truly frightening things about what Trump represents as a candidate.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Corsi, Jesus Christ, you are aware people have the capacity to focus on more than one thing at once yeah? And by the way every headline across the country was about him refusing the accept the results. So.......
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Last edited by Senator Clay Davis; 10-20-2016 at 07:54 AM.
Actually, they can't focus on more than one thing at once. That's what it means to "focus" on something. And in this case, that's not what's worth focusing on. It's a stupid red herring, and the fact that you think it's at all important when a major party candidate has just suggested he'd reject the results of the process, which is absolutely suborning violence by his supporters, is depressing.
EDIT: As for the headlines, yeah, great, they should be. Also was the focus of many of the panels. Even on Fox, Krauthammer said it was political suicide. I didn't say no one was focusing on it, I was reading the thread and seeing a lot of people thinking that comment was some huge deal, and I don't think it is. Clearer?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 10-20-2016 at 07:56 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Actually, they can't focus on more than one thing at once. That's what it means to "focus" on something. And in this case, that's not what's worth focusing on. It's a stupid red herring, and the fact that you think it's at all important when a major party candidate has just suggested he'd reject the results of the process, which is absolutely suborning violence by his supporters, is depressing.
Your shtick has gotten very old in the last few months. Sad!
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
Typical. Such a nasty poster. No wonder you get so few thanks, no one's listening to you, sad.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
EDIT: As for the headlines, yeah, great, they should be. Also was the focus of many of the panels. Even on Fox, Krauthammer said it was political suicide. I didn't say no one was focusing on it, I was reading the thread and seeing a lot of people thinking that comment was some huge deal, and I don't think it is. Clearer?
You understand in order to win the election he needs more, possibly a lot more, women voters to come to him right? And by calling her a nasty woman, he basically killed any chance of that happening? His goal last night had to be to try to win more women voters. And he totally failed, with that comment being the obvious one we'll come back to. So maybe as a "wow that's disqualifying" comment, no it wasn't much. But from a "does he even actually wanna win" perspective, it was obviously pretty terrible.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The alt-right is melting down, saying that Clinton should be arrested for revealing nuclear secrets and the "nuclear response time". Secrets from Bloomberg I guess.
I can't be the only one that heard this in Drumpfs voice.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
I do now. It was added in the latest firmware update.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Well first of all, I decided I wasn't going to bother posting in this thread anymore
You should have stuck with that gut instinct. You should have slinked off to reddit, or prisonplanet, or infowars or whatever other conspiracy website you get your information and existed in your own little twisted bubble.
Quote:
, after hearing Wimbledon FC (whatever), supporting violence against a kid wearing a Trump hat.
Well, I don't think that ever happened. I think what he said was a troll gets what a troll deserves, and the guy that got choked out obviously intentionally antagonizing people with his wearing of his Trump hate, then with his verbal arguments. The incident was blown up into something it wasn't (U of C student sent to hospital after a vicious beating for wearing a Trump hat) by some real twisted idiots on the fringe right (wear that mantle proudly as you've eared it) even though the events revealed by the guy in the middle of the confrontation admits to antagonizing people with his politics). I don't condone it, but if you're going to try and start a fight you better be prepared for possible violence. This guy was all about antagonizing people (he admits it) and he was not prepared to deal with the ramifications of his own actions. Don't piss off the bear of you aren't prepared to get mauled.
Quote:
All because he had some picture of an internet meme frog with a sad face, that has all of a sudden become a symbol for racism.
Ah, faux ignorance. The last bastion of the troll. What are you going to claim you didn't know was a symbol for something next? The swastika and the "SS" for the white supremacy movement?
Quote:
I realized this was circling the drain and I'm not actually dealing with people that want to have a discussion, or can actually defend one of their positions.
You just described yourself to a tee.
Quote:
I don't know what has happened to the Liberals in the last 20 years, but this new brand of "progressives" that has emerged, is little more then a cult that deals in virtue signalling and prejudice witch hunts, of insert whatever "ism" seems to fit the bill.
What has happened to Liberals in the past 20 years? How about a concerted effort to be marginalized? How about the concerted effort to make liberal a socially unacceptable term, let alone a political position to maintain, in the United States? Any position on the left has been attacked and marginalized for decades. It started in the 50's with McCarthyism and his attacks on communists. It continued in the 70's and 80's with Nixon and Reagan attacking socialists. Both of these perspectives were essentially removed from the acceptable social lexicon, and representation from those ideologies were almost completely eliminated from the American political system. Now, anyone seen as being remotely left of center is quickly branded a liberal and compared to socialists and communists of days gone by. Mean while, dangerous fascists are left to their own devices and left unchecked. Yet what is happening is all the liberals fault? You may want to check the tactics of some of your alt-right heroes. The word repugnant is reserved for these anti-social trolls, and yes, they admit they are trolls.
Quote:
It's interesting that the side that always seems to promote itself as tolerant and on the moral high ground, displays neither when dealing with a dissenting view.
It's not the dissenting view that is the problem. It is the antagonistic tactics being used. You demand civility, but you're an obnoxious little jerk that hurls garbage in the face of people and can't back up a single word from a credible source. If you want to have an actual discussion on issues come prepared with a little bit more than a conspiracy theory and a poorly sourced web site.
Quote:
It's just buzzwords and "PC" talking points, but you guys are totally down with discussing the issues, as long as everybody is just patting each other on the back for how progressive and awesome we all are. Give me a break..... I'm not buying your phony morality and tolerance. The demeaning tactics are also very telling of a side that doesn't actually have any arguments. In the PC world, apparently feelings Trump facts (like that, couldn't help squeezing it in).
Don't worry about my phony morality or tolerance, because I have none for people like you. You get what you deserve. The only thing that prevents you from being totally obliterated in this thread, and your sad little pathetic life in society, is the PC environment that has been established over the years. The political correctness that guarantees you have the opportunity to spew your ignorant rhetoric is the same political correctness that prevents someone from taking you outside and laying an epic beating on you. You want to return to the time when Trump and his cabal if minions think America was great? Be prepared to comply with a very strict social norm where you don't get to spew your nonsense and you do get the #### kicked out of you for antagonizing the wrong guy.
Quote:
I'd like to thank you GGG for actually engaging in an ACTUAL discussion and not resorting to demeaning tactics of a person or whatever other irrelevant associations not pertinent to the discussion.
Oh, now you want to talk issues? You've just finished insulting the intelligence of pretty well everyone in this thread with your nonsense, but now you want to talk issues. How typical of a troll.
Quote:
Now to address your points:
I'm honestly not sure who lies more to be honest, both of them don't have a good track record with the truth. Hillary acts like she doesn't lie and boasts of having a "fact checker" on her website, she should likely use it herself.
This has been covered, time and time again. Donald Trump is the biggest liar to pursue office since fact checking came into being. An astonishing 85% of what comes out of his mouth is considered a lie. Clinton is low 30's on the same scale.
Quote:
In the first debate she actually said that tax cuts were the reason for the financial crisis in 07/08??????? She can't actually believe that, while ignoring it was largely due to banks giving everybody mortgages and loans, a large amount of people that didn't deserve them. Then she supports congress bailing out her bankster friends. That's a pretty big lie and political sales pitch. Trumps lies are bad, but I don't know of any quite on that level.
Tax cuts were a contributing factor to the economic collapse and where we find ourselves today. Economics is a tough subject to understand, but I think that even you should be able to understand that when you have a major reduction in revenue, and you are forced to make a major expenditure, that puts you in a very bad situation. For a side that complains so much about the national debt, and who is responsible for much of it, it is quite disingenuous to again plead ignorance to this major component of Clinton is saying.
Quote:
Her track record, speaks for itself really. She has supported every war and interventionist policy from Bosnia to Syria. She even goes so far as to cite her "sanctions" on Iraq and Iran, as some sort of diplomatic victory. Yes a victory where thousands of people ended up starving to death, par for the course Hillary.
What a load. Clinton was FLOTUS when Bosnia happened. She was not part of the process that resulted in any intervention. She was also out of office when the meltdowns in Syria were really taking place. The Syrian civil war was just getting underway when she was winding down her duties as SoS, but you're still going to pin that on her? Weak, but not as weak as shamelessly claiming the sanctions used to apply political pressure, so as not to create yet another military engagement, caused the death of people through starvation.
Quote:
It's interesting that she get's donations of millions of dollars from Saudi leaders to her Clinton foundation.
"She" does not get any money from those who donate money. The Clinton Foundation receives the money and it is used to further humanitarian causes across the globe. You can say all the hateful #### you want about Hillary Clinton, but the work done by the Clinton Foundation is unprecedented in philanthropic circles. The Clinton Foundation does more and is more efficient than the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, according to the watchdog organizations who oversee these interests.
Quote:
She talks likes she's some sort of huge supporter of human rights and equality, but accepts money from one of the most oppressive countries on the planet.
As long as that money is used for good, is used for humanitarian purposes including fighting for human rights in these same countries, that is a good thing. The fact that almost 90% of all givings is turned directly into humanitarian aide is amazing.
Quote:
All of that about refusing to do favours for donations seems like just more pandering and not the truth. She's supported of the media, because they seem very supportive of her for some reason. They don't really air her out like they do her opponents it would seem. She's got powerful powerful friends like George Soros and many many others.
I was wondering how long it would take for the boogeyman to make an appearance in your drivel. George Soros has earmarked $16.5 million to this campaign. Conversely, Sheldon Adelson has contributed $42.7 million to the cause. Adelson himself gives almost 3 times the money the evil George Soros does. Both of those pale in comparison to the $898 million the Koch Brothers have committed to this election. If you were smart, you would stay as far away from this conspiracy theory of George Soros being a master puppeteer and paying for his candidate to win the election, because the facts do not support this claim.
Quote:
Tax plans. Hillary wants to increase taxes and somehow rebuild the middle class, what's her actual plan? All I've heard from her is sloganeering without much of an actual plan. The middle class took a huge hit in that financial crisis that she is blaming on lowered taxes. Trumps talking about lowering taxes (yes I suppose that will benefit him and really everybody).
You mean your conspiracy web sites don't talk about taxation and explain the difference between the two proposals? Shocking! Clinton is all about raising taxes on corporations and the top 1% of the population. Her plan will close many of the loop holes that Trump has been complaining about her not closing while she was in the Senate. The Clinton plan is to make those who consume the most pay the most - those that use the infrastructure to its greatest pay the greatest share. Trump's idea is to reduce taxation, especially on the uber rich, and then increase spending as well. I know you're not overly bright, but when you do that you have a deficit situation. Wasn't it you and your type complaining about the overall debit?
Quote:
Why are businesses leaving to foreign countries? Mostly because of high taxes which hurts their bottom line.
Lower manufacturing costs is the primary driver. If you can pay someone pennies on the dollar to make your product, you are likely going to go there to manufacture your product. This is why when you flip over a Trump product to see where it is made the vast majority of them are made in the far east. Taxation is a contributing factor, but taxes are a cost of doing business, regardless of where the company is manufacturing products. There is fallacy floating out there that the US has the highest taxation rate on corporations, but this is a lie. American corporations receive so many breaks that the statutory tax rate is irrelevant. The effective tax rate is the one that matters, and those tax breaks, especially the depreciation deduction, greatly affect that rate.
Quote:
Couple that with stricter environmental laws, public and media watchdog groups among other things, it's easy to see the appeal of moving operations abroad.
Yeah, stricter environmental laws, that guarantee us clean water and air, are a bad thing.
Quote:
Are these the same economists that say there is a gender wage gap that Hillary is pandering out there? If so I'm very skeptical of these claims.
You're skeptical of anything where there are facts to support the claim, so this is not surprising.
Quote:
Those programs you are alluding to is how they will piss it away, or she'll find some way to give it to her bankster friends.
Outrageous claim. Citation please.
Quote:
You didn't really deal in specifics in your post, could you clarify a bit? What won't work about Trumps plan and why? It's interesting that you mention she wants to rebuild the middle class by essentially raising taxes on the middle class.
See, you don't have a clue what either platform is saying. Trump wants to increase spending and decrease taxation across the board, especially on the rich and the corporations. That is going to lead to a massive addition to the national debt. Clinton is going to increase spending to spurn on the economy, but increase taxation on the top 1% and corporations to pay for it. The middle class will not get hit with an increase and the hope is that the increased economic activity from increased spending will expand the middle class like it did back in the post war years.
Quote:
Obamacare:
Yes it was a good thing that people with pre-existing conditions were able to get coverage, that was one of the selling points. Obamacare essentially mandated that everybody has to pay for health care, why were these people who didn't have coverage, unable to get coverage before.
Okay, you got the basics of the ACA. Good for you. You managed to somehow get to that low hanging fruit and not choke on a pit.
Quote:
Because they were either unemployed or underemployed. Now they've legislated that you have to pay for something, for people who already couldn't afford it and then fine them for failure to comply. All this while the prices keep going up because
there's a lack of competition between providers because of state lines and number of other things. It's a terribly impractical system. Privatizing it and encouraging as much competition as possible is the best way to keep prices down.
Spoke too soon. You choked in the cherry pit. Nothing that was done in the ACA affected competition. What it did was push more consumers into the marketplace, not restrict it. If anything, there should have been dramatic price drops because of the 20 million new customers. But the ACA failed in placing any restrictions in the law that would prevent insurers from raising rates to account for those previously uninsured. See, you don't understand the system at all, and the claim that privatizing it, when it is already privatized, will solve the problem is just another shot to your credibility. There is nothing public about the ACA except for the individual mandate that you are compelled to carry insurance. Everything else is handled by private insurers because there is no public option available. Unless you have access to Medicare, the only option is to buy from a private carrier, the same private carriers that are putting the screws to consumers today.
[/QUOTE]Student loans:
Solution, don't guarantee them. [/QUOTE]
Solution. Wipe the slate clean and make higher education free. You want to improve the economy? Get a better workforce that can support some of the high tech industries Americans so badly want in this country. You can be a world leader when you have a workforce that can't understand the technologies they are tasked to work with.
Quote:
The Tape:
The whole thing sickens and angers me. You can spin it however you like, but she's laughing about a child predator beating a test and getting a reduced sentence. That whole case is just sickening. Once again Hillary is front and center of it all.
Context is everything and you refuse to listen to the whole thing in context. This is on you and no one else.
Quote:
Emails: You mean that crooked head of the FBI Comey that cleared her? His personal politics are secondary to him doing his job when called upon by the people that put him there. There are people in the FBI jwho worked on this casse that are incensed over this whole scandal of collusion. It Will be interesting to see how this all plays out. She has very powerful friends, like the current president, her much beloved for some reason husband and people like George Soros and many others. She's not an evil genius, she's as corrupt as it gets and that's why she keeps getting away with things all the way to the white house. Her public image is terrible, if Trump could have kept a lid on things he probably could have easily won. The machine supporting her is likely too strong. Putin will eat her alive, the guy wrestles Grizzly Bears for sport. No the US is "electing" corporate Shillary Clinton, the Demigod of Neo Cons that has somehow sold people that she is some kind of stable humanitarian.Scary scary times indeed
You are completely unhinged and out of touch with reality. Go back to infowars.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
I'd imagine this is how a debate between Trump and Clinton would be had it happened on the internets. If illuminighty came back to the thread and peddled more nonsense, he'd be rightfully laughed at.
Holy ####, did you just try to spin someone being attacked for wearing a Trump hat and making political statements his fellow students didn't like?
Are... are you drunk this time?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
That seems like a lot of wasted effort responding to Illiminaughty.
Yes, but revealing in its own right. For example, leaving aside the "he had it coming" tenor of his summary of the incident at U of C, apparently New Era thinks that it's "the PC environment that has been established over the years" that allows Illuminaughty to express his addle-minded view of the world, rather than the foundational principle underlying society for about three centuries that a marketplace of ideas is a good thing, even if some people sell crappy merchandise.
Meanwhile, the spiel about how "liberal" was made into a dirty word and how liberals were looked down upon as immoral evil degenerates, treated as pariahs while our concerns and world view were marginalized for decades might as well have been followed with, "and now, it's our turn."
It's really a wonder that there's so much idiocy on American college campuses these days.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Jesus F Christ, I'm glad I missed that debate for the most part. I was out coaching football and I realized that Trump talks exactly like a petulant 14 year old.
His little interruptions with "wrong" and "My turn" and all of that stuff. His bluster, his completely making up things on the fly.
Calling people bad Ombres, the whole thing was teenage bluster.
As for him not accepting the results. What's he gonna do? He can demand recounts, that's about it. Or is he going to go with every gun nuts dream scenario of having militia's rise up against a corrupt government? I guess we've always wanted to see fat yahoo's with automatic weapons against trained infantry backed by armor and air support.
This election has been ridiculous.
the conspiracy theorist in me keeps thinking that Trump is intentionally throwing this thing because he has no interest in actually being president for 4 years but wants to live off of and use the whole I've been screwed argument. The way he's pissed off every minority, and woman and immigrants is breathtaking in either its brilliance or stupidity. His admission last night that he would appoint judges that would strike down Roe vs Wade was either an unbelievable blunder, or scintillating brilliant in a way that would guarantee that not one woman would vote for him.
Like I said before, I don't trust or believe that Hillary is a good presidential candidate. But at the same time, I'm guessing in the States neither of the political parties believes that small C conservatives like me exist as both sides exist on the far sides of the spectrum from me.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
