2016 Democratic Thread

[StrangeSox]

yeah

[caulfield12]

Which is crazy, because with pretty much every conflict or failed nation state going on around the world right now, Hillary was in favor of bombing it at some point.

 

And which Republicans weren't?

 

Besides Ron/Rand Paul, that is.

 

 

Besides, I keep reading all over the internet that such a strategy is exactly what we should be following in North Korea and Iran, because the only thing evil dictatorships respond to is fear/dominating firepower...and somehow I have a feeling you won't see any Democrats advocating that strategy, or bombing China, Russia, etc.

 

Btw, which Republicans are in favor of boots on the ground in Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Pakistan, Ukraine, etc.?

Edited September 15, 2016 by caulfield12

[bmags]

I mean, that's not accurate. The accurate thing is that Hillary has supported force in middle east conflicts, not every failed nation state.

 

But I don't recall her advising us moving in on Venezuela.

[bmags]

people are going to love that well actually from me.

[StrangeSox]

people are going to love that well actually from me.

 

"where do mansplainers get their water?

 

a well, actually"

 

[StrangeSox]

HRC is without a doubt a hawk which is scary.

 

"literally every failed/failing nation-state and conflict in the world" is a bit hyperbolic but absolutely she's a hawk.

[southsider2k5]

"literally every failed/failing nation-state and conflict in the world" is a bit hyperbolic but absolutely she's a hawk.

 

If you are going to use quotes, at least get it right. But yes, it was an obvious exaggeration.

[bmags]

Haha, I kinda feel bad there.

[StrangeSox]

It was a paraphrasing, I'll be sure to do full APA citation next time.

 

eta and paraphrasing to basically agree with both ss2k5 and rabbit

Edited September 15, 2016 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

I elevated the conversation.

[StrangeSox]

You quoted my post with a quote that I couldn't find. It's fair for me to ask. Not sure why the snark is needed.

Ah gotcha, thought you were asking where my paraphrasing of ss2k5 was coming from since it was in quotes, definitely can see how it wasn't clear that my paraphrase was of ss2k5 and not of you since I quoted your post!The actual quoted post of yours was just straight out of the first line of this one, still here.

 

[greg775]

With Trump drawing higher ratings and much more coverage, why would they want Clinton?

 

Bigger point, there's a much higher likelihood of war or some random conflict escalating with Trump, and that will play for even higher ratings.

I guess cause the ratings blip you speak of is not important in this case. You are a smart person. You must see what greg sees. Total love of Hillary/Bill in the media. Why else would they censor a SCOOP? They got Bill to say Hillary faints often and they edit it out?? The media just has to have a Democrat in the oval office. I don't know why they aren't more like Limbaugh. Yes he wants a Republican in there, but he knows a Demo makes for better shows cause he hates Demos. Now if a tradiitional Republican gets in there (Trump is a different story; he's not really a Republican) Rush's show is affected cause he can't blast the Republican. If it's a Democrat however, like Bill or Obama or Hillary ... look out. He can rip away and it's much better talk radio.

 

Why do the networks want Hillary so much? This incident is appalling.

[caulfield12]

I guess cause the ratings blip you speak of is not important in this case. You are a smart person. You must see what greg sees. Total love of Hillary/Bill in the media. Why else would they censor a SCOOP? They got Bill to say Hillary faints often and they edit it out?? The media just has to have a Democrat in the oval office. I don't know why they aren't more like Limbaugh. Yes he wants a Republican in there, but he knows a Demo makes for better shows cause he hates Demos. Now if a tradiitional Republican gets in there (Trump is a different story; he's not really a Republican) Rush's show is affected cause he can't blast the Republican. If it's a Democrat however, like Bill or Obama or Hillary ... look out. He can rip away and it's much better talk radio.

 

Why do the networks want Hillary so much? This incident is appalling.

 

Sure, for Limbaugh, Fox, O'Reilly, etc.

 

But how would that be beneficial for the "biased" left reporting class who are supposedly supporting her cause? Their lives would be made much easier and entertaining with a Trump presidency.

 

You said it yourself. Trump sells. Hillary is boring, not charismatic, shrill and almost nobody can stand to see her give lengthy policy speeches because she inevitably gets compared to Bill and comes up sorely lacking.

 

 

For example, Trump just came out with some controversial statements on birth control/abortion. Typically, the Right Wing of the Republican Party would eviscerate one of their candidates for such a remark. Limbaugh could later turn on him and say he was against him the whole time but just desperate to get rid of the Clintons that he swallowed his tongue for the good of the party, Supreme Court and future elections.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Trump's statement on Obama's birth is the most amazing spin of all time.

 

He spent years and years leading the Birther movement, harping on Obama and his birth certificate and saying his investigators found crazy things. Even THIS YEAR, he was saying he didn't know if Obama was born in the US.

 

Now he says that Birtherism was terrible and ugly, Hillary was behind the whole thing, and he was the one who rightfully resolved it in 2011.

 

THE BEST SPIN, JERRY. THE BEST

[Jenksismyhero]

Trump's statement on Obama's birth is the most amazing spin of all time.

 

He spent years and years leading the Birther movement, harping on Obama and his birth certificate and saying his investigators found crazy things. Even THIS YEAR, he was saying he didn't know if Obama was born in the US.

 

Now he says that Birtherism was terrible and ugly, Hillary was behind the whole thing, and he was the one who rightfully resolved it in 2011.

 

THE BEST SPIN, JERRY. THE BEST

 

Ah come on, he just saw the light. It's ok to change your mind for political purposes when you land on the "right" side!

 

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/278350/hil...-marriage-2002/

[bmags]

Ah come on, he just saw the light. It's ok to change your mind for political purposes when you land on the "right" side!

 

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/278350/hil...-marriage-2002/

 

Come on Jenks, are you really comparing something that is just an indisputed fact backed up with documented evidence compared to a social issue like whether to support gay marriage? How many people in this country can claim they always backed gay marriage? how many people over 30?

 

There is no end to the evidence of unbelievably embarrassing standards of trumps that won't be tortuously compared to something Clinton has said or done in her 30 years in the public spotlight.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Ah come on, he just saw the light. It's ok to change your mind for political purposes when you land on the "right" side!

 

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/278350/hil...-marriage-2002/

 

What are you talking about? Trump isn't admitting to having been a racist idiot; he's rewriting history and making himself out to be the one who was in the right.

 

Trump is a teenager who drove 120 mph, crashed his dad's car and bragged about it for years. Now he says Hillary crashed the car and he repaired it. It's amazing.

[lostfan]

"We got other business to attend to. I was pretty confident about where I was born. I think most people were as well. And my hope would be that the presidential election reflects more serious issues than that. All right?"

 

Sigh. God bless POTUS for trying, but the electorate is composed of mostly idiots, so this is what happens.

[Jenksismyhero]

Come on Jenks, are you really comparing something that is just an indisputed fact backed up with documented evidence compared to a social issue like whether to support gay marriage? How many people in this country can claim they always backed gay marriage? how many people over 30?

 

There is no end to the evidence of unbelievably embarrassing standards of trumps that won't be tortuously compared to something Clinton has said or done in her 30 years in the public spotlight.

 

ah, yes, #itsdifferent

 

Plenty of people in the last 10 years were very much pro-gay marriage. I'm not exactly comparing someone's views from the 20's or whatever to today. This was in the recent past. She went on a talk show with a well known gay person and told that person she shouldn't have the legal right to be married. Of course she later "saw the light" when it became politically advantageous. And now she pretends like that never happened and she wants credit for being on the "right" side.

 

Yes, the birther s*** was nonsense, and Trump was stupid for ever backing it, but now he's publicly stated that he's over it. So, like Hillary, we should all be satisfied that he's on the right side now, regardless of what an awful person he is.

 

This really isn't a tortuous attempt to compare the two. It's comparing the reactions that the respective supporting sides have for their douche/turd sandwich candidate. It seems justified for one, but not the other.

[shysocks]

ah, yes, #itsdifferent

 

Plenty of people in the last 10 years were very much pro-gay marriage. I'm not exactly comparing someone's views from the 20's or whatever to today. This was in the recent past. She went on a talk show with a well known gay person and told that person she shouldn't have the legal right to be married. Of course she later "saw the light" when it became politically advantageous. And now she pretends like that never happened and she wants credit for being on the "right" side.

 

Yes, the birther s*** was nonsense, and Trump was stupid for ever backing it, but now he's publicly stated that he's over it. So, like Hillary, we should all be satisfied that he's on the right side now, regardless of what an awful person he is.

 

This really isn't a tortuous attempt to compare the two. It's comparing the reactions that the respective supporting sides have for their douche/turd sandwich candidate. It seems justified for one, but not the other.

Trump was not just "backing it," he was THE birther. It is, practically speaking, the issue on which he started to build his political career. Hillary was never the country's leading opponent to gay marriage. This is why your comparison is ridiculous.

[Jenksismyhero]

What are you talking about? Trump isn't admitting to having been a racist idiot; he's rewriting history and making himself out to be the one who was in the right.

 

Trump is a teenager who drove 120 mph, crashed his dad's car and bragged about it for years. Now he says Hillary crashed the car and he repaired it. It's amazing.

 

I don't think he's claiming that he was never a part of the birther movement. He seems to have acknowledged there isn't an issue and he's satisfied. But maybe I missed that statement. Link?

[lostfan]

ah, yes, #itsdifferent

 

Plenty of people in the last 10 years were very much pro-gay marriage. I'm not exactly comparing someone's views from the 20's or whatever to today. This was in the recent past. She went on a talk show with a well known gay person and told that person she shouldn't have the legal right to be married. Of course she later "saw the light" when it became politically advantageous. And now she pretends like that never happened and she wants credit for being on the "right" side.

 

Yes, the birther s*** was nonsense, and Trump was stupid for ever backing it, but now he's publicly stated that he's over it. So, like Hillary, we should all be satisfied that he's on the right side now, regardless of what an awful person he is.

 

This really isn't a tortuous attempt to compare the two. It's comparing the reactions that the respective supporting sides have for their douche/turd sandwich candidate. It seems justified for one, but not the other.

That's exactly what it is.

 

This is like if CNN said "We never thought it was important where Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 landed. The whole thing was Fox News's idea." Then your equivalent reaction would be to point out that Fox News has a strong pro-Republican bias. This is a logical fallacy, put it either in "False Cause" or "Irrelevant Conclusion."

[bmags]

ah, yes, #itsdifferent

 

Plenty of people in the last 10 years were very much pro-gay marriage. I'm not exactly comparing someone's views from the 20's or whatever to today. This was in the recent past. She went on a talk show with a well known gay person and told that person she shouldn't have the legal right to be married. Of course she later "saw the light" when it became politically advantageous. And now she pretends like that never happened and she wants credit for being on the "right" side.

 

Yes, the birther s*** was nonsense, and Trump was stupid for ever backing it, but now he's publicly stated that he's over it. So, like Hillary, we should all be satisfied that he's on the right side now, regardless of what an awful person he is.

 

This really isn't a tortuous attempt to compare the two. It's comparing the reactions that the respective supporting sides have for their douche/turd sandwich candidate. It seems justified for one, but not the other.

 

It is different. It is absurd to think otherwise. I refuse to give up critical thinking so that you can feel independent about being critical of Hillary Clinton. You want to criticize her for being connected to the DOMA? Go ahead.

 

You want to use that to say it's not so bad that Trump stoked conspiracy theories about an indisputable fact because he liked the power it gave him from the insane twitter base full of idiots? And believed this as recently as January, 5 years since it was disproven and didn't even need to be? And he stoked repeatedly from hoax experts?

 

Sorry, different issue, try harder.

 

"Sure, fine, he stoked rumors that the earth didn't revolve around the sun, but Mike supported invading the Iraq war and now is against it. SO, kinda the same, really"

 

[Jenksismyhero]

That's exactly what it is.

 

This is like if CNN said "We never thought it was important where Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 landed. The whole thing was Fox News's idea." Then your equivalent reaction would be to point out that Fox News has a strong pro-Republican bias. This is a logical fallacy, put it either in "False Cause" or "Irrelevant Conclusion."

 

I'm not comparing the stupidity of the underlying original position or the severity in which either person believed in their original position. The fact is both were against something before being for it. It's a classic flip flop. And he's not the only one that has done it.

 

Trump continuing to assert the Breitbart conclusion that Hillary started it is irrelevant to what I was pointing out.

[bmags]

I'm not comparing the stupidity of the underlying original position or the severity in which either person believed in their original position. The fact is both were against something before being for it. It's a classic flip flop. And he's not the only one that has done it.

 

Trump continuing to assert the Breitbart conclusion that Hillary started it is irrelevant to what I was pointing out.

 

Then literally nothing cannot be compared.

 

I used to believe that MacArthur should have continued on into China but now I think that is ridiculous.

 

So basically, I'm donald trump.