What's new
By:

Never Trump

JJAS said:
One of your worst statements so far. This shows your red underwear and is founded on your assumption that Clinton will be a bigger hawk than Trump. She has never said anything about torturing people or killing the families of terrorists. Stop putting words in her mouth and creating a figure that is equal to Trump. You're so sure you understand the hidden intents of these candidates, and this astounds me.
Click to expand...

I assure you that my underwear are much more blue than red. I have only voted for one republican in my life and that was Gov. Huntsman's second term.

Extraordinary rendition started under Bill, was partially supplanted by the CIA under Bush, and continues to this day under Obama. Further while Obama did ban "enhanced interrogation techniques" by the CIA he did so by making the army field manual the standard. The same Army field manual amended by Rumsfeld to allow for what human rights groups call torture of "unlawful enemy combatants". In other words people that we deem are outside the protection of the Geneva conventions. Obama could have removed Rumsfeld's wording from the manual but he didn't.

We still torture people and will continue to do so.
 
♪alt13 said:
I assure you that my underwear are much more blue than red. I have only voted for one republican in my life and that was Gov. Huntsman's second term. We still torture people and will continue to do so.
Click to expand...

I'll take you at your word about your underwear, green? Or did you Bern them? I respect your concern for torture and borderline interrogation techniques and think we should listen to McCain on this, i.e., someone who experienced it first hand. Be that as it may, the context in which you made your comment leaves very little to the imagination on what you were implying, and my point still stands on your juxtaposing of Clinton and Trump as more or less equals in what they have claimed. Once again, it's a case of your apparently incredible prowess for reading between the lines and determining what the "real" candidates will think and how they will act. This talent of premonition renders any real words and message the candidates have had pointless. Their candidacies matter and so does their respective words and actions within their candidacies.
 
JJAS said:
I'll take you at your word about your underwear, green? Or did you Bern them? I respect your concern for torture and borderline interrogation techniques and think we should listen to McCain on this, i.e., someone who experienced it first hand. Be that as it may, the context in which you made your comment leaves very little to the imagination on what you were implying, and my point still stands on your juxtaposing of Clinton and Trump as more or less equals in what they have claimed. Once again, it's a case of your apparently incredible prowess for reading between the lines and determining what the "real" candidates will think and how they will act. This talent of premonition renders any real words and message the candidates have had pointless. Their candidacies matter and so does their respective words and actions within their candidacies.
Click to expand...

I agree. But he is, to a point, an exception to this. That's not a good thing. I do not think anyone really knows what he will do if in office. He is all over the place so often that it's impossible to pin him down. Again, that's not a good thing.
 
Stoked said:
Recently read a report that the RNC is considering barring from running again those that do not back the current nominee. Specifically Cruz and Kasich.
Click to expand...
As long as they also bar Donald Trump from being the President if he does not follow through with all of the things he also said at the debates, I'm okay with that.

(Ok, not really serious)
 
colton said:
As long as they also bar Donald Trump from being the President if he does not follow through with all of the things he also said at the debates, I'm okay with that.

(Ok, not really serious)
Click to expand...

Well, if the RNC did follow through on banning people from future candidacies if they fail to back the current one...I could see that possibly contributing to future fracturing of their party.
 
JJAS said:
I'll take you at your word about your underwear, green? Or did you Bern them? I respect your concern for torture and borderline interrogation techniques and think we should listen to McCain on this, i.e., someone who experienced it first hand. Be that as it may, the context in which you made your comment leaves very little to the imagination on what you were implying, and my point still stands on your juxtaposing of Clinton and Trump as more or less equals in what they have claimed. Once again, it's a case of your apparently incredible prowess for reading between the lines and determining what the "real" candidates will think and how they will act. This talent of premonition renders any real words and message the candidates have had pointless. Their candidacies matter and so does their respective words and actions within their candidacies.
Click to expand...

Your continued attempts to paint me as some caricature that you have in your head reveal more about you than they do me. You should stop doing that.

I did no such thing. I started by acknowledging that Trump's rhetoric and his campaign is way worse. I said that I think a Hilary Clinton presidency will end up being worse by those measures because people like yourself will not hold her accountable. The watchdogs will be silenced and their warnings would fall on deaf ears anyway.
 
Stoked said:
Well, if the RNC did follow through on banning people from future candidacies if they fail to back the current one...I could see that possibly contributing to future fracturing of their party.
Click to expand...

Too late. The party is already fractured. The question is whether all the kings men will be able to put humpty...
 
♪alt13 said:
She didn't support gay marriage until 3 years ago when it became clear that the next democratic nominee must support it. Climate change, lol. Get ready to drill buddy. 4 more years of fracking guaranteed. Abortion is a non-issue, just a talking point. Minimum wage is evidence that the left is dead. Equal pay has been the law since 1963, again more talking points(though in practice it's kinda hard to prove and bringing a lawsuit is a scary step for the average person). Clinton will not be moving the needle to the left on domestic issues. Most lefties admit this they are just frightened of Trump. Really there is a whole lot of nothing here.
Click to expand...

There’s nothing there if you don’t care about the issues listed or, more importantly, you don’t want others to care. Republicans and Democrats define themselves, create partisan division, and ensure their continued existence based on those issues, as well the additional issues listed in my previous post. Understandably, Libertarians want to break the left-right divide as it’s their only road to relevance. For this election cycle, however, the divide remains. Clinton is to the left on domestic policy, Trump is to the right, and Gary Johnson is scrambling for ten percent of the scraps. No amount of equivocating changes that harsh reality.
 
the irony here is that Bernie was the perfect candidate to take on Trump.


Trump is racist and a demagogue-- but Hillary is very obviously an elitist that panders to her peers.


Bernie was neither, and he would have had the double whammy of calling hing a demagogue, but also slamming his economic policies as those that favour his oligarchical cronies. That's largely the reason why Trump has so much of the white working class vote, and Bernie woulda pulled it all from him.


--


This was all made very obvious by the polling done between Donald, Bern, and Hillary while Bernie was still in the race. It was always a dead heat between Hillary and Trump, while Bernie always massacred him.


And, quite honestly, unless Hillary makes a strong turn to the left (ehich she hasnt; she's gone right unfortunately) she's going to lose
 
dalamon said:
the irony here is that Bernie was the perfect candidate to take on Trump.


Trump is racist and a demagogue-- but Hillary is very obviously an elitist that panders to her peers.


Bernie was neither, and he would have had the double whammy of calling hing a demagogue, but also slamming his economic policies as those that favour his oligarchical cronies. That's largely the reason why Trump has so much of the white working class vote, and Bernie woulda pulled it all from him.


--


This was all made very obvious by the polling done between Donald, Bern, and Hillary while Bernie was still in the race. It was always a dead heat between Hillary and Trump, while Bernie always massacred him.


And, quite honestly, unless Hillary makes a strong turn to the left (ehich she hasnt; she's gone right unfortunately) she's going to lose
Click to expand...

You are racist.
 
♪alt13 said:
Your continued attempts to paint me as some caricature that you have in your head reveal more about you than they do me. You should stop doing that.

I did no such thing. I started by acknowledging that Trump's rhetoric and his campaign is way worse. I said that I think a Hilary Clinton presidency will end up being worse by those measures because people like yourself will not hold her accountable. The watchdogs will be silenced and their warnings would fall on deaf ears anyway.
Click to expand...

You're the one prognosticating. Even in this post, nearly all of your verb tenses are in the future or conditional. I'm not painting, just pointing out what you're saying, and it is not worth the trouble checking whether or not what you said in this post and the last are the same. Once again, if you believe what you said in this post, then that's enough for me. But "people like myself" will crucify Clinton without thinking twice if she is an abysmal president. I will, however, be giddy as a school girl through her four years with the knowledge that Donald Trump and all that he stands for was denied the largest platform on earth to spew his poison for these four years. I'd also be interested to know what exactly I "revealed."
 
dalamon said:
the irony here is that Bernie was the perfect candidate to take on Trump.


Trump is racist and a demagogue-- but Hillary is very obviously an elitist that panders to her peers.


Bernie was neither, and he would have had the double whammy of calling hing a demagogue, but also slamming his economic policies as those that favour his oligarchical cronies. That's largely the reason why Trump has so much of the white working class vote, and Bernie woulda pulled it all from him.


--


This was all made very obvious by the polling done between Donald, Bern, and Hillary while Bernie was still in the race. It was always a dead heat between Hillary and Trump, while Bernie always massacred him.


And, quite honestly, unless Hillary makes a strong turn to the left (ehich she hasnt; she's gone right unfortunately) she's going to lose
Click to expand...

No she won't.

So as long as she doesn't kill a baby she's got this thing wrapped up.

https://www.270towin.com/2016-election-forecast-predictions/
 
JJAS said:
You're the one prognosticating. Even in this post, nearly all of your verb tenses are in the future or conditional. I'm not painting, just pointing out what you're saying, and it is not worth the trouble checking whether or not what you said in this post and the last are the same. Once again, if you believe what you said in this post, then that's enough for me. But "people like myself" will crucify Clinton without thinking twice if she is an abysmal president. I will, however, be giddy as a school girl through her four years with the knowledge that Donald Trump and all that he stands for was denied the largest platform on earth to spew his poison for these four years. I'd also be interested to know what exactly I "revealed."
Click to expand...

Yes you were. You first tried to paint me as a caricature of a Trump supporter, then a closeted republican, then a Bernie-bro. You are having a hard time following because you are focusing about who you think I am instead of what I have said. You are relentlessly searching for an ad hominem attack, a low brow punch to throw. We both seem to agree that Clinton will be an effective and competent president. She will be Presidential as ****. I have no problem with you having a different view of the executive than I do.
 
dalamon said:
I guess we will see. I also gotta drop back into that wind farm thread later this week cuz I've been readin some stuff
Click to expand...

I don't get quote notifications(I think the note in my username ****s it up). Send me an invitee to play devil's advocate :)
 
♪alt13 said:
Yes you were. You first tried to paint me as a caricature of a Trump supporter, then a closeted republican, then a Bernie-bro. You are having a hard time following because you are focusing about who you think I am instead of what I have said. You are relentlessly searching for an ad hominem attack, a low brow punch to throw. We both seem to agree that Clinton will be an effective and competent president. She will be Presidential as ****. I have no problem with you having a different view of the executive than I do.
Click to expand...

My man, those were honest questions, but your assertion (and the context of the assertion) that she would torture seemed very Republican. If you weren't a Clinton supporter or a Trump supporter, I though maybe the Green party or maybe Sanders. Those were honest questions. I didn't know. In addition, I'm not looking for any sort of an ad hominem attack, since that is indeed a fallacy. The only reason I mentioned red underwear is because the statement seemed like something a rubber stamp Republican would say.

Either way, there was little evidence behind your statement. Your statement was speculation--speculation that seemed flavored by a rubber stamp Republican's mindset. I'm having trouble accepting your constant speculation, prognostication, and theorizing. Even now, you gave me a psychological appraisal as if you could read what I was thinking, i.e., looking for an ad hominem attack. There is a difference between explaining why someone is thinking fallaciously and an actual ad hominem fallacy that tries to bolster an argument through someone's person

Another example is how you thought I was "trying to paint you as a caricature of a Trump supporter." Many people who are Republicans are not voting for Trump, but they still try to juxtapose Clinton and Trump as equally heinous. I have a real problem with that, because it almost invariably neglects the litany of deplorable acts and statements by Trump in favor of the twenty five years of destroying Clinton with now conclusive evidence (this can always change).

As far as Clinton, I am not sure what type of a president she would make. She is cunning in every way, has experienced the difficulties of office, and as robotic as she is, seems to have a much greater appreciation for what this country represents than does orange man. Either way, I am voting for her almost entirely to defeat Trump. I've never done that as a voter, but I have never seen such a nightmarish candidate as Trump. I cringed at the prospect of a Palin vice presidency. Trump's candidacy moved past "cringe" about a year ago.
 
The Never Trump band has a new player. Former president George H.W. Bush will put country first and vote for Clinton. Hard time to be a former president and a Republican. You spend a lifetime trying to win for your Party only to determine losing is the only hope to save it. He's ninety-two, witnessing possibly his last election, it should be easy to understand his devastation as he contemplates an egomaniacal clown like Trump destroying his life's work.
 
JJAS said:
My man, those were honest questions, but your assertion (and the context of the assertion) that she would torture seemed very Republican. If you weren't a Clinton supporter or a Trump supporter, I though maybe the Green party or maybe Sanders. Those were honest questions. I didn't know. In addition, I'm not looking for any sort of an ad hominem attack, since that is indeed a fallacy. The only reason I mentioned red underwear is because the statement seemed like something a rubber stamp Republican would say.

Either way, there was little evidence behind your statement. Your statement was speculation--speculation that seemed flavored by a rubber stamp Republican's mindset. I'm having trouble accepting your constant speculation, prognostication, and theorizing. Even now, you gave me a psychological appraisal as if you could read what I was thinking, i.e., looking for an ad hominem attack. There is a difference between explaining why someone is thinking fallaciously and an actual ad hominem fallacy that tries to bolster an argument through someone's person

Another example is how you thought I was "trying to paint you as a caricature of a Trump supporter." Many people who are Republicans are not voting for Trump, but they still try to juxtapose Clinton and Trump as equally heinous. I have a real problem with that, because it almost invariably neglects the litany of deplorable acts and statements by Trump in favor of the twenty five years of destroying Clinton with now conclusive evidence (this can always change).

As far as Clinton, I am not sure what type of a president she would make. She is cunning in every way, has experienced the difficulties of office, and as robotic as she is, seems to have a much greater appreciation for what this country represents than does orange man. Either way, I am voting for her almost entirely to defeat Trump. I've never done that as a voter, but I have never seen such a nightmarish candidate as Trump. I cringed at the prospect of a Palin vice presidency. Trump's candidacy moved past "cringe" about a year ago.
Click to expand...

Using "ad hominem" three times and "rubber stamp republican" twice in the same post (wow) indicates, to me, your guilt of ex parte, per se.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top