What's new
By:

GOP Debate Threads

Joe Bagadonuts said:
Your underestimating how much the media wants Clinton. She will be the nominee, and the vast majority of people will never even know that her honesty is even an issue. They will instead perceive that her opponent is mean and desperate for bringing it up repeatedly.

Check out this exchange between Charlie Rose and Rubio. How is it possible that Rose is so oblivious to this story? It's because the media is willingly ignoring it in order to support Hillary.

If you think the media is going to start reporting the actual story at this point even though the facts are available to anyone who wants to look a them, you are going to be proven wrong.
Click to expand...

i see your video and raise you this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKosd0xJadE
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Your underestimating how much the media wants Clinton. She will be the nominee, and the vast majority of people will never even know that her honesty is even an issue. They will instead perceive that her opponent is mean and desperate for bringing it up repeatedly.

Check out this exchange between Charlie Rose and Rubio. How is it possible that Rose is so oblivious to this story? It's because the media is willingly ignoring it in order to support Hillary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4shcPbpoGU
If you think the media is going to start reporting the actual story at this point even though the facts are available to anyone who wants to look a them, you are going to be proven wrong.
Click to expand...


You're almost as bad as Jamezz with this media bias bs conspiracy theory. If the media is so biased, why has literally everyone covered the story multiple times? If bias means nit beating a dead horse, then everyone but the turds at Fox are guilty.
 
b_line said:
That's one way to look at it the other way is that Bush increased spe ding astronomically, so that was a bug deal and was reported a lot. Obama has not really increased spending, as spending growth has stayed essentially flat from the bush years. They both have done horrible jobs when compared with almost everyone that has been president in the history of the country. In fact, the three worst spenders in probably the history of the country were reagan, Bush 2, and Obama.
Click to expand...
Obama's increase is double Bush's and you attribute that to a trend that Bush started? Doubling is not a trend. Bush spent irresponsibly, but Obama has been worse by any measure. To suggest that he has not really increased spending is insane. It requires completely ignoring the facts.

BTW, just to be accurate in terms of percentage increase in the debt the three presidents you mentioned are not even in the ballpark of Roosevelt. Debt went up over 1000% during his watch, but he was dealing with WWII... AND WE WON!!!!
 
b_line said:
You're almost as bad as Jamezz with this media bias bs conspiracy theory. If the media is so biased, why has literally everyone covered the story multiple times? If bias means nit beating a dead horse, then everyone but the turds at Fox are guilty.
Click to expand...
Lol. If you can be hit over the head by a log like the video you were responding to and then say something like this I can only assume that you simply don't care about the facts.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Obama's increase is double Bush's and you attribute that to a trend that Bush started? Doubling is not a trend. Bush spent irresponsibly, but Obama has been worse by any measure. To suggest that he has not really increased spending is insane. It requires completely ignoring the facts.

BTW, just to be accurate in terms of percentage increase in the debt the three presidents you mentioned are not even in the ballpark of Roosevelt. Debt went up over 1000% during his watch, but he was dealing with WWII... AND WE WON!!!!
Click to expand...
I was not talking total debt, but increase in spending year over year. Not defending Obama, as I said in my post that both had done a terrible job. Roosevelt increased debt a lot, but there was not much debt when he started. I don't know what the numbers would be, but it would be cool to see a debt study adjusted for inflation as well.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Lol. If you can be hit over the head by a log like the video you were responding to and then say something like this I can only assume that you simply don't care about the facts.
Click to expand...

This doesn't mean they are not covering it it means they don't have the same viewpoint on it as you do.
 
You're right. It means that, in the media's view, it is okay for Hillary to tell the American public and the families of the victims that our people were killed as the result of a spontaneous uprising that we could have done very little about, when in fact she was simultaneously admitting in emails that this event was the result of a planned terrorist attack. She knew that our ambassador (who was ultimately killed) was pleading for military support which could have been delivered. In fact the military was alerted but ordered to "Stand Down" by the Hillary Clinton led State Department. You and the media apparently have no problem with that. I do.
 
Stoked said:
I wish Clinton had no shot but don't count her out. The Clintons are political powerhouses.
Click to expand...

Republicans won't vote for her. 70% of women won't vote for her. Many democratic males who hate that she lied about Benghazi won't vote for her. Others who generally just hate her aura won't vote for her.

No shot.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Your underestimating how much the media wants Clinton. She will be the nominee, and the vast majority of people will never even know that her honesty is even an issue. They will instead perceive that her opponent is mean and desperate for bringing it up repeatedly.

Check out this exchange between Charlie Rose and Rubio. How is it possible that Rose is so oblivious to this story? It's because the media is willingly ignoring it in order to support Hillary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4shcPbpoGU
If you think the media is going to start reporting the actual story at this point even though the facts are available to anyone who wants to look a them, you are going to be proven wrong.
Click to expand...


Read what I wrote to Stoked.

In short, I've never heard so much absolute contempt (without any opposing support) for a candidate.
 
Cunning Linguist said:
Republicans won't vote for her. 70% of women won't vote for her. Many democratic males who hate that she lied about Benghazi won't vote for her. Others who generally just hate her aura won't vote for her.

No shot.
Click to expand...

It also depends on who she is running against. If it is Trump than more women will vote for her and Latinos will flock to her.

I never count a Clinton or Bush out till it is official. I REALLY want you to be right.
 
Stoked said:
It also depends on who she is running against. If it is Trump than more women will vote for her and Latinos will flock to her.

I never count a Clinton or Bush out till it is official. I REALLY want you to be right.
Click to expand...

LOL. Trump? Dude has zero shot. ZERO.
 
Cunning Linguist said:
Read what I wrote to Stoked.

In short, I've never heard so much absolute contempt (without any opposing support) for a candidate.
Click to expand...
I hope you're right. I'm not seeing it the same way as you at all. I do think that if the media turned on Clinton (simply by publicizing what we already know) she would not have a prayer.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I hope you're right. I'm not seeing it the same way as you at all. I do think that if the media turned on Clinton (simply by publicizing what we already know) she would not have a prayer.
Click to expand...

I'll put it another way. Go out and ask 50 people if they would vote for her. Come back with your results.
 
This is crazy guys. People may dislike hillary, but they dislike the other candidates way more. Unless someone like mitt or Joe Biden comes into the race, it's an inevitability that hillary will be the next president. If you can't see this, you are lying to yourselves.

*don't take this as me supporting hillary. I don't support her. Just being realistic.
 
Cunning Linguist said:
I'll put it another way. Go out and ask 50 people if they would vote for her. Come back with your results.
Click to expand...
I'm in Utah so it really wouldn't matter if I asked 10,000 people who they will vote for. The Republican candidate will win this state. But based on the polling I've seen Hillary has an excellent chance to win in that handful of states that matter. (Electoral college is such a stupid way to do this.)
 
I am in rural Utah and the number of Sanders supporters surprises me. He won't win here but they are far more numerous than I thought.
 
Stoked said:
I am in rural Utah and the number of Sanders supporters surprises me. He won't win here but they are far more numerous than I thought.
Click to expand...

You live in a college town. Not really surprising a lot of people feel the bern.
 
b_line said:
This is crazy guys. People may dislike hillary, but they dislike the other candidates way more. Unless someone like mitt or Joe Biden comes into the race, it's an inevitability that hillary will be the next president. If you can't see this, you are lying to yourselves.

*don't take this as me supporting hillary. I don't support her. Just being realistic.
Click to expand...
Fwiw I believe the latest poll shows her losing to all of the major republican candidates except for Trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top