Lmao I've literally never had sex with anyone besides her. It's impossible.
Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
Trump with slight lead nine weeks out (CNN Poll)
- Thread starter The Midnight
- Start date
Lmao I've literally never had sex with anyone besides her. It's impossible.
Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
Also this happens ALL THE TIME on Judge Judy. The guy's a bum and is incarcerated. The girl is a drug addict, without a job, crashed someone's car and is being sued. The grandparent somehow ended up with custody of the child.
It's a wild, weird world out there.
The girl also had STD's and now WC has STD's.
Weird you saw WC on Judge Judy.
This is in fact a very common attitude. It is part of the problem. If people won't appropriately insist on good government and care to elect honest and competent people to serve in public office, what we get is corrupt and incompetent people like Hillary, who make their position the basis of crony governance.
It seems you are confused with the distinctions of bizarre notions of what a conpiracy is, and a culture of quid pro quo embedded in a fascist overblown bureaucracy that is too big for anyone to keep track of.
Constitutional limited government on an elected representative model really only works when those representatives must be accountable to an informed electorate.
I'm trying to exist in the world I actually live in. And Trump is no kind of answer to the problems we have.
Red
Well-Known Member
Since campaigns promote their candidates using the tools of marketing, and utilize those same tools to diminish their opponents via negative ads, what is your solution for insuring we only end up with honest and competent people, as opposed to individuals characterized by the fantasy images created by the tools of marketing? Candidates are sold to the public as products. Marketing is used to convince people to purchase one candidate over another. How do we ensure we stop buying lemons?? How do we guarantee truth in advertising with politicians?? Marketing rules supreme. Are there not inherent problems with that? Like, oh I don't know, maybe lying and exaggeration?
Red
Well-Known Member
As well, marketing often uses images designed to influence people on an unconscious level. So techniques are used to sell a candidate to the electorate at a level beneath the potential voters conscious awareness. How about we knock that crap out, and actually appeal to people at a level where they are actually considering accurate information at a conscious level? How about we treat the electorate as if they were actually adults? And don't tell me because we are not adults. We could give treating ourselves with a little more respect a shot.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
This is a good post. Clinton's behavior is wrong. Everybody knows it is wrong. Some people are using the fact that she's corrupted the government in order to protect her from punnishment as evidence that she hasn't done anything we ought to be worried about. And these same people can't fathom why anybody would be worried that such a person be elected to our nation's highest office. Has she brainwashed half the nation or something? Did large numbers of American's simply forget what ethics are?
Red
Well-Known Member
In fact, more then half the electorate dislike both Clinton and Trump. Trump is ahead in that respect, but barely. It's likely that some, certainly not all, of the electorate simply do not want to put in office the candidate most preferred by the alt right and their ilk. Like myself, they may feel that is the option that poses more danger, or strikes them as the more undesirable option. You can certainly say that segment of the electorate is brainwashed, if that's the only way you can explain the situation in a way that makes sense to you, but you would be mistaken in doing that. I had asked you a question, over in the Never Trump thread. I asked is it possible you find both unqualified, but would not be disappointed if Trump won, relieved even, and is it possible I find both unqualified, but would not be disappointed, relieved even, if Clinton won. I indicated the latter does apply to me, although I probably lied, lol. I don't find her as unqualified as him. Although you did not answer at the time, not a problem, I do the same I'm sure, I do think you will be relieved if Trump wins.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
[MENTION=208]NUMBERICA[/MENTION]
These quotes won't make sense out of context... and you probably don't care... but THIS is Cyrone Torbin. FWIW.
Red
Well-Known Member
My brainwashing led me to an article suggesting the media is holding Trump to a far lower standard then Clinton:
https://newrepublic.com/article/136592/media-coverage-hillary-clinton-whack
And Matt Lauer's performance during the commander-in-chief forum two nights ago might be a prime example:
https://money.cnn.com/2016/09/07/media/matt-lauer-nbc-commander-in-chief-forum/
https://newrepublic.com/article/136592/media-coverage-hillary-clinton-whack
And Matt Lauer's performance during the commander-in-chief forum two nights ago might be a prime example:
https://money.cnn.com/2016/09/07/media/matt-lauer-nbc-commander-in-chief-forum/
They don't, really. But having jumped through some of this thread, it kind of sounds like a Cy is largely speaking sense? I actually don't know, but while Cy can be really rough around the edges and has earned his reputation as an insufferable contrarian, I'm not sure how going out of one's way to attack him personally and out of nowhere is supposed to do anything positive. I've actually found that you and Cy seem far more similar to each other than either of you are to the average poster. And I like both of you in large part.
In summation: IDK. Maybe being nice/less mean is nice? I know my way around being a jerk, but I try not to, and if I do, I try to do it more in response to something topical and less going out of my way just to **** on someone. IDK. Mostly, I don't care that much. Just some thoughts.
He has actually met me in person, so I think he knows who I am.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
part of what I'm implying here is that my snipes aren't "out of nowhere". And, fwiw, he seems to be making up a lot of character slandering stuff against another poster; I'm not sure how it makes any other kind of sense given the evidence at his disposal. Maybe I missed something, but -- at best -- he's being very ungenerous with somebody in a tough spot, and I know he can take a little hit for the sake of JFC balance.
Whatever. It's nothing I haven't seen you do a hundred times. I'm being sincere here: it's cool that you're following a different path. Mine is a less measured one around JFC.... too much measuring in most of my other communicative contexts.
Cappy_Smurf
Well-Known Member
To me, brainwashed = believing Trump to be more ethical than Hillary. This election isn't about large numbers of people supporting Hillary Clinton. It's about choosing the lesser of 2 evils, more so than most elections.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
....If I'd known he'd run through that gauntlet.....
NAOS
Well-Known Member
good post.
More subtly, I think 'brainwashed' means that you think you have a right to vote your conscience. Simply put, you have a right to vote for one of the available options; the 'conscience' argument has come to us via propaganda.
Character slander? I think it was pretty obvious the whole thing was a hypothetical joke.
Because you know the whole "WC has a baby thing" is a hypothetical to prove that government assistance programs are necessary and not just for "lazy" people.