What's new
By:
Filters

If Trump dodges debates...

who so far has 0 history
Click to expand...

Exactly, as opposed to Hillary who does have a history in politics, a history of nation building and pushing to change regimes in foreign countries. I'm not saying that Trump is the savior or anything close to it, all I'm saying is that we're not going to get the "change" that people are hoping for with Hillary, if by change we're talking about moving away from the establishment's interests. You just need to see where she has been getting money from for her campaign:

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career

Citigroup Inc
JPMorgan Chase & Co
Goldman Sachs
Morgan Stanley
Bank of America

Hillary "Wall Street" Clinton. It's BS.


With Trump comes doubt. With Hillary comes someone who you know for sure is going to put Wall Street's interests in front of the people's, just based on who is supporting her campaign. If you don't see that she's driven by special interests then we might as well just move on Broncster.
 
Broncster said:
First of all I am not claiming she is an honest person or even an honest politician. I am saying she has been more honest than other presidential candidates this year and in recent elections. The only objective way to judge how honest they are (to me) is by their statements they have made during their campaign. It is easy to prove if the facts they state are true or not. There are multiple independent non-biased organizations that analyze the data for their statements. I provided a few links for those but there are others.

I suppose if you think their statements dont make them honest or not then I guess it is completely arbitrary information and data. What people say is what I base their honesty over though.
Click to expand...

You must have posted your links elsewhere. I don't see them here. Again an "unbiased statistically analysis"(lol) does not exist. You said it does you provide it.
 
Broncster said:
Clinton has lied, so has everyone on this planet including you and me. But it is a factual statement that she is the most honest candidate we have had in quite awhile. More honest than Trump, Bernie, any Bush or pretty much any candidate the past few elections. Labeling her as a liar above other candidates is false. I'm purely going off facts not my opinion or anyone else's. Sorry if facts disagree with what you feel.
Click to expand...
There is not some sort of commission on honesty who could possibly quantify what you are claiming. What we do know is that Clinton has been caught in many, many lies.
 
Broncster said:
Also just watched 10 sec of that video and it's pretty easy to see it is not "facts" it's a video made to make Clinton look bad. Also changing sides on issues does not make me dislike candidates. I have changed my mind on many things in my lifetime, it's called becoming educated and learning. I'll take actual facts and unbiased evidence over smear campaign videos. There are things I don't like about Clinton that doesn't mean she won't be a good president. There are things I don't like about everyone. There is no such thing as a candidate that I 100 precent agree with. No one should agree with a candidate completely otherwise you are probably giving into propaganda. The whole point of parties and choosing a leader is picking someone that you are going to compromise on the minor issues for the major ones or important ones to you.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
I agree that a couple of the things on the video were position changes (some which people might see as lying in order to pander). Many of the others were outright lies. Some were big, some were small.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I agree that a couple of the things on the video were position changes (some which people might see as lying in order to pander). Many of the others were outright lies. Some were big, some were small.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I didn't watch all of it. I'm not a fan of propaganda edited videos for information. Only time I watch those is when they are funny like the daily show style, but don't put any stock into their validity and assume the context and information is skewed.
 
Broncster said:
Fair enough, I didn't watch all of it. I'm not a fan of propaganda edited videos for information. Only time I watch those is when they are funny like the daily show style, but don't put any stock into their validity and assume the context and information is skewed.
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is that you only watch this sort of info if it's presented in a humorous way with a left-wing bias? Unfortunately, I think a lot of people get much of their political info in the same way.

This video is not very funny or slanted so you probably won't want to watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sskt9yehT5g
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
So what you're saying is that you only watch this sort of info if it's presented in a humorous way with a left-wing bias? Unfortunately, I think a lot of people get much of their political info in the same way.

This video is not very funny or slanted so you probably won't want to watch:
Click to expand...
No I don't get my information that way at all. I get them from good sources. I'm willing to watch a biased video for entertainment not information. It's a waste of time to watch a biased edited video for information. Just like those anti planned parenthood videos. They got people up in arms over nothing but falsified information that was proven wrong. I also watch videos from conservative sources that are entertaining, they get posted everywhere on my social media and I watch and laugh at them and take all the info with a grain of salt and assume it's inaccurate.
 
Last edited:
Joe Bagadonuts said:
So what you're saying is that you only watch this sort of info if it's presented in a humorous way with a left-wing bias? Unfortunately, I think a lot of people get much of their political info in the same way.

This video is not very funny or slanted so you probably won't want to watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sskt9yehT5g
Click to expand...


No fart noises? This isn't credible.
 
fishonjazz said:
Explain please
Click to expand...

At the DNC a Mr. Khan, father of a deceased soldier, spoke and blasted the RNC candidate. In retaliation he tweeted that Mrs. Khan didn't speak due to her religion as they are muslim. Implying that in Muslim eyes she is less.

Mr. Khan's son died in the middle east actively protecting his platoon. I wonder if vet groups will be pissed about this.
 
Stoked said:
At the DNC a Mr. Khan, father of a deceased soldier, spoke and blasted the RNC candidate. In retaliation he tweeted that Mrs. Khan didn't speak due to her religion as they are muslim. Implying that in Muslim eyes she is less.

Mr. Khan's son died in the middle east actively protecting his platoon. I wonder if vet groups will be pissed about this.
Click to expand...
Trump stuck his foot in his mouth big time on this one. His statements on the subject have been insensitive, offensive and disgusting. He just can't get out of his own way. I honestly believed there could not be a worse choice for president than Hillary, but Trump seems like he's determined to prove me wrong.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Trump stuck his foot in his mouth big time on this one. His statements on the subject have been insensitive, offensive and disgusting. He just can't get out of his own way. I honestly believed there could not be a worse choice for president than Hillary, but Trump seems like he's determined to prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

He does have a big mouth alright...
 
Jamezz said:
He does have a big mouth alright...
Click to expand...
Doesn't it seem like at this point he would have some advisors to help him think these sorts of statements through? There are all sorts of people who I'm sure want to give him their advise, but he's probably unwilling to listen.

He should have said something like, "I'm so thankful for your son's service and shattered by your loss. I couldn't imagine losing my son." If he just can't leave it without getting a dig in he could add, "It saddens me that Hillary voted for that war."
 
Here's an example of someone handling a very similar situation to the one Mr Trump has found himself in with a lot more dignity and grace.

Sent from my VS987 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Last edited:
Zombie said:
Here's an example of someone handling a very similar situation to the one Mr Trump has found himself in with a lot more dignity and grace.

Sent from my VS987 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

It doesn't take that his actions were what caused the situation.

How about not having started an illegal war in the 1st place?
 
♪alt13 said:
You must have posted your links elsewhere. I don't see them here. Again an "unbiased statistically analysis"(lol) does not exist. You said it does you provide it.
Click to expand...

I posted it once in this thread, you can search the thread or google it again, I dont really care enough to track it down again. Or just look at every/any fact checking organization that deals with this and they have all come to the same conclusion this election year with a slight variation. Some of them might lean slightly right some might lean slightly left but they all the independent ones give the same result. That is what I drew my conclusion from. If you care enough research it yourself and if you find something different I would love to see it.
 
Jamezz said:
It doesn't take that his actions were what caused the situation.

How about not having started an illegal war in the 1st place?
Click to expand...
That's true, and to be clear I am by no means a fan of Mr Bush.

The point was just to show there is another way to respond to criticism.

The way Trump has handled this makes George Bush appear intelligent and well spoken in comparison. That's just ridiculous.

Sent from my VS987 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
So what you're saying is that you only watch this sort of info if it's presented in a humorous way with a left-wing bias? Unfortunately, I think a lot of people get much of their political info in the same way.

This video is not very funny or slanted so you probably won't want to watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sskt9yehT5g
Click to expand...


This is your "not slanted" video? You realize this clearly creates the impression that Clinton was found guilty of wrong-doing when in fact she wasn't even formally charged with anything.

You want to say that this catches Clinton changing her story? Fine. But it's only unbiased through the minds of people who have a pre-conceived notion of her guilt.

You people have been mind ****ed for so long it doesn't even register anymore - it's like throwing a hot dog down a hallway.
 
Broncster said:
I posted it once in this thread, you can search the thread or google it again, I dont really care enough to track it down again. Or just look at every/any fact checking organization that deals with this and they have all come to the same conclusion this election year with a slight variation. Some of them might lean slightly right some might lean slightly left but they all the independent ones give the same result. That is what I drew my conclusion from. If you care enough research it yourself and if you find something different I would love to see it.
Click to expand...

I went through the thread but did not see it.

The truth is you made a claim that is ridiculous, that you could quantify a persons honesty. Politifact does not even make that claim. If you don't want to back up a ridiculous claim. Don't make it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top