Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Draignean]

t. smug liberal jackass

I've never seen anyone hide behind so many strawmen. Everything you say is a gross exaggeration of a gross exaggeration. Even the Hillary campaign was more honest than you.

Chill dude. Don't resort to name calling. Not cool.

His entire response was nothing BUT name calling!

Show me where in his his response he was name calling, because I sure as hell can't see any.

In this order. Please excuse the paraphrasing.
"You're a bigot!"
"You have no self restraint!"
"You have no self restraint!"
"I don't have to back up my wild claims!"
"Since I can't back up my wild claims, you are just as bad as you say I am!"
"You're a bigot that voted for a bigot!"
"Nuh-uh! You!"
"I'm shocked, SHOCKED that you would insinuate I'm not the saint I portray myself as! You're crazy!"
"YES! You are bad people that want to throw innocent people out on the streets, but when did I ever say that? You see, unlike you, I sit down, listen to, and discuss things rationally, and without name-calling. This is why when you say I'm Satan, you're actually talking about yourself."

Chill. He didn't actually make direct references that much. The biggest name-calling he did was the "pocket-universe of insanity" comment.

No, your paraphrasing should not be excused. He was passionate and wrote with very little in the way of level thinking, but he made the token effort to not make direct accusations. For the first part. Which kind of fell down in the second half. ANYWAY, paraphrasing his point denudes it of context and makes it much more bitchy and stupid than it was.

I'm not saying he handled that well, personally I feel the more quotes a person has during their rebuttal the more they've gotten into the wrong mindset, but you can't fight fire with fire, and you certainly can't fight it with even worse fire. Seriously, let the man chill out. Literally no argument has ever been resolved peaceably with the phrase "smug [BELIEF] jackass".

Also, PTW Ameripol.

[Rolan7]

velkommen

You guys still pushing the racist, sexist thing?

Trump got 1/3 of the minority vote and 1/2 of the female vote. He also got the majority of the white vote who previously voted for Obama.

Keep in mind that this is "half" as in 42% vs 54%.
IE surprisingly close, but still a 12% gap.
And not actually half by any definition, come to think of it.

[MasterFancyPants]

You guys still pushing the racist, sexist thing?

Trump got 1/3 of the minority vote and 1/2 of the female vote. He also got the majority of the white vote who previously voted for Obama.

Because minorities voting for a racist ceases to make them racist? Women voting for a sexist ceases to make them sexist?

Unlikely you support someone who hates you.

As if that means a thing.  Republicans vote Republican.  Scared people vote whatever.  People who believes lies will vote against Clinton.
People do not have perfect information.  Internalized oppression is very real.

I still don't think he was that racist, but that is the shittiest argument against it.

Only a ton of Obama voters voted Republican (not so much Republican as they voted Trump)
Who is scared and of what exactly? I, personally, was concerned over the refugee situation, for economic reasons. I was concerned over gun rights. I wasn't scared though. I guess I was a little scared that Clinton seemed to want to start another Cold War with Russia.
What lies? The Emails? The Child Rapist thing? That she once supported a boarder wall? She is opposed to DC vs Heller? Those are all real?

[martinuzz]

Hey dude anarchism isn't the EVILZ.

True in the philosophical sense. Nothing wrong with no one ruling anyone. "Anarchists" as a denominator for destructive elements amongst demonstrations is more commonly used nowadays though than it is for politological discussions.

[NullForceOmega]

Can we not dive into conspiracy theories?  Especially ones that require the people running the voting stations to ignore people physically breaking into the machines in order to alter data?  Is it so very impossible to accept that the U.S. has a greater degree of conservative leaning than you thought?  Is it impossible to see that calling people bigoted, racist, and sexist might make them not want to vote for you?  Is it impossible to see that someone saying, "This was a great country, and if you elect me it can be great again!" to a bunch of downtrodden angry people might appeal to them?

[Neonivek]

Unlikely you support someone who hates you.

Ok lets put it another way.

Trump won those people over IN SPITE of the fact that he is racist, and sexist, and is a bigot, and is morally bankrupt, and has a VP nobody likes...

Because people chose "Make American Great Again", they didn't chose the racism part of what Trump said.

Well ok sort of... A lot of Americans were for the racism part...

[martinuzz]

If voting software were to be rigged, I hardly think it would be done by people walking up to the voting machines with a USB stick. It would be done by those who programmed it in the first place. Which is why I asked if the source was open to public, and which company (/-ies) wrote it? Who are those companies' major shareholders? Those are questions I would expect to have at least been asked and investigated during the whole setup of the elections.

[MasterFancyPants]

Can we not dive into conspiracy theories?  Especially ones that require the people running the voting stations to ignore people physically breaking into the machines in order to alter data?  Is it so very impossible to accept that the U.S. has a greater degree of conservative leaning than you thought?  Is it impossible to see that calling people bigoted, racist, and sexist might make them not want to vote for you?  Is it impossible to see that someone saying, "This was a great country, and if you elect me it can be great again!" to a bunch of downtrodden angry people might appeal to them?

No, there has to be something wrong with people who think different than me. /sarcasm

I do think a great thing for Trump to do at this point would be to still push for a more in-depth look at voter fraud. While agreeing to turn the presidency over to Clinton if she did somehow win.

[Frumple]

Did that ever actually happen? Last I heard was "suspense", and then nothing else even up 'till election day.

Unlikely you support someone who hates you.

Not really. Even some LGBT folks voted for trump or R and they have hate for that particularly demographic writ right into their platform. It's actually pretty easy to get someone who hates you to support for you. Say you're going to attack something else they hate more. Their dislike will handle any cognitive dissonance.

[TheBiggerFish]

If voting software were to be rigged, I hardly think it would be done by people walking up to the voting machines with a USB stick. It would be done by those who programmed it in the first place. Which is why I asked if the source was open to public, and which company (/-ies) wrote it? Who are those companies major shareholders? Those are questions I would expect to have at least been asked and investigated during the whole setup of the elections.

That too, and a majority of the people who could went "nonononono you can't see it nope nope nope".

[NullForceOmega]

Those machines and their programs are vetted by the U.S. government, and are inspected prior to the elections.  In order for them to have been altered in such a way indicates a conspiracy of titanic proportions, which while not impossible is so unlikely as to be laughable.

[hector13]

You guys still pushing the racist, sexist thing?

Trump got 1/3 of the minority vote and 1/2 of the female vote. He also got the majority of the white vote who previously voted for Obama.

Because minorities voting for a racist ceases to make them racist? Women voting for a sexist ceases to make them sexist?

Unlikely you support someone who hates you.

That's not explaining how Trump is neither racist or sexist. How does the opinions of the groups you mention mean Trump has not indulged in racist or sexist rhetoric during the campaign?

[Neonivek]

Ok lets just nip this argument in the bud and give the most EXTREME yet factual example

Hitler... Hitler was Anti-Semitic... He didn't hide it, he spoke to at length.

So with that in mind he must have been notoriously unpopular with the Jew population right?

Nope! A lot of them voted and supported him.

Thus should our conclusion be that Hitler wasn't Anti-Semitic?

Edit: Just incase there is confusion... NO! I am not comparing Trump to Hitler. Trump is a pragmatist.

[Rolan7]

...Jeez, I wish that was surprising.

You guys still pushing the racist, sexist thing?

Trump got 1/3 of the minority vote and 1/2 of the female vote. He also got the majority of the white vote who previously voted for Obama.

Because minorities voting for a racist ceases to make them racist? Women voting for a sexist ceases to make them sexist?

Unlikely you support someone who hates you.

As if that means a thing.  Republicans vote Republican.  Scared people vote whatever.  People who believes lies will vote against Clinton.
People do not have perfect information.  Internalized oppression is very real.

I still don't think he was that racist, but that is the shittiest argument against it.

Only a ton of Obama voters voted Republican (not so much Republican as they voted Trump)
Who is scared and of what exactly? I, personally, was concerned over the refugee situation, for economic reasons. I was concerned over gun rights. I wasn't scared though. I guess I was a little scared that Clinton seemed to want to start another Cold War with Russia.
What lies? The Emails? The Child Rapist thing? That she once supported a boarder wall? She is opposed to DC vs Heller? Those are all real?

Haha, gun control?  I wish you'd visited this thread earlier, you could have been enlightened.  Trump was speaking *absolute nonsense* when he said she wanted to take your guns.  Much like Republicans claimed against Obama.  Her actual agenda was simply closing loopholes NOTHING MORE.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm

Clinton wanting to start a cold war is so incredibly unfounded that I can't even imagine what could possible convince you otherwise.  Meanwhile Trump literally suggested using nuclear weapons.  But he's vapid and flippant, so let's assume that his handlers will stop him (like they cut off his twitter, which is probably part of how he manged to win).

She was investigated for years about the emails and no misconduct was found.  Colin Powell, Trump, and other Republicans mishandled sensitive data in very similar ways...  Ignored by the mainstream media.

Believe what you like.  It's like I said, rationalism is over.  My bet is we're done playing nice and going for the middle, it's now progress or bust.

[Frumple]

Those machines and their programs are vetted by the U.S. government, and are inspected prior to the elections.  In order for them to have been altered in such a way indicates a conspiracy of titanic proportions, which while not impossible is so unlikely as to be laughable.

Eh, let 'em have their fun. Conservatives were doing that all year (Hell, fancy's doing it right now, heh), there can be some time for others to have a go.