1. #3181
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Trump said 59%, while Bernie said 51%... If they are talking about the same figures, something that Trump's campaign did not say, then politifact saying 51% being mostly true, would make 59% said by Trump, indeed a lie. Asking politifact to treat 59% and 51%, when discussing the same figures as the same thing, makes you biased... Not them... You are asking for an 8% buffer to make Trump's statement as true as Bernie's and you think politifact is biased?
    A year has passed - the number of unemployed people in that category has slightly increased.

  2. #3182
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,912
    Quote Originally Posted by DeadmanWalking View Post
    He isn't an official advisor
    As the link shows, Hannity was in a Trump promotional video. That's literally the definition of advertising.

  3. #3183
    Herald of the Titans DocSavageFan's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    86th Floor, Empire State Building
    Posts
    2,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Hannity is literally advertising for Trump. His opinion on the subject is worse than useless.

    EDIT: Also, apparently, he might not have gotten FOX approval first. Maybe.
    And the actual video of Trump's position during the Cavuto interview 2 months PRIOR to the war and his confirmed anti-war argument's with Hannity BEFORE the war doesn't even register in that thing you call a brain?

  4. #3184
    Quote Originally Posted by Tijuana View Post
    Yes. I am saying she, like all presidents before her, will need public support to continue throughout her presidency, if she wants to succeed with her agenda. Taking a long time to put away one of the worst candidates ever, makes her look weak. Support grows from support.

    I was not refereeing merely to the debate, but to the general election, as impacted by the recent debate. That's what I mean when she is taking a long time to put him away.

    To put it all a different way, people will forever say, "Yeah but she barely could beat Trump even". That will haunt her if she wins, until the next cycle.
    They are both the worst, it is only a question of which is the lesser of two evils that will run the nation. The fact he hasn't put this one away already is more against him too. As my co-worker said with emails and such she is the most beatable democrat in history, any candidate who knew how to behave themselves and knew their parties policies would of been finished by now.

  5. #3185
    Quote Originally Posted by DeadmanWalking View Post
    They are both the worst, it is only a question of which is the lesser of two evils that will run the nation. The fact he hasn't put this one away already is more against him too. As my co-worker said with emails and such she is the most beatable democrat in history, any candidate who knew how to behave themselves and knew their parties policies would of been finished by now.
    Don't confuse me with a supporter of hers. What you say is true, it matters to both candidates. But if he wins, it's this great upset by an outsider, even if it's close. That's just how it works. If she wins close, that means she is barely legitimate, since she ran against an outsider who pissed everyone off daily. She can never be the underdog, given her history and his.

  6. #3186
    Quote Originally Posted by DeadmanWalking View Post
    They are both the worst, it is only a question of which is the lesser of two evils that will run the nation. The fact he hasn't put this one away already is more against him too. As my co-worker said with emails and such she is the most beatable democrat in history, any candidate who knew how to behave themselves and knew their parties policies would of been finished by now.
    Yeah, this election isn't going down in anyone's 'Best Of' collection.

  7. #3187
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by DocSavageFan View Post
    And the actual video of Trump's position during the Cavuto interview 2 months PRIOR to the war and his confirmed anti-war argument's with Hannity BEFORE the war doesn't even register in that thing you call a brain?
    And what about when he said he supported it? Are those facts something you're ignoring.

    He said, live and recorded, that he supported the war. This is undeniable. What's hysterical is that people like you, obviously smart, are forced to defend an idiot like that. He's making you defend lies - how can you stand it?

  8. #3188
    Titan Lenonis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    14,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Tijuana View Post
    Yes. I am saying she, like all presidents before her, will need public support to continue throughout her presidency, if she wants to succeed with her agenda. Taking a long time to put away one of the worst candidates ever, makes her look weak. Support grows from support.

    I was not referring merely to the debate, but to the general election, as impacted by the recent debate. That's what I mean when she is taking a long time to put him away.

    To put it all a different way, people will forever say, "Yeah but she barely could beat Trump even". That will haunt her if she wins, until the next cycle.
    Couple of questions to help me understand:
    1) What do you mean by "put him away"? She essentially has been winning in the polls from the start, minus the post GOP convention blip.
    2) Isn't her win over Trump and the magnitude of it something that will be determined on election day? I mean, if Trump only wins one of the swing states or even none of them it'll be pretty close to an electoral landslide. Plus who knows what the popular vote would end up like as well.

    We live in a two party system that's deeply divided. I don't really see a scenario where either party would be completely dominating the other to an extent that you seem to want to see.

  9. #3189
    Quote Originally Posted by Tijuana View Post
    Don't confuse me with a supporter of hers. What you say is true, it matters to both candidates. But if he wins, it's this great upset by an outsider, even if it's close. That's just how it works. If she wins close, that means she is barely legitimate, since she ran against an outsider who pissed everyone off daily. She can never be the underdog, given her history and his.
    I've maintained that she at one point got ahold of a magic lamp and used one of her wishes to get Donald to win the nomination rather than a serious candidate who could actually win.

  10. #3190
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by DeadmanWalking View Post
    They are both the worst, it is only a question of which is the lesser of two evils that will run the nation. The fact he hasn't put this one away already is more against him too. As my co-worker said with emails and such she is the most beatable democrat in history, any candidate who knew how to behave themselves and knew their parties policies would of been finished by now.
    You are aware that most of the criticism against her has been fabricated, right? That she in fact is one of the most qualified candidates in the history of our electoral process to run for President.

  11. #3191
    Quote Originally Posted by LaserSharkDFB View Post
    Okay, let's break down the sequence of events. Noxx said there was no evidence Trump was against the war. You claimed there was and linked the timeline. I pointed out that, no, the timeline says nothing of the sort. You copypasted and bolded the bit about his financial interest. I asked if this was your evidence and pointed out why it wasn't. And now, I don't even know what you're trying to do apart from weasel out of the discussion.

    Do you or do you not claim that that timeline is evidence that Trump was against the war before it began? I've already explained why I don't think it is, and you don't get to copypaste and say 'it's got nothing to do with me, blame the author'. What is your position?
    He said

    Quote Originally Posted by Noxx79 View Post
    There's no evidence he was against it.

    I said there was and I linked proof he was against it.

    Then the argument turned into "Well he wasn't against it before it started"

    I quoted the article saying why he was probably against it, even before publicly speaking about it, which would be out of financial reasons.

    In that same quote was written

    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    There is no evidence that we could find, however, that he spoke against the war before it started, although we did find he expressed early concerns about the cost and direction of the war a few months after it started.
    Even with that quoted from the article, something I DID NOT OMIT you still some how got that I was trying to has some sort of big evidence he was against the war before it started when all I was doing was bringing up talking points in a conversation.

    Why is everything an argument with you people?

  12. #3192
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    And what about when he said he supported it? Are those facts something you're ignoring.

    He said, live and recorded, that he supported the war. This is undeniable. What's hysterical is that people like you, obviously smart, are forced to defend an idiot like that. He's making you defend lies - how can you stand it?
    You two actually agree with one another but somehow you guys got your wires crossed and started attacking one another.

  13. #3193
    Titan Lenonis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    14,390
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    You are aware that most of the criticism against her has been fabricated, right? That she in fact is one of the most qualified candidates in the history of our electoral process to run for President.
    You can't overlook her unfavorable ratings. The only thing that is preventing that from hindering Clinton is that Trump's unfavorables are even worse. If the GOP had picked a candidate with a high favorability rating we'd likely see a much tighter race, or even one where the GOP is leading.

  14. #3194
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    He said




    I said there was and I linked proof he was against it.

    Then the argument turned into "Well he wasn't against it before it started"

    I quoted the article saying why he was probably against it, even before publicly speaking about it, which would be out of financial reasons.

    In that same quote was written



    Even with that quoted from the article, something I DID NOT OMIT you still some how got that I was trying to has some sort of big evidence he was against the war before it started when all I was doing was bringing up talking points in a conversation.

    Why is everything an argument with you people?
    What do you mean 'you people'? You know it takes two to tango right? Perhaps you are part of the reason there is an argument? I know that would require some self-introspection so just ignore that I said that.

  15. #3195
    well heres hoping if the trump tries to bring up those emails again that she reminds him that bush at one time "lost" 22 million emails

  16. #3196
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,912
    Quote Originally Posted by DocSavageFan View Post
    And the actual video of Trump's position during the Cavuto interview 2 months PRIOR to the war and his confirmed anti-war argument's with Hannity BEFORE the war doesn't even register in that thing you call a brain?
    Trump said he was against the war.

    “Either do it or don’t do it,” is not being against the war.

    "we should be waiting for the United Nations" is not being against the war. Neither is "yet". Asking for a delay is not the same thing as asking for no action.

    And most importantly, "perhaps" is not being against ANYTHING.

    Yes the video registers. It's old news. I quote Politifact daily. You think I didn't know about it? You think that "perhaps" "yet" "either" are statements against the war?

    You think this matches up with Hannity's story? The story that goes "For those people that are asking me in the media, you did tell me over and over again I was wrong. And we did have passionate — but it was a respectful debate" ? Explain how "perhaps" "either or" "yet" are passionate statements against the war.

    Explain why Hannity is the ONLY person who can attempt to back this move, and he's figuratively, and maybe even literally, on Trump's payroll. Did he get paid to be in that video? Or did he break ranks from FOX to break journalistic integrity to...oh wait, he's not a journalist.

  17. #3197
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    You can't overlook her unfavorable ratings. The only thing that is preventing that from hindering Clinton is that Trump's unfavorables are even worse. If the GOP had picked a candidate with a high favorability rating we'd likely see a much tighter race, or even one where the GOP is leading.
    I agree, and I am not. It's just that her unfavorables are so unwarranted. Mostly a fabrication of the GOP - which, of course, is what the DNC would do to their opponent. It just sucks that people don't like her for the wrong reasons, if that makes any sense.

  18. #3198
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    Couple of questions to help me understand:
    1) What do you mean by "put him away"? She essentially has been winning in the polls from the start, minus the post GOP convention blip.
    2) Isn't her win over Trump and the magnitude of it something that will be determined on election day? I mean, if Trump only wins one of the swing states or even none of them it'll be pretty close to an electoral landslide. Plus who knows what the popular vote would end up like as well.

    We live in a two party system that's deeply divided. I don't really see a scenario where either party would be completely dominating the other to an extent that you seem to want to see.
    She has been winning in the polls, yes. But more often that not, it's within the margin of victory. She should be leaps and bounds ahead of him by now. Obama would be up 60 points.

    I think at this point a big win on election day is extremely unlikely for either. But yes, if that happens, of course that ereases all doubts about how long he kept it close.

    Please stop saying we have a two party system. That implies the system only has two parties, or some sort of limit to how many parties there can be. I collect third party candidate votes. I am personally up to 13 parties I have now voted for in my life. (obviously none for president)

  19. #3199
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapemask View Post
    If this debate has done anything, it has brought back my strong desire to throttle Donald Trump supporters. It's brought back that rage that I can't even find words to express regarding Donald Trump being taken seriously as a candidate. The overwhelming feeling of incredulity towards his legions of die-hard supporters.

    Listen, I don't care if you're strongly conservative or just anti-liberal. I don't care if you hate Hillary Clinton. There's a point where you absolutely cannot, with any degree of seriousness or sanity, say Trump is the "lesser of two evils" or the more qualified candidate of the two. You simply can't. And this debate shows that.

    It's not just about how he chose to behave in the debate, which included his bizarre method of insisting he was the only candidate with the temperament to be President while being the only candidate displaying the temperament of a toddler. It's not just about the fact that he lied in literally every instance that it was either his turn to speak or he made it his turn to speak, or that those lies weren't of the "I hope someone doesn't fact check that on the internet" variety of lie but were instead the "every single person of every political leaning that is listening to me right now knows that what I am saying is not the truth" variety of lie. It's not just about the fact that he went on a rampage across the media blaming every person and inanimate object in sight - except himself - for how poorly he did. It's not just about that he even then went on to lie about what he said at the debate. It's not even about how he made up an entire series of events where he was the unchallenged winner of the debate who flawlessly crushed Clinton under his boot.

    It's about ALL of these things and more.

    But the rage comes when I see Trump supporters see this stuff and just shut their eyes to it. The rage comes from seeing people who should know better support this guy. Is there something in the water? Cosmic rays from outer space? If you see the stuff Trump is doing and has done and can still say Clinton, as terrible as she certainly may be, is not the better, more qualified candidate out of the two, at this point it just says more about you than the candidates. We've passed the point where you can jokingly respond with "That just says how bad Clinton is." No, friend, that says how brokenly stupid the American people are. Donald Trump's an idiot, but his supporters were the ones who were stupid enough to put him there.

    /triggered by the way Trump's supporters have responded following his debate performance.
    It's not even just Trump supporters, it's party politics in general. Voting purely based on party results in mindlessness. Well, he's a Republican so he's the better one or vice versa. Meanwhile, those in the silent majority think, "But...they're Satan!!!"

  20. #3200
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by DeadmanWalking View Post
    I've maintained that she at one point got ahold of a magic lamp and used one of her wishes to get Donald to win the nomination rather than a serious candidate who could actually win.
    Lol, yeah - with her being the most unfavored DNC candidate in history (far more than anything in 2008) Trump is about the only one she could beat. I hate saying it, but most of the other Class of Clowns would be doing a much better job at this point.

    You know, interestingly enough, her and Trump were friends way back. And there was that call a week before he threw his hat in the ring between her and Trump. I'll redact is this qualifies as a conspiracy thing - but just wanted to point it out as a thought.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •