Last Debate

[Parkbandit]

Ok... someone better at Google give me some specific numbers...

How many pregnancies need to have the opportunity to abort due to the health and safety of the mother? Is that really the biggest reason why we have legalized abortion in 2016?

I'm pro-choice, but that line of logic is as dumb as liberals saying we can't ask for someone to identify themselves with an ID before they vote.

[Androidpk]

I'm just sitting here praying for a meteor to crash into the debate hall.

[Parkbandit]

Dear Trump:

"Biggly" isn't a fucking word.

[Androidpk]

THE RUSSIANS! THE RUSSIANS!

[Parkbandit]

Hillary - "BBBUT RUSSIA!"

Didn't you use that red reset button, making everything all peachy?

[Androidpk]

I thought she was about to burst a blood vessel there for a moment.

[Parkbandit]

"Wrong"

I can't stop seeing SNL skit in my head when he does that.

[Parkbandit]

Hillary is nothing but a sound bite.

[Androidpk]

Hillary is nothing but a sound bite.

A sound bite run through dozens of focus groups.

[Androidpk]

Did you know Hillary personally killed Bin Laden?

[Geijon Khyree]

I turned this on 15 minutes ago. She's firing on him. He got smoked by the moderator on his economic plan. She torched him on the 30 year comment. Now we're going to talk about his insults towards women...he was winning 20 minutes ago?

[Androidpk]

How did she torch him on that? She's been in government for decades and has accomplished nothing good.

[Geijon Khyree]

How did she torch him on that? She's been in government for decades and has accomplished nothing good.

Hyperbole.

[Androidpk]

Holy shit, she just said 90% of donated money to the Clinton Foundation goes straight to charity programs.

[Androidpk]

Why won't Hillary return all that money to Saudi Arabia if she's such a big supporter of women and LGBT rights?

[Geijon Khyree]

uh oh. He just brought up Buffet.

[Ashliana]

Why won't Hillary return all that money to Saudi Arabia if she's such a big supporter of women and LGBT rights?

Oh, look. It's that totally nonsensical far-right talking point ... coming from someone criticizing Hillary in her debate with Trump ... who totally isn't a conservative or a Trump supporter.

How on Earth could anybody misidentify you as a conservative? Must take some pretty big ideological blinders, really.

[Androidpk]

Oh, look. It's that totally nonsensical far-right talking point ... coming from someone criticizing Hillary in her debate with Trump ... who totally isn't a conservative or a Trump supporter.

How on Earth could anybody misidentify you as a conservative? Must take some pretty big ideological blinders, really.

Yeah, progressives totally aren't interested in those topics.. :jerkit:

Try harder, loon.

[Ardwen]

Trump has rented and still rents to people from the same places you folks think Hillary shouldn't be taking money from, what exactly is the difference?

[Ashliana]

Yeah, progressives totally aren't interested in those topics.. :jerkit:

Try harder, loon.

Right. Because "progressives" totally believe that Trump -- and the GOP -- are the real defenders of LGBT rights. Except, y'know, everything that they've ever done, and almost everything they've ever said on the subject.

And similarly, "progressives" totally believe that money coming from a shithole like Saudi Arabia, actually being channeled into positive causes, like combating HIV in the third world, is worthy of criticism rather than praise. And totally isn't, y'know, the kind of ideological purity-baiting that's turned the GOP into a caricature of its former self.

And no, you definitely didn't get that talking point straight out of alt-right "news" sources like Breitbart.

[Androidpk]

Right. Because "progressives" totally believe that Trump -- and the GOP -- are the real defenders of LGBT rights.

Where have I ever said that? You're welcome to dig through the politics folder and look at all the times I've slammed the GOP and republicans over their stance on said subject, but we all know you don't give a flying fuck about evidence.

[Androidpk]

Hillary might want to check her facts on Mosul. It isn't a Sunni city. There are Sunni, Shia, Christians, Turks, Kurds, Yazidi..

[Ashliana]

Where have I ever said that? You're welcome to dig through the politics folder and look at all the times I've slammed the GOP and republicans over their stance on said subject, but we all know you don't give a flying fuck about evidence.

Okay. We'll put that aside for a moment. And the other part of my post you're ignoring? Y'know, the far-right talking point you've repeated several times on here, in multiple threads? The one that makes absolutely no sense?

https://media.giphy.com/media/11R5KYi6ZdP8Z2/giphy.gif

[Androidpk]

Which part? The part where you try to claim that Saudi Arabia is a benevolent country? Are we talking about the same country that is funding and supporting ISIS?

[Ashliana]

you try to claim that Saudi Arabia is a benevolent country?

:lol:

You're sitting here, claiming that it's somehow immoral for Clinton to use money that Saudi Arabia donated to her charity -- money that's been going to fighting HIV in the third world. To you, the program should go unfunded (or at least, with less money) because you think the money isn't "pure enough."

That money going from a regressive shithole like Saudi Arabia into a good cause is worthy of praise, not criticism. You've brought it up because you (or rather, the alt-right sites you got the talking point from) believe it somehow does or should hurt Hillary -- but all you (and they) are doing is projecting your love of ideological purity, rather than the pragmatic good that most people value over ideological purity for its own sake.

But please, tell me more about what a progressive you are.

[Androidpk]

Please show me proof that all this money is going towards these causes as you claim. I'll wait.

[Taernath]

"What will you do about Social Security?"
"Lower taxes and repeal Obamacare."

Why the fuck am I watching this?

[Androidpk]

Voting is an obligation?? :lol:

[Ashliana]

Please show me proof that all this money is going towards these causes as you claim. I'll wait.

That's the purpose of the foundation. Fighting HIV in the third world, some efforts to fight climate change, and general poverty. The Clinton foundation's status as a charity is rated by watchdog groups (https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478) like any charity is. You were saying?

[Androidpk]

That's the purpose of the foundation. Fighting HIV in the third world, some efforts to fight climate change, and general poverty. The Clinton foundation's status as a charity is rated by watchdog groups (https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478) like any charity is. You were saying?

So you've got no proof. Shocker.

[Parkbandit]

Trump has rented and still rents to people from the same places you folks think Hillary shouldn't be taking money from, what exactly is the difference?

Trump has to follow the law.. he can't legally discriminate based on race or country of origin who he rents to.

Hillary doesn't have to accept money from people she doesn't want to. If the KKK gave money to Trump.. you don't think he should not accept it?

[Ashliana]

So you've got no proof. Shocker.

Translation: You don't care about the reality, couldn't be bothered to read the link, are assuming with absolutely no rational basis that their charity doesn't do anything. Just like a "true progressive" would do. Right?

So tell me, true progressive, what, in your fantastical alternative universe, counts as "proof"?

[Geijon Khyree]

19 days..

https://days.to/election-day-in-us/2016

[Androidpk]

Translation: You don't care about the reality, couldn't be bothered to read the link, are assuming with absolutely no rational basis that their charity doesn't do anything. Just like a "true progressive" would do. Right?

So tell me, true progressive, what, in your fantastical alternative universe, counts as "proof"?

you've already proven time and time again you don't care about proof.

[Androidpk]

So when Trump questions the election results he's insane and unamerican but when Hillary complains about Russia messing with the election it's okay?

[Parkbandit]

I turned this on 15 minutes ago. She's firing on him. He got smoked by the moderator on his economic plan. She torched him on the 30 year comment. Now we're going to talk about his insults towards women...he was winning 20 minutes ago?

LOLWUT?

Are you watching the same debate? He won the debate. Easily.

Will it result in a bump in the polls? Maybe.

[Ashliana]

you've already proven time and time again you don't care about proof.

:rofl: Zero. Self. Awareness.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

[Parkbandit]

So when Trump questions the election results he's insane and unamerican but when Hillary complains about Russia messing with the election it's okay?

My favorite is all these Democrats calling him out on not accepting the election results... these are the same idiots that made claims that Bush didn't beat Gore and called him an illegitimate President for the first few years.

[SHAFT]

Why won't Hillary return all that money to Saudi Arabia if she's such a big supporter of women and LGBT rights?

Because cash rules everything around me?

[Parkbandit]

:rofl: Zero. Self. Awareness.

You keep using this in every political thread.

Let's let it go.. it wasn't accurate when you first posted it.. it's getting dumber and dumber each time.

Let it go.

[Androidpk]

My favorite is all these Democrats calling him out on not accepting the election results... these are the same idiots that made claims that Bush didn't beat Gore and called him an illegitimate President for the first few years.

Do as I say not as I do!

[Geijon Khyree]

This election is important. It has the same vibe as 2000. It's going to dictate if we continue to build America. People are going to come out and vote. I hope it's a record voter turnout.

You folks can get all partisan, triggered and trolly, but bring a bit less emotion and a lot more logic into this. I hope 4 years from now folks can all be in a better place because overall this cycle has been ultimately depressing and discouraging for how I've viewed our nation since about 1986 when I was cognitive enough to have an opinion about it.

[drauz]

Because cash rules everything around me?

DOLLA DOLLA BILLS YA'LL

[Ardwen]

Van Jones wins the debates. You Can't polish this turd. Whoo!

[Ashliana]

My favorite is all these Democrats calling him out on not accepting the election results... these are the same idiots that made claims that Bush didn't beat Gore and called him an illegitimate President for the first few years.

When I see people criticize the 2000 election, it's usually based on the Supreme Court stopping the recount on ostensibly ideological grounds. Whether or not you think they did, that's not really the same thing as believing the conspiracy theory that Trump's been popularizing because his upcoming loss is apparent. What, precisely, do you think is the reason the GOP officials in swing states he's implying will be "rigged" are speaking out? Trump's endangering our democracy in order to save his fragile ego. Even you should be able to understand that.


You keep using this in every political thread.

Let's let it go.. it wasn't accurate when you first posted it.. it's getting dumber and dumber each time.

Let it go.

Whatever you say. The board conservatives are especially feisty these days -- no doubt your blood pressure's increasing from all the salt you're producing.

[Androidpk]

Both Trump and Hillary are endangering our democracy to save their fragile egos.

[Parkbandit]

This election is important. It has the same vibe as 2000. It's going to dictate if we continue to build America. People are going to come out and vote. I hope it's a record voter turnout.

You folks can get all partisan, triggered and trolly, but bring a bit less emotion and a lot more logic into this. I hope 4 years from now folks can all be in a better place because overall this cycle has been ultimately depressing and discouraging for how I've viewed our nation since about 1986 when I was cognitive enough to have an opinion about it.

LOL.

[Parkbandit]

Whatever you say. The board conservatives are especially feisty these days -- no doubt your blood pressure's increasing from all the salt you're producing.

Says the person who probably has more political posts in the last week than anyone.

You're hilariously hypocritical.

[Geijon Khyree]

I'd not expect anything more from you PK, nor do I think any of us care.

[Ashliana]

Says the person who probably has more political posts in the last week than anyone.

You're hilariously hypocritical.

I sincerely doubt that. I'm probably up there, though. As a whole, though, this political season? Or even the last month? Not a chance. This place is typically a right-wing echochamber, as you guys tend to dogpile anyone with a dissenting opinion. And Tgo01 and PK have been especially belligerent lately. Oh, wait. No. PK's "not a conservative." Except he looks like a duck.. swims like a duck.. quacks like a duck.. Total progressive, though.

[Androidpk]

I'd not expect anything more from you PK, nor do I think any of us care.

ok?

[Geijon Khyree]

ok?

8188


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHwypvDvuFY

[drauz]

And Tgo01 and PK have been especially belligerent lately.

Seeing that you think one word answers are belligerent.....

[Methais]

19 days..

https://days.to/election-day-in-us/2016

Breaking news

[Parkbandit]

I sincerely doubt that. I'm probably up there, though.

You're probably top 3.. which makes you a bigger hypocrite than you thought.


As a whole, though, this political season? Or even the last month? Not a chance.

Who said this political season? Or even the last month? You said "Derp, derp, The board conservatives are especially feisty these days"

Notice the BOLD and ITALICS and UNDERLINE?


This place is typically a right-wing echochamber, as you guys tend to dogpile anyone with a dissenting opinion.

"LOOK AT ME! I'M A VICTIM!"


And Tgo01 and PK have been especially belligerent lately.

Like you have been you mean?


Oh, wait. No. PK's "not a conservative." Except he looks like a duck.. swims like a duck.. quacks like a duck.. Total progressive, though.

You do realize he was a gigantic Bernie Sanders fanboi, right? He hates Clinton a little more than Trump which makes you, in your limited capacity, to think "Derp, he must love Trump! HE'S A CONSERVATIVE!"

PK is almost a-political. He goes from loving the Paul family to believing Bernie Sanders does no wrong. Extreme Right to Socialism. Who fucking knows what he really is.. but he's not a conservative.

[Neveragain]

Total progressive, though.

Because nothing says progress like being in the tank for a candidate that takes money from Saudi Arabia.

[time4fun]

Because nothing says progress like being in the tank for a candidate that takes money from Saudi Arabia.

Clinton Foundation is a public foundation, not a private one. And Clinton doesn't get a cent from donations.

A private foundation that is used to give illegal campaign contributions to a public official investigating you for fraud, on the other hand, is vomit inducing.

[Methais]

Clinton Foundation is a public foundation, not a private one. And Clinton doesn't get a cent from donations.

A private foundation that is used to give illegal campaign contributions to a public official investigating you for fraud, on the other hand, is vomit inducing.

http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/1151541/84287174.jpg

[Ashliana]

You're probably top 3.. which makes you a bigger hypocrite than you thought.

:rofl: Okay. "YOU'RE FEISTY, TOO, HYPOCRITE!" isn't much of a statement. My participation over the last week's been the same as it's always been, the difference being that I've posted more than I've otherwise cared to over the past few months. On the flip side, Tgo/PK's behavior have reached amusing new levels of derangement. Most likely because of the election.


"LOOK AT ME! I'M A VICTIM!"

:lol: The place is what it is. If I didn't want to be here, I wouldn't be. While there are plenty of liberals on the board, few consistently participate in your guys' discussions, as they're never substantive. It's nearly always "Conservative buries head in sand, pretends they can't read, doubles down on evidence-free position, rinse and repeat." The funniest part is that one could easily make a defensible conservative position but either you guys--collectively--don't know how to do it, or don't care to. In my very limited praise for you, I'd say that, whatever else my opinion of you might be, you're either better at it than most of them are, or you care in a way that they don't.


Like you have been you mean?

Like I said, I don't see much difference between my participation in the arguments of yore.


You do realize he was a gigantic Bernie Sanders fanboi, right? He hates Clinton a little more than Trump which makes you, in your limited capacity, to think "Derp, he must love Trump! HE'S A CONSERVATIVE!"

PK is almost a-political. He goes from loving the Paul family to believing Bernie Sanders does no wrong. Extreme Right to Socialism. Who fucking knows what he really is.. but he's not a conservative.

Okay. It's just a totally unrelated coincidence that he parrots the same Breitbart talking points that Trump uses and reserves all, if not almost all, of his criticism for Clinton, routinely spends all his time on here arguing with liberals and agreeing with conservatives, and doesn't actually appear to agree with Bernie on basically anything, as his positions are orders of magnitude closer to Clinton's than Trump's.



Because nothing says progress like being in the tank for a candidate that takes money from Saudi Arabia.

It's hard to imagine the notion of taking money away from a hellhole like Saudi Arabia and actually funneling it into a good cause that Saudi Arabia stands against somehow being a negative, but that's where right-wing mental gymnastics have taken so many, apparently.

Politics isn't a vacuum, either -- even if you somehow think that's worthy of criticism (which I don't, and I'm both a progressive and LGBT), on the flip side, you've got a candidate who has one of the worst, most frothing anti-gay bigots as his VP candidate, and they're enthusiastically endorsed by neo Nazis like David Duke, whose support Trump refuses to disavow, to the criticism of his fellow Republicans. Why? Must be an unknowable mystery.

[drauz]

It's hard to imagine the notion of taking money away from a hellhole like Saudi Arabia and actually funneling it into a good cause that Saudi Arabia stands against somehow being a negative, but that's where right-wing mental gymnastics have taken so many, apparently.

If its pay for play, that wasn't to hard to imagine.

[Fallen]

It seems like neither candidate did anything which will too negatively effect their campaign, so this debate will likely be seen as a wash. People worried about Trump not accepting election results weren't likely going to vote for him anyway, by and large. With all debates completed, barring some major revelation or Clinton suffering from yet another health episode things should be just about settled.

[drauz]

and they're enthusiastically endorsed by neo Nazis like Donald Duke, whose support Trump refuses to disavow, to the criticism of his fellow Republicans. Why? Must be an unknowable mystery.

http://www.snopes.com/clinton-byrd-photo-klan/

[Ashliana]

If its pay for play, that wasn't to hard to imagine.

A) It's immoral to accept money from Saudi Arabia, even if that money is going to progressive causes like fighting HIV in the third world, fighting climate change, etc.
B) There's a problem with Saudi Arabia donating money to Clinton's charity because they're doing it in order to gain preferential treatment somehow.

It seems to me that you're changing the position that the right-wing talking machine's made (and PK and Neveragain have repeated), A, to B. Yes, (B) is a somewhat plausible sounding explanation for why Saudi Arabia might do that, but you're back to the question of whether evidence exists to support that claim, and further, doesn't actually address (A).

[Ashliana]

http://www.snopes.com/clinton-byrd-photo-klan/

1) I misspoke, I meant David Duke, not Donald Duke. My bad!

2) Byrd was a senator for over half a century, who spent decades trying to make amends for his racist past. When he passed away, he was heralded as a longtime supporter of civil rights by the black community, and many others. On the flip side, Duke is a contemporary neo Nazi. Which the article explains..

3) Trump is very clearly trying to pander to the subsection of racist, right-wing voters. What, precisely, do you think went into Clinton's political calculus for interacting with, and later lamenting the passing of a civil rights icon? Even a cursory evaluation of the assumptions and logic you're using here causes them to immediately break down.

[time4fun]

It seems like neither candidate did anything which will too negatively effect their campaign, so this debate will likely be seen as a wash. People worried about Trump not accepting election results weren't likely going to vote for him anyway, by and large. With all debates completed, barring some major revelation or Clinton suffering from yet another health episode things should be just about settled.

Um. What debate were you watching?

[time4fun]

If its pay for play, that wasn't to hard to imagine.

What pay? The Clintons don't get a dime from the foundation. Not only is there no evidence of play, there's not even a conceptual argument for pay.

[Taernath]

PK is almost a-political. He goes from loving the Paul family to believing Bernie Sanders does no wrong. Extreme Right to Socialism. Who fucking knows what he really is.. but he's not a conservative.

I think he just follows whatever particular section of the internet is screaming the loudest.

[Parkbandit]

Clinton Foundation is a public foundation, not a private one. And Clinton doesn't get a cent from donations.

A private foundation that is used to give illegal campaign contributions to a public official investigating you for fraud, on the other hand, is vomit inducing.

So, in your simple mind, the Clintons are running this "charity" out of the kindness and goodness of their hearts?

[drauz]

What pay? The Clintons don't get a dime from the foundation. Not only is there no evidence of play, there's not even a conceptual argument for pay.

They said that it was hard to imagine, I imagined something that would cause a problem.

[Parkbandit]

:rofl: Okay. "YOU'RE FEISTY, TOO, HYPOCRITE!" isn't much of a statement. My participation over the last week's been the same as it's always been, the difference being that I've posted more than I've otherwise cared to over the past few months. On the flip side, Tgo/PK's behavior have reached amusing new levels of derangement. Most likely because of the election.

You've probably posted more in the past week than you have in the past 6 months.

Again, you are being a flaming hypocrite.. given hour new levels of derangement mostly likely because of the election.


:lol: The place is what it is. If I didn't want to be here, I wouldn't be. While there are plenty of liberals on the board, few consistently participate in your guys' discussions, as they're never substantive. It's nearly always "Conservative buries head in sand, pretends they can't read, doubles down on evidence-free position, rinse and repeat." The funniest part is that one could easily make a defensible conservative position but either you guys--collectively--don't know how to do it, or don't care to. In my very limited praise for you, I'd say that, whatever else my opinion of you might be, you're either better at it than most of them are, or you care in a way that they don't.

Irony.. but I honestly have no praise to give you :(


Like I said, I don't see much difference between my participation in the arguments of yore.

You are doing the exact same thing pk and Tgo01 are doing, but at a much more ferocious pace.. since they've been posting like this for years and you only go nuts when you are getting "feisty"


Okay. It's just a totally unrelated coincidence that he parrots the same Breitbart talking points that Trump uses and reserves all, if not almost all, of his criticism for Clinton, routinely spends all his time on here arguing with liberals and agreeing with conservatives, and doesn't actually appear to agree with Bernie on basically anything, as his positions are orders of magnitude closer to Clinton's than Trump's.

I honestly don't understand how it's so hard for you to get. He HATES Clinton for what she did to his precious Bernie and would rather have her lose the election than to win it.

He (like most people) believes that Trump is an idiot, but the idiot is preferred to her in the White House.


It's hard to imagine the notion of taking money away from a hellhole like Saudi Arabia and actually funneling it into a good cause that Saudi Arabia stands against somehow being a negative, but that's where right-wing mental gymnastics have taken so many, apparently.

Politics isn't a vacuum, either -- even if you somehow think that's worthy of criticism (which I don't, and I'm both a progressive and LGBT), on the flip side, you've got a candidate who has one of the worst, most frothing anti-gay bigots as his VP candidate, and they're enthusiastically endorsed by neo Nazis like David Duke, whose support Trump refuses to disavow, to the criticism of his fellow Republicans. Why? Must be an unknowable mystery.

So.. you wouldn't be saying anything negative if an organization like the KKK or those crazy southern Baptists (don't remember their actual "church" name, but they hate fags) gave 25 million to the Trump campaign?

[Fallen]

Um. What debate were you watching?

You honestly think his numbers will suffer from that debate performance? If anything, he should see a slight improvement in the polls.

[Parkbandit]

I think he just follows whatever particular section of the internet is screaming the loudest.

I can't disagree with you. It's not like Rand Paul's and Bernie Sanders' platforms are that close together...

[time4fun]

You honestly think his numbers will suffer from that debate performance? If anything, he should see a slight improvement in the polls.

It's not about losing the debate- it's about losing the news cycle.

His comments about the election are already dominating the headlines, and his failure to condemn Putin along with his "nasty woman" comment just cement the opposition to him.

And now down ballot candidates are going to have to start running against him- especially since his election comment threaten the perception of their own election results with their own party voters.

Last night was a disaster for Trump. Don't be fooled be the fact that our expectations have become so low.

[Parkbandit]

It's not about losing the debate- it's about losing the news cycle.

His comments about the election are already dominating the headlines, and his failure to condemn Putin along with his "nasty woman" comment just cement the opposition to him.

And now down ballot candidates are going to have to start running against him- especially since his election comment threaten the perception of their own election results with their own party voters.

Last night was a disaster for Trump. Don't be fooled be the fact that our expectations have become so low.

You had to be using these glasses to watch the debate last night.. with the sound off.. to honestly believe that.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/18/14/315812C700000578-0-image-a-18_1455805189962.jpg

[Fallen]

It's not about losing the debate- it's about losing the news cycle.

His comments about the election are already dominating the headlines, and his failure to condemn Putin along with his "nasty woman" comment just cement the opposition to him.

And now down ballot candidates are going to have to start running against him- especially since his election comment threaten the perception of their own election results with their own party voters.

Last night was a disaster for Trump. Don't be fooled be the fact that our expectations have become so low.

None of that changes the fact that his performance wont hurt his poll numbers. Trump has had negative press over his comments since the primaries. I believe there's a marked difference between negative comments towards Hillary Clinton, and sexually charged comments against women in general. In the undecided interviews i've read, the whole Putin issue seems to be largely ignored.

I agree that his campaign has damaged those of other R's running for office, but that is part of his appeal for some of his supporters.

[BriarFox]

None of that changes the fact that his performance wont hurt his poll numbers. I agree that his campaign has damaged those of other R's running for office, but that is part of his appeal for some of his supporters.

The debate probably didn't sway his supporters, you're right. However, Hillary trounced him pretty soundly on economic and foreign policy (not to mention destroying him on abortion: that line about keeping government out of women's bodies was killer). I expect her to pull further ahead of him, having pulled in most of the undecided voters who were left.

[Fallen]

The debate probably didn't sway his supporters, you're right. However, Hillary trounced him pretty soundly on economic and foreign policy (not to mention destroying him on abortion: that line about keeping government out of women's bodies was killer). I expect her to pull further ahead of him, having pulled in most of the undecided voters who were left.

We'll see, you could be right. I've a feeling though as the 2005 remarks fade from memory his numbers will climb. They hurt him, but only for so long. People didn't suddenly like Clinton more because of his past remarks, just Trump less.

[Ashliana]

You've probably posted more in the past week than you have in the past 6 months.

Again, you are being a flaming hypocrite.. given hour new levels of derangement mostly likely because of the election.

Posting more doesn't equal being "especially feisty," but okay. You think I'm a hypocrite. How nice. I'm devastated, truly. :lol: @ "because of the election." Trump won't be winning this election. I notice you're not pulling the "let's unskew the polls" nonsense you pulled last time. Learned from experience?


I honestly don't understand how it's so hard for you to get. He HATES Clinton for what she did to his precious Bernie and would rather have her lose the election than to win it.

He (like most people) believes that Trump is an idiot, but the idiot is preferred to her in the White House.


http://i.imgur.com/TSGgwpL.jpg

Bernie's out?! Time to lurch waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over to the right, in total opposition to everything Bernie stands for!
-A "rational" mind.


Irony.. but I honestly have no praise to give you :(

It's an incredibly low bar, and you (usually) manage to just barely hop over it compared to your peers.


So.. you wouldn't be saying anything negative if an organization like the KKK or those crazy southern Baptists (don't remember their actual "church" name, but they hate fags) gave 25 million to the Trump campaign?

How does your parallel apply? We're talking about donations to the Clinton foundation, a charity for progressive causes. If Trump ran a charity that was somehow able to solicit money from the Southern Baptist Convention (what I presume you're referring to), etc., and funneled it to demonstrably positive causes, as the Clinton foundation does, or routed that money to, say, the American Red Cross, no, I wouldn't have a problem with it. It would be crazy people's money being used to effect positive change, rather than staying where it was, doing no good.

Conservatives tend to value ideological purity over pragmatism -- I get it. It's not really a criticism of you, even if I don't agree. But purity for its own sake doesn't accomplish anything. Saudi Arabia's money is far better spent fighting HIV in the third world, fighting climate change, etc., than it was sitting in the account of some Saudi prince.

[Methais]

Donald Duke

http://i.imgur.com/5iplVF7.png

[Methais]

It's not about losing the debate- it's about losing the news cycle.

His comments about the election are already dominating the headlines, and his failure to condemn Putin along with his "nasty woman" comment just cement the opposition to him.

And now down ballot candidates are going to have to start running against him- especially since his election comment threaten the perception of their own election results with their own party voters.

Last night was a disaster for Trump. Don't be fooled be the fact that our expectations have become so low.

----> Hillary http://i.imgur.com/bNROTZ9.gif <---- You

[Ashliana]

You had to be using these glasses to watch the debate last night.. with the sound off.. to honestly believe that.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/18/14/315812C700000578-0-image-a-18_1455805189962.jpg

:rofl:

Snapshot from last night's Breitbart poll.

http://i.imgur.com/WQMt8aQ.jpg

And THOSE are alt-right people voting on an alt-right site. (I checked just now, and Breitbart's poll is currently up to 52.7% think Trump won). Of Breitbart viewers. That's pretty remarkable.

[Taernath]

:rofl:

Snapshot from last night's Breitbart poll.

http://i.imgur.com/WQMt8aQ.jpg

And THOSE are alt-right people voting on an alt-right site. (I checked just now, and Breitbart's poll is currently up to 52.7% think Trump won). Of Breitbart viewers. That's pretty remarkable.

They're not actually Breitbart viewers. Some Hillary supporters or trolls got ahold of a spambot before Trump supporters did.

[Ashliana]

They're not actually Breitbart viewers. Some Hillary supporters or trolls got ahold of a spambot before Trump supporters did.

Sounds like speculation and wishful thinking to me. What makes that poll special, unlike Breitbart's polls after the other debates? Either way, everybody knows online polls aren't scientific -- but that doesn't matter to Trump, generally, as long as they're reflecting that he won. Either way, it's funny.

[Taernath]

Sounds like speculation and wishful thinking to me. What makes that poll special, unlike Breitbart's polls after the other debates?

Nothing. Remember those poll screencaps pk was furiously masturbating over? It's the same shit. None of it matters.

[Methais]

Sounds like speculation and wishful thinking to me. What makes that poll special, unlike Breitbart's polls after the other debates? Either way, everybody knows online polls aren't scientific -- but that doesn't matter to Trump, generally, as long as they're reflecting that he won. Either way, it's funny.

What happened to your mantra of "Brietbart isn't a reliable source for anything."?

[Ashliana]

What happened to your mantra of "Brietbart isn't a reliable source for anything."?


everybody knows online polls aren't scientific


Either way, it's funny.

:yeahthat:

[Parkbandit]

Sounds like speculation and wishful thinking to me. What makes that poll special, unlike Breitbart's polls after the other debates? Either way, everybody knows online polls aren't scientific -- but that doesn't matter to Trump, generally, as long as they're reflecting that he won. Either way, it's funny.


The funny part is just you at this point.

"OMG EVEN BREITBART SAID HILLARY WON SO IT MUST BE TRUE!"

"Um, some Hillary retards used a spambot to fuck the poll up"

"WISHFUL THINKING! SHE WON SHE WON SHE WON!"

So feisty...

[Geijon Khyree]

We'll see, you could be right. I've a feeling though as the 2005 remarks fade from memory his numbers will climb. They hurt him, but only for so long. People didn't suddenly like Clinton more because of his past remarks, just Trump less.

Before the first debate she had an 80% liklihood of victory in the electoral college. After the first debate it moves through 84 up into 88% through the 2nd and after the 3rd shes at a 95% chance of victory.

He has his base through the primaries and thats about all he has left. He never got beyond the narrow support ranges.

[Ashliana]

The funny part is just you at this point.

"OMG EVEN BREITBART SAID HILLARY WON SO IT MUST BE TRUE!"

"Um, some Hillary retards used a spambot to fuck the poll up"

"WISHFUL THINKING! SHE WON SHE WON SHE WON!"

So feisty...

/facepalm

Your comment to Time was essentially "No reasonable person would think that Hillary won. You must have been watching through her glasses."

You're so far from being able to support your position that even Breitbart's deranged readership -- the readership of a non-credible, alt-right conspiracy site -- don't support your line of thinking.

GOP officials are tripping over their feet trying to distance themselves from Trump's comments at the end of the debate last night. But in Parkbandit's delusional world, there must be a frenzy of people congratulating Trump on a job well done -- Right? :rofl:

I love that my "feisty" comment got under your skin so well. You're always good for a laugh.

[Fallen]

Before the first debate she had an 80% liklihood of victory in the electoral college. After the first debate it moves through 84 up into 88% through the 2nd and after the 3rd shes at a 95% chance of victory.

He has his base through the primaries and thats about all he has left. He never got beyond the narrow support ranges.

I mostly followed the debate to see if anyone did anything bad enough to seriously hurt them. I don't think this took place for either candidate.

Where are you getting your statistics? Link? I assume its 538.

[Taernath]

538 is showing AZ with slight Democrat leaning, which is surprising.

[Alashir]

You had to be using these glasses to watch the debate last night.. with the sound off.. to honestly believe that.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/18/14/315812C700000578-0-image-a-18_1455805189962.jpg

What's even more terrifying than trump is his legion of supporters. It's chilling to think anyone who attempted to objectively view last nights debate would consider that a win for trump let alone slam others for saying otherwise. I'm legitimately interested in how/why you process information so differently.

[time4fun]

538 is showing AZ with slight Democrat leaning, which is surprising.

Polling has reflected that. There have been several polls recently with her ahead, and a few polls with him ahead (mostly by just like 2 points when he is).

But his polls plus analysis still has him favored to win- which likely makes sense.

[Androidpk]

I think he just follows whatever particular section of the internet is screaming the loudest.

Yeah that's it...

:jerkit:

[Parkbandit]

/facepalm

Your comment to Time was essentially "No reasonable person would think that Hillary won. You must have been watching through her glasses."

Yes.


You're so far from being able to support your position that even Breitbart's deranged readership -- the readership of a non-credible, alt-right conspiracy site -- don't support your line of thinking.

You realize why the far right website shows that Hillary won, right? Please tell me that this isn't still too hard for you to understand.


GOP officials are tripping over their feet trying to distance themselves from Trump's comments at the end of the debate last night. But in Parkbandit's delusional world, there must be a frenzy of people congratulating Trump on a job well done -- Right? :rofl:

GOP officials tripping is why I'm voting for Trump.


I love that my "feisty" comment got under your skin so well. You're always good for a laugh.

How do you figure this? You honestly can't tell the difference between me making fun of you and you supposedly getting under my skin.. especially after you said it was only pk and Tgo01 that were being "feisty"?

[Parkbandit]

What's even more terrifying than trump is his legion of supporters. It's chilling to think anyone who attempted to objectively view last nights debate would consider that a win for trump let alone slam others for saying otherwise. I'm legitimately interested in how/why you process information so differently.

It's "chilling" to you? Terrifying?

Seriously?

You should get out in the real world more.. you delicate little snowflake.

[Kembal]

It was the best debate of the three (and Chris Wallace deserves some praise here, he did a great job as moderator in terms of steering the debate), but anytime you generate negative above-the-fold headlines about something you said in the debate, you lose. Trump's got to be the first candidate in a long time to do it for all 3 debates. If he ends up costing the GOP the House, I think it extremely likely the Republican Party ends up splitting into two. They'll have no unifying figure.

And, PB, I thought Trump sounded deranged on abortion from the get-go. I couldn't get what he was talking about, ripping babies from the womb or whatever. That close to delivery - they just deliver the baby. Unless he's really talking about some rare case where doing a C-section would kill the mother, but a surgical abortion wouldn't? (Don't even see how that's possible.)

[Ashliana]

Yes.

And I'm saying if you think Trump walked off that debate stage a winner, and did anything except even FURTHER sabotage his own already-low chances, you're a deluded ideologue that would put even a horrifying chimera of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh to shame. The debate was immediately followed by widespread criticism of Trump, including among Republicans. The fact that you not only disbelieve it, but also believe the complete opposite -- that it's "obvious he won" -- simply speaks to the level of delusion you're suffering.


You realize why the far right website shows that Hillary won, right? Please tell me that this isn't still too hard for you to understand.

Oh, look. Let's add "can't read" to the list of your many faults.


GOP officials tripping is why I'm voting for Trump.

Okay.


How do you figure this? You honestly can't tell the difference between me making fun of you and you supposedly getting under my skin.. especially after you said it was only pk and Tgo01 that were being "feisty"?

Um, no. I later listed them as examples. I said "board conservatives" in the statement you started responding to. And we're back to your inability to read..

[Tgo01]

The debate was immediately followed by widespread criticism of Trump, including among Republicans. The fact that you not only disbelieve it, but also believe the complete opposite -- that it's "obvious he won" -- simply speaks to the level of delusion you're suffering.

Here we see the creature known simply as "Ashliana" in their natural habitat, partaking in their favorite pastime; logical fallacies.

This particular logical fallacy is known as "argumentum ad populum" (also known as "appeal to popularity"), wherein one tries to "win" an argument by claiming that since so many people think the way they do, they must be right.

Let's see how Ashliana proceeds.

[Ashliana]

Here we see the creature known simply as "Ashliana" in their natural habitat, partaking in their favorite pastime; logical fallacies.

This particular logical fallacy is known as "argumentum ad populum" (also known as "appeal to popularity"), wherein one tries to "win" an argument by claiming that since so many people think the way they do, they must be right.

Let's see how Ashliana proceeds.

Quoted for posterity. Let's see how long it takes Tgo01 to realize how monumentally stupid it is to claim someone's making a fallacious appeal to popularity in what is essentially a popularity contest. If I had made the argument "more people liked Hillary's position, that means she's correct in (X) matter, or on every stance," you'd have a position. But the notion that (X) person won or lost is definitely based on popular opinion. How stupid a person be? Judging by you, monumentally so.

[Tgo01]

But the notion that (X) person won or lost is definitely based on popular opinion. How stupid a person be? Judging by you, monumentally so.

Right when I think you couldn't get any dumber you go ahead and prove me wrong.

First of all, there is no voting going on here, at least no real voting (no internet polls don't count.) You literally referenced a bunch of politicians and pundits and said "See? SEE?!?!"

No, you fucking fail already. But wait! There's more!

Even after Trump wins the election (hey it could happen!) then yes, obviously he "won" the election and is now our president, there is no denying that.

However, does this mean you were wrong to support Hillary? Does this mean your opinion that Trump will make a horrible president wrong simply because he won the election?

If you honestly believe that then you are by far the stupidest person to have ever lived and you should do the right thing and voluntarily never vote in any election ever again.

Thanks.

[Ashliana]

Right when I think you couldn't get any dumber you go ahead and prove me wrong.

First of all, there is no voting going on here, at least no real voting (no internet polls don't count.) You literally referenced a bunch of politicians and pundits and said "See? SEE?!?!"

No, you fucking fail already. But wait! There's more!

This is a straw man.


Even after Trump wins the election (hey it could happen!) then yes, obviously he "won" the election and is now our president, there is no denying that.

However, does this mean you were wrong to support Hillary? Does this mean your opinion that Trump will make a horrible president wrong simply because he won the election?

If you honestly believe that then you are by far the stupidest person to have ever lived and you should do the right thing and voluntarily never vote in any election ever again.

Thanks.

This is a non-sequitur.

The fact that you thought you were in a strong enough position to call someone else out for fallacious reasoning is hilarious... but--there's no other way to describe it (C'mon, PB, point it out again) -- you have absolutely no self-awareness. You are an imbecile. Trump will be losing. Spectacularly.

[Warriorbird]

It was the best debate of the three (and Chris Wallace deserves some praise here, he did a great job as moderator in terms of steering the debate)

It is kinda baffling to me that the main point I got out of watching it with six of my classes is that Chris Wallace was the best moderator out of the whole bunch.

[Tgo01]

This is a straw man.

Don't even try to get into a logical fallacy war with me, you will lose. You already lost.

"Straw man"? You didn't specifically refer to politicians and pundits? Really?


GOP officials are tripping over their feet trying to distance themselves from Trump's comments at the end of the debate last night.


This is a non-sequitur.

Holy shit you're bad at this, you're not even trying anymore.

You apparently just Googled logical fallacies and picked 2 at random to reply to my post with.

You are beyond bad at this.

Parkbandit: You're stupid to believe Trump did badly last night.
You: LOL! But this internet poll says he lost! Politicians said he lost! Pundits said he lost! With so many people saying he lost you're obviously wrong! LOL!
Me: That's an "appeal to popularity" fallacy, just because a lot of people think one way does not automatically make it fact.
You: But it's a popularity contest so obviously there is a winner! LOL!
Me: So if Trump wins the election you will admit he was the best person for the job and you were wrong to think he would make a bad president?
You: That's a non-sequitur.

I swear I can actually feel my brain cells dying reading your posts and trying to understand your logic. Thankfully I eat my vegetables so they grow back.

[time4fun]

Don't even try to get into a logical fallacy war with me, you will lose.

He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

[Tgo01]

He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Damn right.

[BriarFox]

Damn right.

Heh.

[Alashir]

Here we see the creature known simply as "Ashliana" in their natural habitat, partaking in their favorite pastime; logical fallacies.

This particular logical fallacy is known as "argumentum ad populum" (also known as "appeal to popularity"), wherein one tries to "win" an argument by claiming that since so many people think the way they do, they must be right.

Let's see how Ashliana proceeds.

Just because it can be a logical fallacy doesn't mean it actually is. I'm not sure Trump could cause more disaster within his own party if he were actually trying (is he?). Whether it's attacking various members or saying the vote is rigged before it's even happened, he's pretty off kilter at best and a narcissistic sociopath at worst (attempts to discredit the women claiming he groped them by calling them ugly. really?)

Popular opinion seems to be that both sides are calling this man a lunatic. If you're walking away from that debate and saying that he's a winner and the "points" he made really resonated with you, I'd worry that you have a freezer full of severed heads. Lol, joking of course, but still kinda scary.

[Tgo01]

Popular opinion seems to be that both sides are calling this man a lunatic.

That's great. That alone is not an argument. "Popular opinion" is God(s) exists. Something like 80% of the world believes in a supreme being. Do you? If not, why not? It's the popular opinion.

[Ashliana]

Don't even try to get into a logical fallacy war with me, you will lose. You already lost.

Anybody who gets into an argument with you "loses," not because you've managed to out-argue them, but because it's a total waste of time--you don't care about facts, you don't care about logic, you don't know how to recognize your biases when they're staring you in the face, you're pathologically incapable of admitting your mistakes or of any meaningful self-reflection.


"Straw man"? You didn't specifically refer to politicians and pundits? Really?

I don't need to poll anybody in order to personally reject Parkbandit's notion that Trump "obviously" won last night, especially taking into account how he's being widely criticized, across the political spectrum. You don't even understand what a fallacious appeal to popularity is. Making one requires that you base an unrelated contention upon nothing other than the opinions of a bunch of people--or a majority of people--believe it. For example: "Voter fraud is widespread! Look how many Republicans believe it exists!" -- That's a fallacious appeal to popularity, as whether or not voter fraud exists has absolutely no relationship with whether or not people believe that it does. Who wins a presidential debate, on the other hand, is a popularity contest, and those people's opinions are obviously relevant.


Even after Trump wins the election (hey it could happen!) then yes, obviously he "won" the election and is now our president, there is no denying that.

However, does this mean you were wrong to support Hillary? Does this mean your opinion that Trump will make a horrible president wrong simply because he won the election?

If you honestly believe that then you are by far the stupidest person to have ever lived and you should do the right thing and voluntarily never vote in any election ever again.

Thanks.



GOP officials are tripping over their feet trying to distance themselves from Trump's comments at the end of the debate last night.
This is a non-sequitur.Holy shit you're bad at this, you're not even trying anymore.

You apparently just Googled logical fallacies and picked 2 at random to reply to my post with.

You are beyond bad at this.

Pointing out that GOP officials distanced themselves from Trump after his performance doesn't constitute a fallacious appeal to popularity. All you're doing is demonstrating that you don't understand what the words you're using mean. Nor did I ever imply anything even remotely resembling the argument that "if your candidate loses, you were wrong to support them." You threw that in there out of nowhere.


Parkbandit: You're stupid to believe Trump did badly last night.
You: LOL! But this internet poll says he lost! Politicians said he lost! Pundits said he lost! With so many people saying he lost you're obviously wrong! LOL!
Me: That's an "appeal to popularity" fallacy, just because a lot of people think one way does not automatically make it fact.
You: But it's a popularity contest so obviously there is a winner! LOL!
Me: So if Trump wins the election you will admit he was the best person for the job and you were wrong to think he would make a bad president?
You: That's a non-sequitur.

The notion that "Obama is a better leader than Mitt Romney, simply by virtue of more people having voted for him" would be a fallacious appeal to popularity. There's no parallel here that I drew. You're making a straw man.


I swear I can actually feel my brain cells dying reading your posts and trying to understand your logic. Thankfully I eat my vegetables so they grow back.

You are an imbecile.

[Tgo01]

Anybody who gets into an argument with you "loses

QFT.


imbecile.

Bold, underlined, AND italicized. That must have cost your handlers a pretty penny.

[drauz]

Just because it can be a logical fallacy doesn't mean it actually is. I'm not sure Trump could cause more disaster within his own party if he were actually trying (is he?). Whether it's attacking various members or saying the vote is rigged before it's even happened, he's pretty off kilter at best and a narcissistic sociopath at worst (attempts to discredit the women claiming he groped them by calling them ugly. really?)

Popular opinion seems to be that both sides are calling this man a lunatic. If you're walking away from that debate and saying that he's a winner and the "points" he made really resonated with you, I'd worry that you have a freezer full of severed heads. Lol, joking of course, but still kinda scary.

I'm thinking that when he says its rigged, he might be referring to these Project Veritas videos that were just recently released possibly showing massive voter fraud campaigns by the democratic party.

[Alashir]

That's great. That alone is not an argument. "Popular opinion" is God(s) exists. Something like 80% of the world believes in a supreme being. Do you? If not, why not? It's the popular opinion.

Sure, but that's not what I was saying. I suppose it kind of looks that way when you cherry pick a few words out of a paragraph? We'll never be able to have a conversation so long as you head down semantics road and intentionally misconstrue the point of my post.

I've intentionally stayed away from these boards because they look like such a disaster and for some reason I thought I could do better. You're a smart guy and are bordering on having your own holiday named after you in GS. It's surprising to feel like I've hit dead-ends 3 or 4 posts in, especially while chatting with yourself (whom I greatly admire in GS). Bummer.

[Tgo01]

Sure, but that's not what I was saying.

I know, that's what Ashliana was doing.


You're a smart guy and are bordering on having your own holiday named after you in GS. It's surprising to feel like I've hit dead-ends 3 or 4 posts in, especially while chatting with yourself (whom I greatly admire in GS). Bummer.

Never meet your heroes, you'll always be disappointed.

What have I done to disappoint you so? I didn't even call you a bad name...yet! Is it because I think Hillary is a piece of shit? That's just, like, my opinion, man.

[Neveragain]

Clinton Foundation is a public foundation, not a private one. And Clinton doesn't get a cent from donations.


You don't know how this works, do you.

I know it's Russia's fault.

[Neveragain]

You're a smart guy and are bordering on having your own holiday named after you in GS. It's surprising to feel like I've hit dead-ends 3 or 4 posts in, especially while chatting with yourself (whom I greatly admire in GS). Bummer.

You mean people are different in real life than the characters they play?

[Geijon Khyree]

Where are you getting your statistics? Link? I assume its 538.

She's up to 96%

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/forecast/president

[Methais]

You mean people are different in real life than the characters they play?

He spells people up in real life too.

And what's this about a holiday?

[Neveragain]

As can be seen in this video, political donations have no influence.....unless of course you want to be an adviser on national nuclear strategy.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM76zDP5MMg


Fucking Russians!

[Neveragain]

He spells people up in real life too.

And what's this about a holiday?

Totally TGO:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3qPEBdYyBg