[Chongo]

In other news, some of the Vince Foster files have gone missing.
Missing:  FBI files linking Hillary Clinton to the 'suicide' of White House counsel Vince Foster have vanished from the National Archives | Daily Mail Online

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

And I'm quite certain I can rely on you to say them

Actually you can't. Each side has totally used up their quota for valid complaints on stupid bullshit like the Romney 47% thing, flag pins, Sarah Palin's personal life, coughing, and on and on. When every. single. stupid. non-issue. becomes a constant fight and argument and debate on the 24 hour news channels, there is no longer room for valid complaints. The volume is so high that yelling about something that actually matters can't be heard. I will not contribute to the noise.

There are so many valid complaints to make about this cycle's candidates, but here we are speculating about seizures and small hands and orange skin and facial wrinkles and tv shows? Give me a break.

Did you check the thread title of this thread?

Did you check the context of our conversation? This seems like you're copping out on actually answering me.

I can only infer from your statements.

This is your problem, and I've called you out on it several times in this conversation. Stop assuming shit about me. Stop inferring shit about me. You've assumed my party affiliation and my vote and you've tried to argue against those positions, positions I do not hold. It is not productive.

You accused me of "pretending" that Hillary was all corrupt while Trump wasn't.

When comparing candidates, if you're complaining about a quality in one candidate it would logically follow that you don't believe the other candidate carries that quality. Or should I not be inferring things?

You can quote your previous statements here, but don't pretend that your admonishment of my criticism didn't imply your favor for HRC's track record.

It doesn't. I said nothing of your criticism of Hillary, which is valid and I totally agree with. I was calling out your one-sidedness with a bullshit criticism of Trump. Now you're trying to turn it around on me. "It's okay if I'm one-sided because you're one-sided, too!"

This thread is all about why HRC would not be a good president, and when you go blasting me for not hating Trump enough, in a thread all about why HRC sucks, then saying nothing about the topic of the thread strongly implies your position.

This is a conversation, not some kind of deal where one person asks a question and everyone else answers that question and says nothing else. In a conversation, the topic can sometimes stray slightly from the first post. That's okay! That's how conversation works! Stop trying to use the original thread topic as an excuse for your bias.

I absolutely do understand the implications, and yet I still don't feel like I'm throwing my vote away. Please reread my last post if you have any questions as to why I feel that way.

Because you're completely out of touch with reality with regards to 3rd party candidates? I (and others) have already addressed that.

You defended Hillary implicitly by posting that truth-o-meter graph

No, you're just continuing to assume things.

Or are you being critical just for the hell of it, without really having a coherent point you'd like to make about the OT?

I want to see fair and balanced. I want to see honest, fact-based discussion. I don't see that from you. That's what I will engage with. That's what I was calling out.

We certainly have a better chance going down that road than choosing between Hillary and Trump (or like candidates) every four years. We're already conceding elections to highly unfavorable candidates - how do you suggest we fix that other than not voting for those candidates?

I'm not talking about what we should do, I'm talking about what will happen.

We don't need coordination - we need momentum.

And you don't get that by losing multiple elections in a row, which you've already said would happen.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

the woman is far more sick than we thought...

MUST SEE: Photos of Hillary Clinton Propped Up on Pillows | Heat Street

Oh no, pillows!

These photos do not show someone propped up. The host or person Hillary is talking to in the pix, also benefits from pillows.

The pillows are just kind of there, trying to seem approachable and feminine but not too over the top Laura Ashley. Do not denigrate the pillows.

[The Final Dakar]

The thread content seems less a case against Hillary and more 'post any conspiracy theory you got'

I say this because checking the posts of the usual suspects to see if they responded to my inquiry on the argument about Hillarys health has garnered zero responses. Perhaps they have me on ignore as well!

[subego]

I have you on ignore.

[Laminar]

There's a valid case to be made against her. Why focus on the fluff that doesn't matter?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Actually you can't. Each side has totally used up their quota for valid complaints on stupid bullshit like the Romney 47% thing, flag pins, Sarah Palin's personal life, coughing, and on and on. When every. single. stupid. non-issue. becomes a constant fight and argument and debate on the 24 hour news channels, there is no longer room for valid complaints. The volume is so high that yelling about something that actually matters can't be heard. I will not contribute to the noise.

Perhaps my take on voting 3rd party should be more palatable to you given that I am rejecting both sides. I agree with you, and am a bit perplexed on how my position, which is against the noise you speak of, did not meet your standards. It almost seems that my response wasn't noisy enough for you.

There are so many valid complaints to make about this cycle's candidates, but here we are speculating about seizures and small hands and orange skin and facial wrinkles and tv shows? Give me a break.

I'm not sure you understand my rationale well enough with this statement. It goes far beyond those things you listed - I'd be happy to expand upon it if you're willing to listen. I did not choose that rationale because I take it lightly.

Did you check the context of our conversation? This seems like you're copping out on actually answering me.

I didn't see a question in there. It was an insult on top of a straw-man argument. I can't answer questions you don't ask.

This is your problem, and I've called you out on it several times in this conversation. Stop assuming shit about me. Stop inferring shit about me. You've assumed my party affiliation and my vote and you've tried to argue against those positions, positions I do not hold. It is not productive.

Ok, then please do us all a favor and state your position and your vote so that I can clarify my statements. All you've done thus far is insult me, my opinion, and my freely given rationale for that opinion. If you do not believe I am representing yours accurately, by all means please clear it up for us.

When comparing candidates, if you're complaining about a quality in one candidate it would logically follow that you don't believe the other candidate carries that quality. Or should I not be inferring things?

Considering the entire point of my rationale is that I'm voting third party and not voting for trump, yes - your inference is wrong. I mean, perhaps we're both guilty of this considering you just lambasted me for assuming your support for Hillary given the alleged inadequacy of my criticism of Trump. I've told you I'm voting 3rd party, and I'm not certain you believe me.

It doesn't. I said nothing of your criticism of Hillary, which is valid and I totally agree with. I was calling out your one-sidedness with a bullshit criticism of Trump. Now you're trying to turn it around on me. "It's okay if I'm one-sided because you're one-sided, too!"

No, I've stated clearly that I don't believe my criticism of Trump to be bullshit. I'd be happy to elaborate on my opinion, should you still find it inadequate.

This is a conversation, not some kind of deal where one person asks a question and everyone else answers that question and says nothing else. In a conversation, the topic can sometimes stray slightly from the first post. That's okay! That's how conversation works! Stop trying to use the original thread topic as an excuse for your bias.

My bias? Again, quit accusing me of positions I do not hold. This conversation did have a particular topic that you derailed by leveling an insult on top of a straw man argument after you asked my opinion and I gave it to you.

The only thing I'm using the thread topic for is to demonstrate how ignorantly assholish you came across.

Because you're completely out of touch with reality with regards to 3rd party candidates? I (and others) have already addressed that.

Not to my satisfaction. I thought you just asked for this to be a conversation, didn't you?

No, you're just continuing to assume things.

Fair enough. Care to actually have a position then?

I want to see fair and balanced. I want to see honest, fact-based discussion. I don't see that from you. That's what I will engage with. That's what I was calling out.

Then feel free to go back to whatever troll-hole you came from. You've not offered your opinion yet despite my asking several times. If my opinion is not to your satisfaction you are welcome to debate with me to get a better understanding, and it would be customary to offer your own if you feel like having a conversation.

Who are you voting for?

I'm not talking about what we should do, I'm talking about what will happen.

Well, maybe this is another reason we're having such a problem. I'm talking about the former.

And you don't get that by losing multiple elections in a row, which you've already said would happen.

You consider electing HRC to be winning? The election, AFAIC, is already lost regardless of the outcome. At the very least, we don't need to support the losing effort.


Who are you voting for, and why?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

There's a valid case to be made against her. Why focus on the fluff that doesn't matter?

Glass houses?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I have you on ignore.

No one would blame you.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

fluff

*triggered*

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

No, I've stated clearly that I don't believe my criticism of Trump to be bullshit. I'd be happy to elaborate on my opinion, should you still find it inadequate.

Bullshit = weak, not untrue.

My bias? Again, quit accusing me of positions I do not hold.

Now you're just echoing me.

Fair enough. Care to actually have a position then?

Partisanship is obnoxious and has wrecked our (America's) ability to discuss candidates. That's my position.

Who are you voting for?

I don't know.

You consider electing HRC to be winning?

Bleh. Enough with the putting words in my mouth. Look at the context, dude.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Bullshit = weak, not untrue.

Urban Dictionary: bullshit

Bullshit means untrue. Speaking of bullshit....

Now you're just echoing me.

Don't flatter yourself. You'd have to have an opinion for me to echo it. You don't.

Partisanship is obnoxious and has wrecked our (America's) ability to discuss candidates. That's my position.

Right, so when I'm discussing the candidates, you feel it's appropriate to insult, criticize, and otherwise bemoan me like a 14 year old girl, then recuse yourself as above it all? You add nothing to the discussion except your own farts which it seems like you enjoy entirely too much. Why are you in a place where we're discussing the candidates if your position is that there is no ability to discuss the candidates? Come on dude, talk about bullshit (the untrue kind, not your made up definition of it).

I don't know.

And you accuse me of bullshit?

Bleh. Enough with the putting words in my mouth. Look at the context, dude.

The context that you're being an insufferable troll, slinging insults left and right, without having the intellectual capacity to formulate your own opinion to add to the discussion? What's funny is that by being such a self-righteous, shit spewing troll, you'll have contradicted yourself with any opinion you happen to stumble upon.

[The Final Dakar]

I'm probably missing somethings because I'm on my phone, but I don't understand why snow-I is criticizing a lack of opinions when Laminar gave both a critique of Trump and Hillary when prompted by sniw-I earlier in the thread.

[Snow-i]

Lam

I honestly believe you are voting for HRC. This is my opinion, so take it however you want.

-You're definitely not voting 3rd party (you've covered the futility of doing so)
-You're definitely not voting Trump.

I'm putting words in your mouth by inferring that you're in the HRC camp, but you assure me that this isn't the case. $10 says you are just as partisan as those you claim to hate, and you're just too much of a pussy and your pride is too important to you to admit you were full of shit when you criticized me in making an inference that logically speaking, is the only available option to you given your previous statements. That or you're not going to vote at all, which would beg the question of just what the hell you're doing in this thread.

Don't hate me if I'm right.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm probably missing somethings because I'm on my phone, but I don't understand why snow-I is criticizing a lack of opinions when Laminar gave both a critique of Trump and Hillary when prompted by sniw-I earlier in the thread.

He critiqued my rationale, and when prompted to give his own opinion on who he'll be voting for he's ignored, dodged, and bullshitted (the real definition) the answer which was just finally given as "I don't know". And he calls my opinion weak? At least I can produce one when asked for it.

I'm still trying to figure out how my critique of Trump can be inadequate if he has no opinion on who he'll be voting for. To what end?

[The Final Dakar]

Wouldn't the equitable comparison be his critique of trump versus yours? Voting is a related but seperate issue, unless you're implying he's biased. But I suspect that's why you solicited his critique of Hillary, which he did give you.

Why do you need to know how he's going to vote in order to give a substantive critique of Trumps candidacy?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Wouldn't the equitable comparison be his critique of trump versus yours? Voting is a related but seperate issue, unless you're implying he's biased. But I suspect that's why you solicited his critique of Hillary. Why do you need to know how he's going to vote in order to give a substantive critique of Trumps candidacy?

I did give a substantive critique of Trump's candidacy when answering the question of who I was voting for. It wasn't enough for him despite several offers to expand upon my opinion for him to get a better understanding, which he declined by spewing yet more insults and accusations. Yet he is unable or unwilling to answer the same question that I did which led us here, now. Yet somehow I'm the "bullshit" in this thread.

He's also criticized 3rd party, HRC, and Trump, leaving him no option to vote for without contradicting himself. His critique, therefore, is not self-consistent and/or he'll take the option which gives him no standing with which to criticize others (not voting).

[BadKosh]

Probably smuggled out in someones socks...

FBI files linking Hillary Clinton to the 'suicide' of White House counsel have vanished | Daily Mail Online

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I did give a substantive critique of Trump's candidacy when answering the question of who I was voting for. It wasn't enough for him despite several offers to expand upon my opinion for him to get a better understanding, which he declined by spewing yet more insults and accusations. Yet he is unable or unwilling to answer the same question that I did which led us here, now. Yet somehow I'm the "bullshit" in this thread.

He's also criticized 3rd party, HRC, and Trump, leaving him no option to vote for without contradicting himself. His critique, therefore, is not self-consistent and/or he'll take the option which gives him no standing with which to criticize others (not voting).

I'll take your word for it until I browse on a desktop again.

I don't understand, however, what's contradictory about criticizing all the available options yet choosing one.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Urban Dictionary: bullshit

Bullshit means untrue. Speaking of bullshit....

No, bullshit is excrement from a male bovine. Unless you're willing to accept the idea that a word can have more than one meaning, in which case it's odd that you're sticking so strictly to the meaning that makes your statement correct.

Don't flatter yourself. You'd have to have an opinion for me to echo it. You don't.

I mentioned two or three times that you continue to assume positions of mine, and suddenly you start accusing me of assuming your positions.

Right, so when I'm discussing the candidates, you feel it's appropriate to insult, criticize, and otherwise bemoan me like a 14 year old girl,

Quote me. Quote the words I used. Did I call you names or belittle you? Of course I didn't.

then recuse yourself as above it all? You add nothing to the discussion except your own farts which it seems like you enjoy entirely too much. Why are you in a place where we're discussing the candidates if your position is that there is no ability to discuss the candidates?

You seem to already have forgotten, but YOU asked me to be here. YOU asked me why I don't engage, then YOU asked me specific questions in hopes of me responding. I am here because YOU wanted me here. Don't ask me to take part is this and then get mad that I'm here for no good reason.

And you accuse me of bullshit?

I'm sorry, why do I have to know what I'm going to do come November? Why would I decide who to vote for several months before the election day - before the campainging is done, before all possible scenarios are explored, and before everyone's had a chance to full express themselves?

The context that you're being an insufferable troll, slinging insults left and right,

This isn't true and it's dishonest of you to assert it. Quote a single insult I've slung in this conversation at a person (at least one not running for president). You can't, because I haven't.

without having the intellectual capacity to formulate your own opinion to add to the discussion? What's funny is that by being such a self-righteous, shit spewing troll, you'll have contradicted yourself with any opinion you happen to stumble upon.

So let's go back to the beginning. This post, near the beginning of this thread is where you actively engaged me, asking for my opinions and responses, and promised that it would go somewhere. I relented, engaged, and here I am being called a "self-righteous, shit spewing troll" and told that "You add nothing to the discussion except your own farts which it seems like you enjoy entirely too much." by the very person that asked me to take part in the discussion.

Why don't I engage? Because to too many people here it's not about having a calm, rational discussion, it's about winning an internet argument. You don't like where it's going so you start nitpicking definitions of words; you don't respond to my posts, you level untrue accusations and childish insults. The whole conversation devolves into the need to win a point-by-point argument so in-depth that no one actually remembers where it started and everyone's pissed off and yelling at each other.

I don't know if you're purposely lying, if you're trying to convince yourself that I'm a bad person, or if you actually believe the things you've said about me (namely: "you're being an insufferable troll, slinging insults left and right"), but it makes it clear that there's no quality discussion to be had with you. If you don't have the capacity for honest self-evaluation and instead just need to prove someone else wrong, we'll never get anywhere. I tried spinning my wheels for years before it became apparent that most people don't want to have their views questioned, only validated, and they'll get angry when that doesn't happen.

So thanks for reminding me not to engage and ruining my hope of there being a worthwhile discussion to be had.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

In other news, some of the Vince Foster files have gone missing.
Missing:  FBI files linking Hillary Clinton to the 'suicide' of White House counsel Vince Foster have vanished from the National Archives | Daily Mail Online

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Probably smuggled out in someones socks...

FBI files linking Hillary Clinton to the 'suicide' of White House counsel have vanished | Daily Mail Online

Sandy Burgler's ghost?

[BadKosh]

And nobody seems to care/understand the pay-for-access scandal, Hillary denying it even with the email evidence trail, and how her incompetent judgement to HAVE an unencrypted insecure server and how it may have caused some folks to be killed. Where does the Clinton Foundation stop and the Dept of State begin?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

And nobody seems to care/understand the pay-for-access scandal, Hillary denying it even with the email evidence trail, and how her incompetent judgement to HAVE an unencrypted insecure server and how it may have caused some folks to be killed. Where does the Clinton Foundation stop and the Dept of State begin?

Who said this?

"These allegations are both persistent and disturbing," the two leaders said in a joint statement. "We have no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, but the seriousness of the allegations, and the weight of circumstantial information, compel an effort to establish the facts

[BadKosh]

Thomas S. Foley, the House Speaker, and George J. Mitchell, the Senate Democratic leader? 1991.

[BadKosh]

Slightly off topic...

Obama Admin Won’t Tell Congress How It Paid Iran $1.3 Billion

[BadKosh]

Hillary is JUST TOO IMPORTANT (in her own little baseball sized head).

Commercial flights are too ‘burdensome’ for Clinton | New York Post

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Thomas S. Foley (D), the House Speaker, and George J. Mitchell, the Senate Democratic leader? 1991.

This was in regards to the original "October Surprise" when it was alleged that GHW Bush was secretly flown on an SR71 to Paris to cut a deal with Ayalollah Khomeini to hold the hostages until after the election.

[BadKosh]

Except Bush isn't qualified to be the GIB as his duty is fuel balancing and back-up monitoring of the systems on the SR's. Ignorants will believe anything. The support air refueling and such has lots of folks involved, who could have talked. Air Traffic Control?

[The Final Dakar]

Well, looks like hell froze over:

[subego]

I feel the need to balance "good on her" with "gee, it's not like you needed to be backed into a corner or anything".

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I feel the need to balance "good on her" with "gee, it's not like you needed to be backed into a corner or anything".

Oh, giving her shit for taking this long is completely valid. Or zero credit. I mean, she pretty much tried every other approach before capitulating. Politics at its finest.

Which reminds me, before this (and Trump calling her a bigot) I thought she was having her worst week in a while and him his best. Curious to see whether polls reflect my views next week.

[BadKosh]

Hillary's bad judgement seems to be her main problem her whole life. Well, that and her lack of ethics, character, and morals. Just SAYING she's sorry won't fix that.

[Chongo]

Assange vows more email in the near future.


It look like someone is worried.
Julian Assange assassination attempt fears after man spotted scaling Ecuadorian Embassy walls - Mirror Online

[Chongo]

Hillary's "ethics" agreement.

[BadKosh]

What happened to the page she signed?

[The Final Dakar]

It occurs to me that if Hillary sitting on pillows and needing help to go up stairs is disqualifying for some, I wonder how they would have felt about FDR.

[BadKosh]

He rolled himself around most of the time. He had leg braces so he could stand at a podium and had some really strong Secret Service guys to help him otherwise.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It occurs to me that if Hillary sitting on pillows and needing help to go up stairs is disqualifying for some, I wonder how they would have felt about FDR.

Most of the public had no idea he was in a wheelchair.
http://ideas.time.com/2013/07/12/the...et-disability/

As for incriminating images, it took far more than a “gentlemen’s agreement” for the FDR administration to discourage photos and newsreel film of the president in his wheelchair. Rather, the Secret Service used force. As Editor & Publisher reported in 1936, if agents saw a photographer taking a picture of Roosevelt, say, getting out of his car, they would seize the camera and tear out the film. “By what right they do this I don’t know,” the correspondent wrote, “but I have never seen the right questioned.” A 1946 survey of the White House photography corps confirmed this, finding that anyone the Secret Service caught taking banned photographs “had their cameras emptied, their films exposed to sunlight, or their plates smashed.”

I doubt MSNBC regularly mentions that Hillary had a clot in her brain and has to take Coumadin for the rest of her life.

[Chongo]

Huma gots some splainin' to do. Her mother still runs the publication.
Hillary Clinton staffer's magazine claims Jews 'adept at working political system' | Daily Mail Online

[subego]

News Flash: all the money we give to Israel doesn't just happen.

[BadKosh]

Or that money that went to Iran....

[subego]

We give significantly less to Iran.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

No, bullshit is excrement from a male bovine. Unless you're willing to accept the idea that a word can have more than one meaning, in which case it's odd that you're sticking so strictly to the meaning that makes your statement correct.

I don't particularly want to argue semantics with you any longer - I don't think we'll get anywhere. I've never heard it to mean anything other than "untrue" but I will take your word for it.

I mentioned two or three times that you continue to assume positions of mine, and suddenly you start accusing me of assuming your positions.

Suddenly? I made that accusation several posts back.

Quote me. Quote the words I used. Did I call you names or belittle you? Of course I didn't.

I don't need to be quoting words for you that are on this very page. If you don't believe you insulted me by saying "....stop pretending..." and calling my view "bullshit" among other slights, I can't help you here.

You seem to already have forgotten, but YOU asked me to be here. YOU asked me why I don't engage, then YOU asked me specific questions in hopes of me responding. I am here because YOU wanted me here. Don't ask me to take part is this and then get mad that I'm here for no good reason.

Well, are you here for a reason? I wanted you here to get your take, offer mine, and find common ground to move the discussion forward with. During step 2, you called my opinion "bullshit" and did not leave any room to further discuss the topic. Thus, the discussion broke down and now you act as if I somehow owe you something for your presence.

I offer my opinion, truthful and with the knowledge that not everyone will see things the same way I do.

I'm sorry, why do I have to know what I'm going to do come November? Why would I decide who to vote for several months before the election day - before the campainging is done, before all possible scenarios are explored, and before everyone's had a chance to full express themselves?

If that is the case, then how are you so certain that my take on Trump is "bullshit" without all possible scenarios being explored? Specifically, the scenario in question. Perhaps I am misjudging you, but exploring the scenarios seems far from your purpose in this thread.

This isn't true and it's dishonest of you to assert it. Quote a single insult I've slung in this conversation at a person (at least one not running for president). You can't, because I haven't.

You can't complain about one candidate telling "bold face lies" while pretending that the other candidate is not guilty of not only more lies, but more egregious and blatant lies.

Your accusation that I am pretending to do anything is the proper definition of bullshit.

I'm not saying that just because you don't agree with me, I'm saying that because it's obvious.

No, you were saying it because you don't agree with me. Do not presume to insult me by implying "I can't see the obvious" when it's clear you haven't the slightest interest in what my position really is.


Satisfied?

So let's go back to the beginning. This post, near the beginning of this thread is where you actively engaged me, asking for my opinions and responses, and promised that it would go somewhere. I relented, engaged, and here I am being called a "self-righteous, shit spewing troll" and told that "You add nothing to the discussion except your own farts which it seems like you enjoy entirely too much." by the very person that asked me to take part in the discussion.

And you're wondering why it didn't go anywhere? You rejected my opinion outright, had no interest in exploring it further, and called me "partisan to a fault" because my views aren't what you want them to be.

Why don't I engage? Because to too many people here it's not about having a calm, rational discussion, it's about winning an internet argument. You don't like where it's going so you start nitpicking definitions of words; you don't respond to my posts, you level untrue accusations and childish insults. The whole conversation devolves into the need to win a point-by-point argument so in-depth that no one actually remembers where it started and everyone's pissed off and yelling at each other.

So do you want to take it back a level and try again? We got hung up on my criticism of Trump. I would be happy to elaborate on it further for you, so perhaps you can gain and understanding of why I don't believe my criticism of Trump to be "weak".

You were the one that called my opinion "bullshit", so if you don't want the conversation to devolve perhaps you need to think about your word choice a bit harder next time. I don't know many people that wouldn't consider that an insult in it of itself.

I don't know if you're purposely lying, if you're trying to convince yourself that I'm a bad person, or if you actually believe the things you've said about me (namely: "you're being an insufferable troll, slinging insults left and right"), but it makes it clear that there's no quality discussion to be had with you. If you don't have the capacity for honest self-evaluation and instead just need to prove someone else wrong, we'll never get anywhere.

I have more than the capacity, I have the desire. I feel it's a reasonable conversation partner I lack now.

I tried spinning my wheels for years before it became apparent that most people don't want to have their views questioned, only validated, and they'll get angry when that doesn't happen.

There's a large difference between "questioning" my views and dismissing them outright with prejudice. I welcome the former, you've only offered the latter.

So thanks for reminding me not to engage and ruining my hope of there being a worthwhile discussion to be had.

Take your ball and go home. I don't think you ever hoped for worthwhile discussion, else you'd have discussed my view with me rather than shit all over it.

Again, I will be happy to elaborate on our disagreement of my criticism of Trump, but you've got to demonstrate your willingness to have a conversation about it instead of "calling me out".

[BadKosh]

Bwa-haa-haa-haa! This IS gonna be a nasty fall.

VIDEO=> KKK Grand Dragon Endorses Hillary Clinton

[subego]

Down! Goes! Pinsky!

[BadKosh]

Thats like 2 days old now.

[subego]

That joke never gets old.

Unlike Robert Byrd...




Zing!

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Perhaps I feel Trump is better suited as an entertainer, and has brought that paradigm to his campaign. His positions are that of a reality TV star's - and this is what I take issue with. I don't believe there is any seperation between "Reality TV" Trump and "Presidential Candidate" Trump - I find that to be disturbing for a great many reasons.

How he chooses his positions may be that of a reality tv star, but those positions themselves are not.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

We could start a whole new thread on why voting for Hillary is anything but pragmatic, but I'll digress to answer your accusation more generally - the phenomenon that got us Trump & Hillary is exactly what you've described - pragmatic and completely unprincipled. At a certain point, how much of your princeple are you willing to sacrifice in the name of pragmatism? All of it? Sure seems that way. It's almost like you're saying "Don't let horrible be the enemy of atrocious".

You're completely wrong on the GOP side. There was nothing pragmatic about a vote for Trump. It was completely based on principle.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Last I checked we still had a constitution & Congress was still the ruling legislative body of the land. Congressionals like to win their elections.

Last time I checked Congress was held by the party that wants to cut the social safety net and sees equality for minority groups as special tights. The President is the only check against that I have a direct vote for.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I am saying that. Perhaps that's where your confusion with my point is coming from.

And I'm saying that as someone who identifies as conservative your avoiding criticizing any of content of the 'conservative' parties nominee or platform comes off as at best lazy and at worst cowardly.

Trump is not a freak occurrence. He is a political reality: His views are very popular with a large, active subset of the republican party. The more republicans and conservatives that disavow him, the greater the chance for there to be real change within the party.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

He rolled himself around most of the time. He had leg braces so he could stand at a podium and had some really strong Secret Service guys to help him otherwise.

So if Hillary rolled herself around in a wheel-chair and got stronger people to help her, you'd be fine then?

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Most of the public had no idea he was in a wheelchair.

So you're saying if she kept her health secret it'd be better somehow? Or that FDR was a big fat liar who could never get elected otherwise? A third option, perhaps.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I doubt MSNBC regularly mentions that Hillary had a clot in her brain and has to take Coumadin for the rest of her life.

As someone who knows he'll be on Coumadin in the future, is being on a blood thinner some kind of big deal I don't know about?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

How he chooses his positions may be that of a reality tv star, but those positions themselves are not.

The how leads to the what, since if he used another method he would end up with different positions. A distinction without a difference. I find the positions equally as revolting as the the "how", but the "how" comes first so in my mind it's the source of the problems. I don't believe for a second they are genuine positions, and the method used to choose them to be even less genuine.

You're completely wrong on the GOP side. There was nothing pragmatic about a vote for Trump. It was completely based on principle.

A principle that I support that was horribly misguided and led to the opposite of what I was hoping for.

Last time I checked Congress was held by the party that wants to cut the social safety net and sees equality for minority groups as special tights. The President is the only check against that I have a direct vote for.

The sky would not fall under a Trump presidency. On the other hand, no progress would be made and it's likely that in some areas we would move backwards until the increasingly progressive country forces a course correction.

And I'm saying that as someone who identifies as conservative your avoiding criticizing any of content of the 'conservative' parties nominee or platform comes off as at best lazy and at worst cowardly.

I am not avoiding anything Dakar. My views do not have to be your views for them to be valid and/or true, whether they concern Trump or not. "Lazy and/or cowardly"? **** off. The only lazy and/or cowardly stances in this thread are you and Lam completely dismissing my opinion, instead of discussing, for what I can only assume at this point is a fear that I might actually make a valid point. Unless, that is, either of you would like to take me up on my offer to discuss my view further.

This is on top of me explicitly not supporting Trump. I will ask you again, point blank, a question neither you or Lam has been able to answer. Why is it so important that I criticize Trump to your standards when I've already committed my vote elsewhere?

Trump is not a freak occurrence. He is a political reality:

You can be both - they are not mutually exclusive.

His views are very popular with a large, active subset of the republican party. The more republicans and conservatives that disavow him, the greater the chance for there to be real change within the party.

I've disavowed him, yet you still call my viewpoints "lazy and/or cowardly". I'm sure as shit not voting for Hillary, who in my mind is an embodiment of everything the DNC claims to be fighting against. I don't believe there is any room for discussion with you - either with you or against you. Ironically, this folly of a paradigm is extremely Trump-esque and exactly the sort of illogical tripe that my position highlights and criticizes.