Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ahtman wrote:

squidhills wrote:
So... just a comment from Joe Biden that Romney would re-enslave black people. That was the only demonizing attack from the democrats in 2012 that you posted. And considering that Joe Biden said it, I stand by my earlier declaration that nobody worth listening to demonized Romney.

If anyone in that quote was 'demonized' it was Biden as it is fairly obvious from context, and words, that he never said that Southern style slavery was going to be reintroduced but metaphorical economic slavery. Taking a comment about economic slavery and spinning it to make the speaker sound like they are accusing someone of reintroducing chattel slavery is both stupid and mean spirited. So par for the course with some political strategists.

No... it wasn't a "reintroduction chattel slavery" argument. That's dumb.

Hyperbolically claiming your political opponent is going to promote economic slavery is very much over-tje-top and falls well within the definition of 'demonizing your opponent', and poisoning the well.

Also, consider Biden's target audience...

 whembly wrote:
We're 30 days away from the election:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Do you now see how insurmountable it is for The Cheeto Jesus? Especially since early voting has started in many parts of the country?

Especially in the case that Clinton Is Setting Up Field Offices — And Where Trump Isn’t. Trump ls losing the "Ground Game" badly.

Based on today's polls, with certain fudge factors by 538, Clinton has an 80% chance to win the Presidency.

Anyone think the next two debates will go well for Drumpf?

I don't see it....

Get used to saying Madame President Clinton ya'll.

My only hope is that the GOP retains control to both the House and Senate.

and first lady bill? first man bill? or just The Man Bill

wouldn't it just be Mr president clinton & Madame president clinton?

 whembly wrote:


Get used to saying Madame President Clinton ya'll.

My only hope is that the GOP retains control to both the House and Senate.

Considering the Senate GOP's swearing up and down that the American people should have a say in choosing the next judge by leaving it for the next President, they better get used to calling her "Thank you, ma'am, may I have another?"

Well... the Director of National Intelligence is confident that Russia (duh) is behind all the DCleak / Wikileak hacks.

This guy was right eh?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Get used to saying Madame President Clinton ya'll.

My only hope is that the GOP retains control to both the House and Senate.

Considering the Senate GOP's swearing up and down that the American people should have a say in choosing the next judge by leaving it for the next President, they better get used to calling her "Thank you, ma'am, may I have another?"

Hah! So it seems...

Doesn't mean a GOP Senate has to rubber stamp her pick. Just conduct interview/hearing and do the Up/Down vote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 whembly wrote:
We're 30 days away from the election:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Do you now see how insurmountable it is for The Cheeto Jesus? Especially since early voting has started in many parts of the country?

Especially in the case that Clinton Is Setting Up Field Offices — And Where Trump Isn’t. Trump ls losing the "Ground Game" badly.

Based on today's polls, with certain fudge factors by 538, Clinton has an 80% chance to win the Presidency.

Anyone think the next two debates will go well for Drumpf?

I don't see it....

Get used to saying Madame President Clinton ya'll.

My only hope is that the GOP retains control to both the House and Senate.

and first lady bill? first man bill? or just The Man Bill

wouldn't it just be Mr president clinton & Madame president clinton?

I'm calling him First Dude. Or, maybe First Cad.

Chelsa can carry the role of First Lady.

Actually, America, the male title that corresponds to Lady is Lord. So Lord Bill Clinton.

First Lord Bill Clinton

Hooboy...

Now we know why the DNI formally accused Russia of influencing our elections...

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/07/497033797/kerry-says-strikes-by-russia-syria-beg-for-a-war-crimes-investigation

Opening accusing Russia of War Crimes™???


Whoa momma...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
Actually, America, the male title that corresponds to Lady is Lord. So Lord Bill Clinton.

Oh feth that.

 whembly wrote:
Hooboy...

Now we know why the DNI formally accused Russia of influencing our elections...

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/07/497033797/kerry-says-strikes-by-russia-syria-beg-for-a-war-crimes-investigation

Opening accusing Russia of War Crimes™???


Whoa momma...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
Actually, America, the male title that corresponds to Lady is Lord. So Lord Bill Clinton.

Oh feth that.

The thought of Trump having to negotiate with Puttin scares the hell out of me. If those two hot heads got in a room together war would be inevitable. I doubt either one knows what deescalate or compromise means.

A Town Called Malus wrote:First Lord Bill Clinton

Oh yes, of course.

whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Actually, America, the male title that corresponds to Lady is Lord. So Lord Bill Clinton.

Oh feth that.

Sorry whembly, I don't make the rules.

 whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

squidhills wrote:
So... just a comment from Joe Biden that Romney would re-enslave black people. That was the only demonizing attack from the democrats in 2012 that you posted. And considering that Joe Biden said it, I stand by my earlier declaration that nobody worth listening to demonized Romney.

If anyone in that quote was 'demonized' it was Biden as it is fairly obvious from context, and words, that he never said that Southern style slavery was going to be reintroduced but metaphorical economic slavery. Taking a comment about economic slavery and spinning it to make the speaker sound like they are accusing someone of reintroducing chattel slavery is both stupid and mean spirited. So par for the course with some political strategists.

No... it wasn't a "reintroduction chattel slavery" argument. That's dumb.

Hyperbolically claiming your political opponent is going to promote economic slavery is very much over-tje-top and falls well within the definition of 'demonizing your opponent', and poisoning the well.

Also, consider Biden's target audience...

Economy slavery effectively exists in this country, though. Its isolated to certain cases but there are certainly large numbers of people who's economic success is dictated by a corporation.

Has nato lost an people in syria ?
http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/10/is-first-secret-bloody-clash-between.html

Read this:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-hot-mic-when-you-re-star-you-can-do-n662116

What pisses you off more?

A) That "I'm automatically attracted to beautiful women — I just start kissing them, it's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything,"

or

B) "Grab 'em by the <vulgar vagina>."


My thoughts?

Love the way he's apologised if people are offended, but not for actually saying it?

If somebody wrote this as a sitcom on TV it wouldn't be picked up as its too unbelievable.

Cheers

Andrew

 whembly wrote:
Glad I'm on the #NeverTrump train...

So you're voting for Clinton then? Because that's the most effective way to keep Trump out.

I wonder if Paul Ryan is still going to appear with Trump tomorrow in Wisconsin as planned. Somehow, I bet Ryan will remember he had something else he was supposed to be doing.

Scary conspiracy thought: the GOP leaked the video to the WP to sink Trump, thereby forcing him out of the race, allowing Pence to swoop in and save the party.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Glad I'm on the #NeverTrump train...

So you're voting for Clinton then? Because that's the most effective way to keep Trump out.

Erm... Clinton is going to win.

So why you worrying?

 whembly wrote:
Erm... Clinton is going to win.

So why you worrying?

Who said anything about worrying? I'm asking if you're ready to concede the obvious yet, that Trump (as you say) is completely awful and #NeverTrump means #VotingClinton.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Erm... Clinton is going to win.

So why you worrying?

Who said anything about worrying? I'm asking if you're ready to concede the obvious yet, that Trump (as you say) is completely awful and #NeverTrump means #VotingClinton.

feth no. She hasn't earned my vote.

 whembly wrote:
feth no. She hasn't earned my vote.

Then you aren't #NeverTrump. You're #PassivelyStayHomeOnElectionDayAndHopeTrumpDoesn'tWinButDon'tCareMuchIfHeDoes.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
feth no. She hasn't earned my vote.

Then you aren't #NeverTrump. You're #PassivelyStayHomeOnElectionDayAndHopeTrumpDoesn'tWinButDon'tCareMuchIfHeDoes.

Worked for LaPage in Maine, so I imagine fool-hardy and/or stubborn voters will be a boon to Trump as well.

Trump is now Lester the Molester. I don't see how you come back from that.

If anyone has a photo of him wocializing with Bill Cosby he's done for.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
feth no. She hasn't earned my vote.

Then you aren't #NeverTrump. You're #PassivelyStayHomeOnElectionDayAndHopeTrumpDoesn'tWinButDon'tCareMuchIfHeDoes.

Nope. You're ignoring other parties.

Besides... looks like you're nervous.


Don't be buddy. Clinton's got this.

 whembly wrote:
Nope. You're ignoring other parties.

Because they don't matter. A vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for "I don't care if Trump wins". If you're talking about third-party votes then you aren't #NeverTrump.

Besides... looks like you're nervous.

Don't be buddy. Clinton's got this.

That's not the question we're discussing here.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Nope. You're ignoring other parties.

Because they don't matter. A vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for "I don't care if Trump wins". If you're talking about third-party votes then you aren't #NeverTrump.

I'm #NeverHillary too... so square that circle brah.

See? The third party *does* matter if the winner recieves the lowest vote count in recent years.

Hopefully that'll scare the D's and R's some sense into them.

Besides... looks like you're nervous.

Don't be buddy. Clinton's got this.

That's not the question we're discussing here.

Of course it is... 'Tis why you're pounding the binary choice bs.

 whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Nope. You're ignoring other parties.

Because they don't matter. A vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for "I don't care if Trump wins". If you're talking about third-party votes then you aren't #NeverTrump.

I'm #NeverHillary too... so square that circle brah.

See? The third party *does* matter if the winner recieves the lowest vote count in recent years.

Hopefully that'll scare the D's and R's some sense into them.

So much this, It's a shame johnson is such a tool, but jill stein seems to be a good choice.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Nope. You're ignoring other parties.

Because they don't matter. A vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for "I don't care if Trump wins". If you're talking about third-party votes then you aren't #NeverTrump.

I'm #NeverHillary too... so square that circle brah.

See? The third party *does* matter if the winner recieves the lowest vote count in recent years.

Hopefully that'll scare the D's and R's some sense into them.

So much this, It's a shame johnson is such a tool, but jill stein seems to be a good choice.

As I have said before Johnson and Stein are both terrible

 Ustrello wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Nope. You're ignoring other parties.

Because they don't matter. A vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for "I don't care if Trump wins". If you're talking about third-party votes then you aren't #NeverTrump.

I'm #NeverHillary too... so square that circle brah.

See? The third party *does* matter if the winner recieves the lowest vote count in recent years.

Hopefully that'll scare the D's and R's some sense into them.

So much this, It's a shame johnson is such a tool, but jill stein seems to be a good choice.

As I have said before Johnson and Stein are both terrible

why is that? she's not trump, nor clinton, she's like the dream candidate everyone wants

 whembly wrote:
I'm #NeverHillary too... so square that circle brah.

Then we're back to the same old "both are equally bad" thing that we've already disproved over and over again.

See? The third party *does* matter if the winner recieves the lowest vote count in recent years.

Hopefully that'll scare the D's and R's some sense into them.

Alternatively, both sides know that third-party candidates are irrelevant, and the most you'll see is that maybe their future platforms attempt to absorb some of those third-party voters and/or candidates (like how Sanders ran as a democrat instead of an independent). The democrats may see a bit of a reason to move in the direction that made Sanders popular instead of going with the established candidate, but after Clinton they don't really have an established candidate anyway. And the republicans are sure going to learn more for how blatant pandering to the wannabe-Nazi crowd won the primary than from the relative handful of voters who went third-party.

Of course it is... 'Tis why you're pounding the binary choice bs.

No, it's about demonstrating the fact that, while you claim to be #NeverTrump and "don't blame me, I didn't vote for him" every time something bad about Trump comes up, you don't seem to have much of a problem with the possibility of him winning.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
feth no. She hasn't earned my vote.

Then you aren't #NeverTrump. You're #PassivelyStayHomeOnElectionDayAndHopeTrumpDoesn'tWinButDon'tCareMuchIfHeDoes.

Worked for LaPage in Maine, so I imagine fool-hardy and/or stubborn voters will be a boon to Trump as well.

Half my family back there love him, the other half hate him. He's an interesting study in himself, and he got elected as governor twice.

 whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Erm... Clinton is going to win.

So why you worrying?

Who said anything about worrying? I'm asking if you're ready to concede the obvious yet, that Trump (as you say) is completely awful and #NeverTrump means #VotingClinton.

feth no. She hasn't earned my vote.

So you are #ForTrump. Which has been clear all the time though. You claim you aren't for Trump but you know? Actions speak louder than words.