Chat Forum
It is currently Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:38 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2834 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ... 71  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 11:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21330
Deadtigers wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
etc.

You seem to lack comprehension. I made a general point about the two faced identity politics debate. I then gave an instance using affirmative action and how that is treated as opposed to manufacturing jobs in the heartland. How in the duck is that moving goalposts? When we're tea party identity politics demonized? I don't remember the media talking about it as such? It wasn't until Obama was gone and all the supposed issues that mattered didn't matter.

I don't think you lean toward the right end. I think you lean toward the I have never been in the USA but I know more about it than you who live there end.


Because manufacturing jobs in heartlands aren't issues based upon race identity. It affects all kinds and art of a broader global malise.

As for your comments on Tea Party Politics, you must have either been a secluded child at the time or are a f#cking liar if you can't remember the Tea Party being raged against by the media and on this board, particularly in Obama's first term as president. People celebrated people like Glen Beck getting destroyed and even losing his job because even f#cking Fox News thought he and the Tea party were to far gone and forced basically because they couldn't deal with a black president. The Tea party where rightfully always treated as a rightwing lunatic group full of racists who had taken over the republican party and even the likes of John McCain got slaughtered for pandering to them. Then there was The Daily Show's excellent gag about how they sullied the actual name of tea bagging.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 11:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21330
Turbogoat wrote:
Expecting someone to know what they were listening yesterday to while stoned is an unreasonably high standard to hold anyone to, let alone 30 years ago.


Yeah but people know what sort of music they listened to. No hippy in the 60's claimed they listened to Abba or would be confused. Her drug comments where obviously pandering. Or regardless full of hypocrisy. It's as believable as Clinton's "I didn't inhale" or explanations for how he believed "I didn't have sexual relations with that girl" was truthful after a blowjob and inappropriate use of cigars.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4727
A good parallel is HRC talking about always having a bottle of hot sauce in her purse, while she was speaking to a group of African Americans.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21777
Location: Middle East
Man In Black wrote:
A good parallel is HRC talking about always having a bottle of hot sauce in her purse, while she was speaking to a group of African Americans.


I know what you mean (pandering), but just about anyone who travels, especially Americans seem to do this. Hell,I know one guy who had a custom leather holster on his belt for his bottle of tabasco.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 1:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4727
Turbogoat wrote:
Man In Black wrote:
A good parallel is HRC talking about always having a bottle of hot sauce in her purse, while she was speaking to a group of African Americans.


I know what you mean (pandering), but just about anyone who travels, especially Americans seem to do this. Hell,I know one guy who had a custom leather holster on his belt for his bottle of tabasco.



I’d like to get one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 1:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21777
Location: Middle East
Man In Black wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Man In Black wrote:
A good parallel is HRC talking about always having a bottle of hot sauce in her purse, while she was speaking to a group of African Americans.


I know what you mean (pandering), but just about anyone who travels, especially Americans seem to do this. Hell,I know one guy who had a custom leather holster on his belt for his bottle of tabasco.



I’d like to get one.


Image

Quickdraw speed holster.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 2:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4727
See if HRC really wanted to be POTUS she would have strapped one of those bad boys to her pant suits when out canvassing in Harlem or New Orleans or wherever.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 2:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9742
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
etc.

You seem to lack comprehension. I made a general point about the two faced identity politics debate. I then gave an instance using affirmative action and how that is treated as opposed to manufacturing jobs in the heartland. How in the duck is that moving goalposts? When we're tea party identity politics demonized? I don't remember the media talking about it as such? It wasn't until Obama was gone and all the supposed issues that mattered didn't matter.

I don't think you lean toward the right end. I think you lean toward the I have never been in the USA but I know more about it than you who live there end.


Because manufacturing jobs in heartlands aren't issues based upon race identity. It affects all kinds and art of a broader global malise.

As for your comments on Tea Party Politics, you must have either been a secluded child at the time or are a f#cking liar if you can't remember the Tea Party being raged against by the media and on this board, particularly in Obama's first term as president. People celebrated people like Glen Beck getting destroyed and even losing his job because even f#cking Fox News thought he and the Tea party were to far gone and forced basically because they couldn't deal with a black president. The Tea party where rightfully always treated as a rightwing lunatic group full of racists who had taken over the republican party and even the likes of John McCain got slaughtered for pandering to them. Then there was The Daily Show's excellent gag about how they sullied the actual name of tea bagging.


Affirmative action effects more than blacks. It effects women and other minorities but it is a black issue somehow. And jobs in the heartland are about race. Look at the demographics in the heartland? You are being you and ducking lying. I guess apparently the white working class don't exist until you want to complain about hillary.

As for the Tea party, I don't give a duck what was being said here. I was talking about the media and how things were going on in America. I am sorry that was your only experience with America.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 2:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10339
Man In Black wrote:
A good parallel is HRC talking about always having a bottle of hot sauce in her purse, while she was speaking to a group of African Americans.


That was on the same radio show which is why the hosts are going “oh shit not again” and attempting damage control. Lack of authenticity is a killer in American politics right now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 2:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 15939
Bowens wrote:
Man In Black wrote:
A good parallel is HRC talking about always having a bottle of hot sauce in her purse, while she was speaking to a group of African Americans.


That was on the same radio show which is why the hosts are going “oh shit not again” and attempting damage control. Lack of authenticity is a killer in American politics right now.

Unless your name is a Trump....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 2:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9742
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Man In Black wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Man In Black wrote:
A good parallel is HRC talking about always having a bottle of hot sauce in her purse, while she was speaking to a group of African Americans.


I know what you mean (pandering), but just about anyone who travels, especially Americans seem to do this. Hell,I know one guy who had a custom leather holster on his belt for his bottle of tabasco.



I’d like to get one.


It wasn't pandering. She had done 2 or 3 interviews prior with white mags and such saying she always carried it around. But it was Hillary (so duck facts) and poor timing with the Beyonce track out and her being interviewed on black radio made it seem like pandering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 2:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9742
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
eldanielfire wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Expecting someone to know what they were listening yesterday to while stoned is an unreasonably high standard to hold anyone to, let alone 30 years ago.


Yeah but people know what sort of music they listened to. No hippy in the 60's claimed they listened to Abba or would be confused. Her drug comments where obviously pandering. Or regardless full of hypocrisy. It's as believable as Clinton's "I didn't inhale" or explanations for how he believed "I didn't have sexual relations with that girl" was truthful after a blowjob and inappropriate use of cigars.


I take it like, Bones you refuse to believe the words of interviewers or the video. They don't do interviews to clear the air on lots of stuff that goes on, on their show. However, they did on this one. Maybe it is cause Harris was black or maybe because they didn't like how their interview was being used to slander Harris.

Also a blowjob didn't count as sex as part of the rules of Congress at the time. Anything that wasn't intercourse was not sex. It was written by the men attacking Clinton as they wanted it as out for themselves and never planned on Clinton using it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 2:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9742
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Bowens wrote:
Man In Black wrote:
A good parallel is HRC talking about always having a bottle of hot sauce in her purse, while she was speaking to a group of African Americans.


That was on the same radio show which is why the hosts are going “oh shit not again” and attempting damage control. Lack of authenticity is a killer in American politics right now.


Especially because HRC was being honest and they didn't do anything then. So maybe they came out now to avoid the same mistake.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 2:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9742
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... io/479004/

Here is an article about the hot sauce incident. A few paragraphs down, it goes into how she has mentioned it before and cites where. I couldn't be bothered to cite the actual articles.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 2:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10339
The thing is DT, Hillary’s moment wasn’t as bad as this one and people were still talking about it come election day. What’s worse is it draws attention to Kamala’s record as a prosecutor vs weed. So yeah I definitely understand why the crew went on TV to tell everyone their ears and eyes were lying to them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 2:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9742
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Bowens wrote:
The thing is DT, Hillary’s moment wasn’t as bad as this one and people were still talking about it come election day. What’s worse is it draws attention to Kamala’s record as a prosecutor vs weed. So yeah I definitely understand why the crew went on TV to tell everyone their ears and eyes were lying to them.


You don't want to get it. Harris and her stance on weed and her work as a DA is a fair debate to have. If you are gonna question her "authenticity" then do it on that. You have the video and the hosts telling you what happened but you wanna disregard that.

Meanwhile Bernie never releasing his taxes is not hypocrisy. Gabbard having the sport of white supremacist is nothing and supporting conversion therapy is nothing. Strange view of the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 2:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4727
Deadtigers wrote:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/hillary-clinton-pandering-radio/479004/

Here is an article about the hot sauce incident. A few paragraphs down, it goes into how she has mentioned it before and cites where. I couldn't be bothered to cite the actual articles.


I’m a big fan too so when I get my leather hot sauce holster I can join her.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10339
The white supremacy smear is funny. She told one of them clearly that her dad experienced not being able to use “whites only” water fountains in his life and to fuck off. These are tweets mind you, not people walking around carrying Tulsi signs in real life. I mean Ed Buck donated to Kamala, should we start talking about why she attracted his support?

I get why people would be upset by the conversion therapy thing. But she was still young and following a belief she was raised with. Like I said I believe her gay rights voting record is considered “A+” by an advocacy group.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9742
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Bowens wrote:
The white supremacy smear is funny. She told one of them clearly that her dad experienced not being able to use “whites only” water fountains in his life and to fuck off. I mean, should we start talking about Ed Buck’s support of Kamala?

I get why people would be upset by the conversion therapy thing. But she was still young and following a belief she was raised with. Like I said I believe her gay rights voting record is considered “A+” by an advocacy group.



Go ahead and talk about Harris and Buck. I am not a Harris fanboy. I just think this is bullshit.

What I am trying to point out to you is because Gabbard and Sanders are your people, critical stuff is easily explained and them speaking on it is good enough. You don't like Harris so the radio show interview is gospel.

Let's turn the screws on Gabbard. So which is the true Tulsi? Conversion therapy or Voting pro-gay. I mean how do we know she didn't do the politically expedient thing on her pro gay votes. I mean to be part of the Dem party means you have to be pro gay, pro affirmative action, I would also say pro-choice but there are few pro-lifers out there? And why do white supremacists support her? She may not be one, allegedly, but they believe she is one. Oh but she denounced it so she is clearly not lying or is trying to avoid losing the minority vote which is huge for Dems. She maybe more conservative than she shows but you can't be conservative and win in Hawaii.

I don't care enough about Gabbard to debate this with you deeply. I just want to point out that you are choosing to apply logic to Gabbard that you are not applying to Harris, because you like Gabbard.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10339
Quote:
And why do white supremacists support her?


Non-interventionism is literally the only reason. I haven’t looked into it but I bet Ilhan Omar got some supportive tweets when she went after AIPAC. But only a nutjob would accuse her of having the support of white supremacists.

It’s not Bernie/Tulsi or bust BTW. I would very much prefer one or both but Andrew Yang is also a candidate I could support. Should check him out if you don’t know him. Obama WH vet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 5:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9742
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Bowens wrote:
Quote:
And why do white supremacists support her?


Non-interventionism is literally the only reason. I haven’t looked into it but I bet Ilhan Omar got some supportive tweets when she went after AIPAC. But only a nutjob would accuse her of having the support of white supremacists.

It’s not Bernie/Tulsi or bust BTW. I would very much prefer one or both but Andrew Yang is also a candidate I could support. Should check him out if you don’t know him. Obama WH vet.


I heard of Yang but he is not a serious contender. This is raising his profile to be a cabinet member. My fav Longshot is Buttegieg but he is also raising his profile to the Commerce Secretary or something like that.

BTW, so you are saying Gabbard wants us to fall back from leading the world like Trump and give power to China and Russia and Europe?
-I know she probably has a different view but if I wanted to stretch truth, it would be that easy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 5:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21330
Deadtigers wrote:

As for the Tea party, I don't give a duck what was being said here. I was talking about the media and how things were going on in America. I am sorry that was your only experience with America.



More deflection and selective reading, U said there where huge in the media. I even pointed to how involved Fox News presenter at the time was with them. Either way you are being dishonest or are clueless, the Tea Party was in the news more than SJWs are today


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 5:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10339
I think it’s pretty obvious that candidates like Trump and Bernie and Tulsi have gained traction because the electorate is sick of sending American kids to die on the other side of the world while we can’t provide many of our people at home with basic care and services (sadly lots of them veterans). You run someone who advocates for Team America World Police vs Trump and that’s a guaranteed loss. China’s influence in places like Africa is mostly through bribery.

Yang’s star will rise. He’s just getting his ideas out there. It sounds like he’s going to meet the threshold for the debates. One of the better speakers I have listened to so he should do well there. Definitely brings more unique ideas than also-rans like Klobuchar or Gillibrand who are the 2020 version of Martin O’Malley.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 5:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10339
Yang gets it :thumbup:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0XK8aGFyNFY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 5:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21330
Deadtigers wrote:
Bowens wrote:
The white supremacy smear is funny. She told one of them clearly that her dad experienced not being able to use “whites only” water fountains in his life and to fuck off. I mean, should we start talking about Ed Buck’s support of Kamala?

I get why people would be upset by the conversion therapy thing. But she was still young and following a belief she was raised with. Like I said I believe her gay rights voting record is considered “A+” by an advocacy group.



Go ahead and talk about Harris and Buck. I am not a Harris fanboy. I just think this is bullshit.

What I am trying to point out to you is because Gabbard and Sanders are your people, critical stuff is easily explained and them speaking on it is good enough. You don't like Harris so the radio show interview is gospel.

Let's turn the screws on Gabbard. So which is the true Tulsi? Conversion therapy or Voting pro-gay. I mean how do we know she didn't do the politically expedient thing on her pro gay votes. I mean to be part of the Dem party means you have to be pro gay, pro affirmative action, I would also say pro-choice but there are few pro-lifers out there? And why do white supremacists support her? She may not be one, allegedly, but they believe she is one. Oh but she denounced it so she is clearly not lying or is trying to avoid losing the minority vote which is huge for Dems. She maybe more conservative than she shows but you can't be conservative and win in Hawaii.

I don't care enough about Gabbard to debate this with you deeply. I just want to point out that you are choosing to apply logic to Gabbard that you are not applying to Harris, because you like Gabbard.


It's not about "your" people. It's you once again conflating facts and stories as if they are all the same, then trying to claim it's a identity politics thing as to why others have a different stance rather than any logical or rational thought.

Well it's more likely that a teenager brought up by an anti-gay dad would over time, decades later having been out in society understood thinsg better and changed accordingly. It's perfectly logical. Also her move to a pro-gay stance actual pre-dates Obama and Clinton when it became more mainstream. Gabbard was alreayd doing that. Someone who actually adopts a potentially unpopular stance is less likely to do it on false pretences for their political careers. It also follows her stance in meeting Assad, politically unpopular believing it was a positive choice in trying to put some breaks on the middle east problem. The fact is there is no reason to oppose Gabbard because she adopts these stances when there is no benefit to her career and the truth is on public record.

What isn't a logical timeline though is Harris' "I smoked dope to TuPac in the 80's" and then threw many in prison for it. First up there is a straight forwardly untrue. She has told an untruth which already shows her character as less dependable. That is why people call out Harris on her story. Harris is relaying a personal story that can only be designed to counter aspect of her public record that might be unpopular with sections of the Democrats and to soften her image. But in doing so told a lie.

And no none of these points are "Oh you just see it differently" as your usual counter to any and all rational points you don't try to conflate. Gabbard being pro-gays rights before it was a popular mainstream thing is a matter of fact. And it defies logic that if she was so utterly against gay rights she would have adopted her stances at the time when the bigger name and most popular Democrats like Obama and Hilary where doing precisely the opposite and being resistant to gay rights. It is also supported by the fact Gabbard was a teenager at the start of her gay conversion therapy stance which was basically adopted form her father. It's perfectly rational she grew out of those beliefs like the vast majority of the population have done.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:33 pm
Posts: 2337
Turbogoat wrote:
Man In Black wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Man In Black wrote:
A good parallel is HRC talking about always having a bottle of hot sauce in her purse, while she was speaking to a group of African Americans.


I know what you mean (pandering), but just about anyone who travels, especially Americans seem to do this. Hell,I know one guy who had a custom leather holster on his belt for his bottle of tabasco.



I’d like to get one.


Image

Quickdraw speed holster.

I have soo many questions I don't want to ask.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9742
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
Bowens wrote:
The white supremacy smear is funny. She told one of them clearly that her dad experienced not being able to use “whites only” water fountains in his life and to fuck off. I mean, should we start talking about Ed Buck’s support of Kamala?

I get why people would be upset by the conversion therapy thing. But she was still young and following a belief she was raised with. Like I said I believe her gay rights voting record is considered “A+” by an advocacy group.



Go ahead and talk about Harris and Buck. I am not a Harris fanboy. I just think this is bullshit.

What I am trying to point out to you is because Gabbard and Sanders are your people, critical stuff is easily explained and them speaking on it is good enough. You don't like Harris so the radio show interview is gospel.

Let's turn the screws on Gabbard. So which is the true Tulsi? Conversion therapy or Voting pro-gay. I mean how do we know she didn't do the politically expedient thing on her pro gay votes. I mean to be part of the Dem party means you have to be pro gay, pro affirmative action, I would also say pro-choice but there are few pro-lifers out there? And why do white supremacists support her? She may not be one, allegedly, but they believe she is one. Oh but she denounced it so she is clearly not lying or is trying to avoid losing the minority vote which is huge for Dems. She maybe more conservative than she shows but you can't be conservative and win in Hawaii.

I don't care enough about Gabbard to debate this with you deeply. I just want to point out that you are choosing to apply logic to Gabbard that you are not applying to Harris, because you like Gabbard.


It's not about "your" people. It's you once again conflating facts and stories as if they are all the same, then trying to claim it's a identity politics thing as to why others have a different stance rather than any logical or rational thought.

Well it's more likely that a teenager brought up by an anti-gay dad would over time, decades later having been out in society understood thinsg better and changed accordingly. It's perfectly logical. Also her move to a pro-gay stance actual pre-dates Obama and Clinton when it became more mainstream. Gabbard was alreayd doing that. Someone who actually adopts a potentially unpopular stance is less likely to do it on false pretences for their political careers. It also follows her stance in meeting Assad, politically unpopular believing it was a positive choice in trying to put some breaks on the middle east problem. The fact is there is no reason to oppose Gabbard because she adopts these stances when there is no benefit to her career and the truth is on public record.

What isn't a logical timeline though is Harris' "I smoked dope to TuPac in the 80's" and then threw many in prison for it. First up there is a straight forwardly untrue. She has told an untruth which already shows her character as less dependable. That is why people call out Harris on her story. Harris is relaying a personal story that can only be designed to counter aspect of her public record that might be unpopular with sections of the Democrats and to soften her image. But in doing so told a lie.

And no none of these points are "Oh you just see it differently" as your usual counter to any and all rational points you don't try to conflate. Gabbard being pro-gays rights before it was a popular mainstream thing is a matter of fact. And it defies logic that if she was so utterly against gay rights she would have adopted her stances at the time when the bigger name and most popular Democrats like Obama and Hilary where doing precisely the opposite and being resistant to gay rights. It is also supported by the fact Gabbard was a teenager at the start of her gay conversion therapy stance which was basically adopted form her father. It's perfectly rational she grew out of those beliefs like the vast majority of the population have done.


Thanks for proving my point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5627
Bowens wrote:

Yeah he does. He obviously knows you've got to at least sound like you care, want to understand and want to try and do something to alleviate economic change and just not close the window in your elite ivory tower. Build a campaign on that and health care and a Dem candidate could go a long way. A much better platform than the hard left.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9742
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Bowens wrote:
I think it’s pretty obvious that candidates like Trump and Bernie and Tulsi have gained traction because the electorate is sick of sending American kids to die on the other side of the world while we can’t provide many of our people at home with basic care and services (sadly lots of them veterans). You run someone who advocates for Team America World Police vs Trump and that’s a guaranteed loss. China’s influence in places like Africa is mostly through bribery.

Yang’s star will rise. He’s just getting his ideas out there. It sounds like he’s going to meet the threshold for the debates. One of the better speakers I have listened to so he should do well there. Definitely brings more unique ideas than also-rans like Klobuchar or Gillibrand who are the 2020 version of Martin O’Malley.


I get your first point. I was just proposing a counter argument. The actual factual base of my point depends on how people feel about the candidate. As you can see with EDF's frothing above. Remember there were loads of clear logical explanations for Hillary's email which was dragged out into something massive but it wasn't as Trump has done worse. However, when you support a candidate it can be easily explained away. I mean it is clear to see and etc. But when you don't like the candidate anything from a gaffe to an inaccurate statement is absolute proof of fake and inauthenticity. So Tulsi being for less military intervention can be seen as a positive or be attacked as continuing to sacrifice our role as leaders of the free world, depending on if you like her. Same goes for the whole Harris lied and is pandering charge. No evidence is enough dissuade you, if you don't like her. I am actually indifferent to her, I am anti-Tulsi and anti-Bernie.


Last edited by Deadtigers on Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 11:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1411
Bowens wrote:


Was very interesting on Joe Rogan. I like him


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7986
DT, I'll take a look at those soon.

Bowens, Yang sounds interesting. Would definitely be willing to at least hear more from him, even if I have some significant reservations about some of his proposals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9742
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
goeagles wrote:
DT, I'll take a look at those soon.

Bowens, Yang sounds interesting. Would definitely be willing to at least hear more from him, even if I have some significant reservations about some of his proposals.


Take your time. It is a lot for me to read too. It is also dry reading so that never makes it easy.
Bowens wrote:


Will give a listen when I get a moment. As I said, I know he declared but don't really know his platform as he is such a no-hoper, I haven't really looked into it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10339
goeagles wrote:
Bowens, Yang sounds interesting. Would definitely be willing to at least hear more from him, even if I have some significant reservations about some of his proposals.


He’s a blockchain advocate.

7000 new donations since he appeared on Rogan apparently.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10339
Was bored this morning and listened to like three hours worth of Yang speeches and interviews. Firstly the guy is a machine. Never gets stumped and has a stat for everything.

He has some really good ideas though. Wants fewer people to go to traditional colleges, more to trade schools as is the case in Germany apparently. Mentions that jobs like HVAC repair and even barbers are much less likely to be automated soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21330
Deadtigers wrote:

Thanks for proving my point.


Saying that doesn't mean it happened. But it's not unexpected you remain utterly resistant to logic and rationality.

Even in the case it's simple, one side has lied, the other hasn't. It's utterly moronic to claim the person with the consist record is the one to believe in all probability. Especially as their entire professional career backs it up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21330
Bowens wrote:
Was bored this morning and listened to like three hours worth of Yang speeches and interviews. Firstly the guy is a machine. Never gets stumped and has a stat for everything.

He has some really good ideas though. Wants fewer people to go to traditional colleges, more to trade schools as is the case in Germany apparently. Mentions that jobs like HVAC repair and even barbers are much less likely to be automated soon.


Sounds like a voice of reason there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:10 pm
Posts: 2569
Location: Boston
From the little I’ve read about Yang he’s definitely got interesting ideas.

Even if not a true challenger it’s really a breath of fresh air to have someone who actually brings something new and different to the table.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9742
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:

Thanks for proving my point.


Saying that doesn't mean it happened. But it's not unexpected you remain utterly resistant to logic and rationality.

Even in the case it's simple, one side has lied, the other hasn't. It's utterly moronic to claim the person with the consist record is the one to believe in all probability. Especially as their entire professional career backs it up.


Imagine if Tulsi was accused of saying something she didn't on radio and the two DJs that interviewed her said she is being smeared and I said I ignore the actual explanation of the people interviewing her and stick to my own interpretation. That is what you just did to Harris. Because she is Harris.

Do we have Tulsi's mom or someone who worked for her coming forward, nope just her word and that was good enough. I don't care that much about her stance on gays. I just want to prove the fact that because you like one candidate more than another, you apply a standard that you wouldn't apply to your candidate.

What would it take for you to believe that Harris is being smeared if the word of the interviewers isn't enough? But yeah keep talking you sanctimonious phuckface.


Last edited by Deadtigers on Sun Feb 17, 2019 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:40 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8934
Location: Texas
Cometh the hour...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reu ... SKCN1Q60P6


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2019 11:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21330
Deadtigers wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:

Thanks for proving my point.


Saying that doesn't mean it happened. But it's not unexpected you remain utterly resistant to logic and rationality.

Even in the case it's simple, one side has lied, the other hasn't. It's utterly moronic to claim the person with the consist record is the one to believe in all probability. Especially as their entire professional career backs it up.


Imagine if Tulsi was accused of saying something she didn't on radio and the two DJs that interviewed her said she is being smeared and I said I ignore the actual explanation of the people interviewing her and stick to my own interpretation. That is what you just did to Harris. Because she is Harris.


Tulsi has been accused of being an Assad todie. Where on earth are you getting this narrative that people are beings elective here. Harris is being challenged on the truthfulness of her statements that patently is not true. How the f#ck is this being selective n who is believeing who?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2834 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ... 71  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Armchair_Superstar, ARMitage Shanks, Balls Out!, beastofbrum, Bing [Bot], Boomslang, Caley_Red, camroc1, CarrotGawks, danny_fitz, Dark, Derwyn, Diego, duke, etherman, fatheralice, flashman, Flyin Ryan, friskynz, Gazzamonster, Gospel, IBWT, jezzer, Jim Lahey, julian, La soule, Laurent, Lazy Couch potato, Lemoentjie, London_Lurker, lorcanoworms, Luckycharmer, malky, matta25, mr bungle, Mr Mike, newportblue, Nolanator, nzrick, openclashXX, Plastic Sarrie, polyallstar, Raggs, rfurlong, rialtoblue, RMBJ, Saint, ScarfaceClaw, Seez, sockwithaticket, Still Not Playing, sunnybanana, tabascoboy, tafano, Taranaki Snapper, Theflier, The Prophet Zarquon, usermame, Wendigo7, Winnie, Xin, Yer Man, Zakar and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group