FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Presidential General Election News & Discussion Center 2016 (Page 6)

  This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ...  12  13  14   
Author Topic: Presidential General Election News & Discussion Center 2016
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
The source on that one is Kent Dunn, Ron, who's pretty much famous for being persistently, laughably wrong.

Wasn't Kent Dunn the one that confirmed at one point that for sure the military was cancelling the 2016 elections
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The White Whale
Member
Member # 6594

 - posted      Profile for The White Whale           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:

Short of being an outright warlord who massacres parents and then sells their children into the child sex trade there is almost nothing worse that Hilary Clinton could be than a child sex trafficker and a murderer.


She could be a gay child sex trafficker and murderer.
[ROFL]
Posts: 1710 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I utterly HATE misinformation
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by zlogdanbr:
I am not sure that Hillary or Obama are the decent altruistic persons ( albeit tempted by a bleak side which seems to be good that politicians have :-) )you all assume they are ( including OSC who claims that he does not like Obama's government but thinks Obama seems to be a decent man ) and I have not read any good rebuttal that Hillary is not a corrupt histrionic moody person and a socialist ( btw I have read the whole Wikipedia entry for her and it looks like that she is not one ).

Historically Democrats are also worse in how they conduct economical matters with Brazil.

I have got "politician-phobia", as if I see any of "them" I try to run away.

I have two good friends in US who have lost a lot during Obama's government and they were not rich or part of any kind of elite.

Anyway, as I have remarked before, it does not matter how evil I think Hillary might be, she is a "less worse" alternative than having a clown and proved "insane demagogue" like Trump solely because Hillary government will be a continuation of Obama's government. Not matter how bad it can be.

But again though, look at the issues and policies I talked about. If the United States under a Democratic President has not been ideal for Brazil I'm sorry about that, but it doesn't answer my questions to you.

You said:

quote:

but, I tend to think if one votes for her, one supports her, regardless of how evil she might be and that is what worries me.

What makes her evil? What leads you to believe this? Can you please offer specifics? Because I gave you specifics, a number of policies she is likely to work towards, and even get passed, if the Democrats win a majority of the Senate. Are any of those evil?

If they are not evil, then isn't it clearly the case that there can be plenty of reasons why someone would support Hillary Clinton?

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
...regardless of how evil she might be...
Seems speculative to me
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zlogdanbr
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:
Originally posted by zlogdanbr:
I am not sure that Hillary or Obama are the decent altruistic persons ( albeit tempted by a bleak side which seems to be good that politicians have :-) )you all assume they are ( including OSC who claims that he does not like Obama's government but thinks Obama seems to be a decent man ) and I have not read any good rebuttal that Hillary is not a corrupt histrionic moody person and a socialist ( btw I have read the whole Wikipedia entry for her and it looks like that she is not one ).

Historically Democrats are also worse in how they conduct economical matters with Brazil.

I have got "politician-phobia", as if I see any of "them" I try to run away.

I have two good friends in US who have lost a lot during Obama's government and they were not rich or part of any kind of elite.

Anyway, as I have remarked before, it does not matter how evil I think Hillary might be, she is a "less worse" alternative than having a clown and proved "insane demagogue" like Trump solely because Hillary government will be a continuation of Obama's government. Not matter how bad it can be.

But again though, look at the issues and policies I talked about. If the United States under a Democratic President has not been ideal for Brazil I'm sorry about that, but it doesn't answer my questions to you.

You said:

quote:

but, I tend to think if one votes for her, one supports her, regardless of how evil she might be and that is what worries me.

What makes her evil? What leads you to believe this? Can you please offer specifics? Because I gave you specifics, a number of policies she is likely to work towards, and even get passed, if the Democrats win a majority of the Senate. Are any of those evil?

If they are not evil, then isn't it clearly the case that there can be plenty of reasons why someone would support Hillary Clinton?

As I said before:
"I have not read any good rebuttal that Hillary is not a corrupt histrionic moody person and a socialist ( btw I have read the whole Wikipedia entry for her and it looks like that she is not one )."

By Democrats I meant the party, or do you think the Republican party stands against democracy?

I have read the Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho who is regardless of his right winged opinions, a scholar and none of the arguments he has posed against Hillary or Obama seems to be debunked, specially in regard to her lack of honesty and moral and perhaps "cultural Marxism". Truth to be told, I was skeptical about this at first, but I am seeing so many decent people - like everybody here - just using the same arguments that radical supporters of Brazilian party PT ( which I used to be in my 20s) use that I am really scared.

I am sorry to say that what Hillary proposes seems exactly what it is written in "presidential candidates handbook" in the chapter "Demagogy is your tool". Trump has just more experience with this chapter and uses more often.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"histrionic moody person"

this ranks up there with "shrill" in terms of language which reads as an obvious dogwhistle

what does one mean by "histrionic moody person" i wonder

Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

I have not read any good rebuttal that Hillary is not a corrupt histrionic moody person and a socialist ( btw I have read the whole Wikipedia entry for her and it looks like that she is not one ).

It's not obvious what do you mean by this, are you saying that Hillary is a "corrupt histrionic moody person and a socialist" and that you haven't seen any good arguments that refute this?

I mean, obviously Hillary is not a socialist. I got banned from /r/LateStageCapitalism for defending Hillary using the same arguments I am using here. Hillary does not have any ideological beliefs that labour should seize the means of production or hold a Marxist view of history; does not consider property and capital to be theft. Socialists would hold the view that there is no ethical consumption in a capitalist system, while Hillary is clearly some variant of progressive neoliberal that holds that you can be both a capitalist and yet ethical.

Like there are real definitions as to what constitutes a socialist and that is not Hillary.

Like why do you ask this if you said that upon reading her wikipedia page you've also said you believe she is in fact not "histronically moody etc" based on that? Are you suggesting that none of her supporters have given such arguments? I feel like the point of this line of questioning by me is to establish a factual, rational, and reasonable basis as to why someone can whole heartedly support Hillary without being "evil" or what have you.

quote:

By Democrats I meant the party, or do you think the Republican party stands against democracy?

WhyNotBoth.[gGjJ]if

The "Democrats" refers to the membership and leadership of "The Democratic Party" which is their official name; i.e just as how the Grand Old Party's official name is "The Republican Party"; the names inherently mean nothing in a modern context.

Though it's self evidence that by nominating and standing behind Donald Trump a out fascist that the Republicans, who also support eroding democratic rights of minorities do not support democracy in a meaningful sense.

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
hillary's policies are far too hawkish for the comfort of most lefties, and are also generally considered to be too generally invested in neoliberal practices

if you were to talk with americans who actually are part of socialist party organizations — like, you know, actual american socialists — and you tried to claim to them, practically ANY of them, that hillary was 'a socialist who works with a policy of cultural Marxism'

they would start laughing at you

and they would just keep laughing

eventually they would fall to the ground holding their sides, their bodies racked with pain from the oxygen deprivation

you might actually just kill them

this is very cruel

Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For some reason my fingers spazzed so double posting:


quote:

specially in regard to her lack of honesty

There is no evidence that she is inherently less honest than the average politician. There's been literally over 25 years of fear mongering regarding Rodham because she refused to stay in the kitchen and bake cookies (which she also did, and won the WH cooking contest iirc).

quote:

"cultural Marxism"

Supporting the rights of gays, lesbians, trans people, minorities, ecofeminism, 3rd wave feminism, and the science of climate change tends to be called "Cultural Marxism" but most conservatives who claim to be "scholars" as a sort of dog whistle talking point thing. It's meaningless noise that means anything to anyone.

"Cultural Marxism" is right wing garbage.

quote:

like everybody here - just using the same arguments that radical supporters of Brazilian party PT ( which I used to be in my 20s) use that I am really scared.

Lol, like who? And what arguments? Be specific.

Can you name a single poster, and a single argument, quote the post, can you do that?

quote:

I am sorry to say that what Hillary proposes seems exactly what it is written in "presidential candidates handbook" in the chapter "Demagogy is your tool".

Hold the phone, what do you mean by this? What specifically does she propose, is "demagoguery"? Understand that the United States is a Representative Democracy and politicians run on a platform to appeal to a majority of their constituents, ergo, they must typically, normally, offer the voters policies, proposals, and plans for changes that satisfies their needs, concerns and desires. This is normal, what you're probably alluding to is populism, such as when the Brothers Gracchi/rival Senators offered the poor and lower classes of Rome "stuff" that may have not been entirely in the interest of Rome but won them elections.

Can you name specific proposals in which would qualify as populism that harms the interests of the United States? Or are you going to continue being vague?

Of the proposals I outlined albeit in generalities, which ones are "populist"?

1. Appointing liberals to the Supreme Court, or at least de facto more liberal moderate justices such as Merrick Garland that still serve to vastly shift the Court to the left. Hillary can be expected over two terms to replace Ginsberg, push through Garland, and possibly replace Kennedy. This is a fairly standard Republican-Democrat game of football regarding the Supreme Court; what makes this populist?

2. Advancing laws that seek action regarding climate change, what is populist where? Are you aware that the US Navy, has classified climate change as a core US Security interest due to the likelyhood of increased wars and instability from climate change?

How many more examples do I need to list?

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by zlogdanbr:

I have read the Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho who is regardless of his right winged opinions, a scholar and none of the arguments he has posed against Hillary or Obama seems to be debunked, specially in regard to her lack of honesty and moral and perhaps "cultural Marxism".

oh my god, look at this guy, look at him

quote:
Carvalho rejects Karl Popper's open society for "not recognizing any transcendent values and by leaving everything at the mercy of economic conveniences – conveniences that are something alleged even to justify the very demolition of the free market and its replacement by the welfare state, based upon taxation and debt."[26]

In some works, Olavo de Carvalho attempts a criticism of mechanicism,[27] strongly criticizing Isaac Newton,[28] Galileo[29] and René Descartes.[30] He explains how Newton's First Law contradicts itself when lacking a traditional metaphysics.[31] According to him, "Galileo and Newton's science belittled the observation of natural phenomena in favour of formulating mathematical models with no relation to empirical reality".[32]

Carvalho opposes astronomers and scientists in general who refuse to consider astrology as an object of scientific study, seeing in this refusal a partisan attitude. "There is a structural correspondence between the position of the stars in the sky at the time of a person's birth and his character. This can be verified". He also criticizes heliocentrism, claiming there are no definitive scientific proof of the Earth orbiting the Sun.

Another target of his criticism is Darwinism. Carvalho wrote: "All he [Charles Darwin] did was to venture a new explanation for that theory [evolutionism] — and his explanation was wrong. No one else, among the self-proclaimed Darwin's disciples, believes in 'natural selection'. The theory in vogue, the so-called neo-Darwinism, proclaims that, instead of a selection mysteriously oriented toward the improvement of the species, all that happened were random changes. [...] 'intelligent design' is not only the final touch of the Darwinist theory, but also its fundamental premise, discreetly spread throughout the whole argumentative edifice of The Origin of Species". He goes on saying that "Darwinism is genocidal by itself, from its very roots. It did not have to be deformed by disloyal disciples to become something it was not".[33]

Carvalho accused Georg Cantor of confusing "numbers with their mere symbols" in his works about transfinite numbers, and calls his math a "play on words"[34] and a "false logic".[35]

https://media.giphy.com/media/zjQrmdlR9ZCM/giphy.gif
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I went and found my OP:

quote:

-She will not invade Iran.

Do you feel, zlogdanbr, that invading Iran would be better for world security and stability? To tear up the nuclear agreement? That not invading Iran is the "populist" result?

quote:

-She in general, will be a continuation of the Obama presidency, meaning that when facing an obstructionist congress will use executive orders to improve things at a federal level at least for federal employees; such as Obama working to fight discrimination of LBGT people and minorities for federal contractors. Do you also see this as evil?

Minorities and LGBTQ people are well, by definition, minorities. Is this populism?

quote:

-Her platform is the most progressive in the history of the Democratic party in over 30 years and the closest we will see to a return to the principles of the New Deal; do you see this as evil?

This is perhaps the only bit, while vague, that can be qualified as populist; I split off the policy wonkery of investing in renewables, solar energy plants, recycling, etc in my previous post today; so lets look at stuff like more affordable College, increased minimum wage, expanding healthcare, closing tax loopholes on the wealthy, racial justice by increasing police accountability, fixing US infrastructure, Her website has more.

Basically, can you pick out and list which ones, which parts of her platform, and why, are populist in a way that is not in the interest of the United States?

Don't rely on hacks, read her website, and point them out for me.

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh look its Sam too, this almost feels unfair.

Basically Zlog, the whole appeal behind Hillary Clinton is that she isn't just handwaving and promising the moon with vague promises. Hillary's appeal is that she is a policy wonk, that she LOVES to go into details and argue specific policy. Trump doesn't have specifics, her doesn't have positions, he flip flops and changes his message. Hillary has been consistent regarding her platform and positions.

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This article explains why people like her. I was 100% going to vote for her (because, um duh), but this actually makes me happy to do it and see her win.

http://www.vox.com/a/hillary-clinton-interview/the-gap-listener-leadership-quality

If we can get this Hillary as president, and obstructionists back off, I think the country will do well.

Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
With the exception of possibly legally questionable executive orders, the office of the president is mostly a body that uses influence more than actual power.

More of a figure head unless they use their power to put troops on foreign soil.

Admittedly choosing a supreme court justice IS a big deal.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zlogdanbr
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
"histrionic moody person"

this ranks up there with "shrill" in terms of language which reads as an obvious dogwhistle

what does one mean by "histrionic moody person" i wonder

I read an story that old Bill asked Spielberg to create a shorty film to illustrate Hillary's carrier as a politician, and story says she got mad and broke the DVD into pieces. Obviously not a true story, but that is what I meant for,e.g someone psychologically unstable and prone to convey different reactions depending on her current psychological status most of times not quite politely.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zlogdanbr
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
[QB] I went and found my OP:

quote:

-She will not invade Iran.

Do you feel, zlogdanbr, that invading Iran would be better for world security and stability? To tear up the nuclear agreement? That not invading Iran is the "populist" result?

Not really because as I said despite what I think about Hillary I think Trump would be a major problem. Truth to be told, If I lived in US I would probably vote for evil Hillary. Of course I would have to bear it in my conscience forever.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zlogdanbr
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by zlogdanbr:

I have read the Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho who is regardless of his right winged opinions, a scholar and none of the arguments he has posed against Hillary or Obama seems to be debunked, specially in regard to her lack of honesty and moral and perhaps "cultural Marxism".

oh my god, look at this guy, look at him

quote:
Carvalho rejects Karl Popper's open society for "not recognizing any transcendent values and by leaving everything at the mercy of economic conveniences – conveniences that are something alleged even to justify the very demolition of the free market and its replacement by the welfare state, based upon taxation and debt."[26]

In some works, Olavo de Carvalho attempts a criticism of mechanicism,[27] strongly criticizing Isaac Newton,[28] Galileo[29] and René Descartes.[30] He explains how Newton's First Law contradicts itself when lacking a traditional metaphysics.[31] According to him, "Galileo and Newton's science belittled the observation of natural phenomena in favour of formulating mathematical models with no relation to empirical reality".[32]

Carvalho opposes astronomers and scientists in general who refuse to consider astrology as an object of scientific study, seeing in this refusal a partisan attitude. "There is a structural correspondence between the position of the stars in the sky at the time of a person's birth and his character. This can be verified". He also criticizes heliocentrism, claiming there are no definitive scientific proof of the Earth orbiting the Sun.

Another target of his criticism is Darwinism. Carvalho wrote: "All he [Charles Darwin] did was to venture a new explanation for that theory [evolutionism] — and his explanation was wrong. No one else, among the self-proclaimed Darwin's disciples, believes in 'natural selection'. The theory in vogue, the so-called neo-Darwinism, proclaims that, instead of a selection mysteriously oriented toward the improvement of the species, all that happened were random changes. [...] 'intelligent design' is not only the final touch of the Darwinist theory, but also its fundamental premise, discreetly spread throughout the whole argumentative edifice of The Origin of Species". He goes on saying that "Darwinism is genocidal by itself, from its very roots. It did not have to be deformed by disloyal disciples to become something it was not".[33]

Carvalho accused Georg Cantor of confusing "numbers with their mere symbols" in his works about transfinite numbers, and calls his math a "play on words"[34] and a "false logic".[35]

https://media.giphy.com/media/zjQrmdlR9ZCM/giphy.gif

He also disqualifies the already proved and tested general relativity theory which gets me mad. Anyway, Professor Olavo has some serious issues to understand Physical sciences.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zlogdanbr
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
Oh look its Sam too, this almost feels unfair.

Basically Zlog, the whole appeal behind Hillary Clinton is that she isn't just handwaving and promising the moon with vague promises. Hillary's appeal is that she is a policy wonk, that she LOVES to go into details and argue specific policy. Trump doesn't have specifics, her doesn't have positions, he flip flops and changes his message. Hillary has been consistent regarding her platform and positions.

Thank God I won't have to choose. I am also heavily- nearly praying- hoping that you are all right about Hillary and I am wrong. This is not irony you know.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zlogdanbr
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
For some reason my fingers spazzed so double posting:

"Cultural Marxism" is right wing garbage.


I apologize for that. I was quite angry thus delusional when I decided to mention "Cultural Marxism", which I don't think it has been practiced by the lefties to disrupt the current status quo. While I am not against any of the liberal ideas you have cited in your posts I have a real hard time to deal with themes supported by "political correctness extremists".
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zlogdanbr
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by zlogdanbr:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
"histrionic moody person"

this ranks up there with "shrill" in terms of language which reads as an obvious dogwhistle

what does one mean by "histrionic moody person" i wonder

I read an story that old Bill asked Spielberg to create a shorty film to illustrate Hillary's carrier as a politician, and story says she got mad and broke the DVD into pieces. Obviously not a true story, but that is what I meant for,e.g someone psychologically unstable and prone to convey different reactions depending on her current psychological status most of times not quite politely.
Please be aware: I do not know what the term "dogwhistle" mean - this is not sarcasm or irony. But I suppose it means something that is semantically neutral and just attempts to add a bold erudite connotation that actually does not mean anything consistent.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zlogdanbr
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
This article explains why people like her. I was 100% going to vote for her (because, um duh), but this actually makes me happy to do it and see her win.

http://www.vox.com/a/hillary-clinton-interview/the-gap-listener-leadership-quality

If we can get this Hillary as president, and obstructionists back off, I think the country will do well.

Back in 2014 we were in the same dilemma here in Brazil: Dilma or Aecio Neves. I have decided not to vote but the way I am seeing things in US, it seems evil Hillary is a much better option than Trump specially for the sake of the continuity of human race.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A dogwhistle can be heard by dogs, but not humans. So you blow it when you want to get dogs' attention without humans hearing you.

Calling a woman "shrill" or 'histrionic" or "moody" is not saying "She's unacceptable because she's a woman." But all the other people who also think she's unacceptable because she's a woman will hear what you're saying anyway. You're saying she's unacceptable because she's a woman.

I mean, you just used a story that you admit is obviously untrue to illustrate what you think about her personality. Because there aren't any true ones that show what you want to believe.

Hillary Clinton is a policy wonk who cares deeply about improving lives and serving the country. She is smart, she is kind, and she is stable. I'm sure she's lost her temper more than once in her life, I don't know anyone who hasn't. If that was a disqualifying thing for a president, we wouldn't ever have one. She also is overly guarded and secretive, at least partially because she's had people trying to prove she's a criminal for the last 30 years. She's certainly not perfect. But the kind of bullshit you're spewing here is sexism, pure and simple.

Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

it seems evil Hillary

Zlog, name one thing. I've asked you multiple times now, to actually substantiate your position. What makes Hillary in your view evil?

You've now at least twice since I last responded to you, used the terms "Evil Hillary" in a post to describe her, but you have not yet actually posted a single substantiated argument as to what makes her evil.

I fully expect you, if you are going to continue this claim, to actually go on and substantiate what actions she has done, what she has actually done, or said, that makes her evil.

Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you have not yet done so despite the multiple times that I've asked this of you.

For the record, in English here is the first definition from Google:

quote:

profoundly immoral and malevolent.

I get that you may not be American and thus may not be fully well versed in Hillary's record or history; but rationally, reasonably, you should know for a FACT that you should NEVER claim that someone is "evil" without some strong evidence to back up your position.

If you cannot show us even one bit of evidence, then I think you should be able to reach the conclusion that Hillary is simply not an evil person; nor is there that evidence cleverly "hidden" there somewhere like Ron seems to think.

Because several times now I've posted her positions and you've responded each time some variation of "Oh well that's not bad at all and I agree with that." In which case, what is your problem?

Right now we are in an environment of discussing this with you in good faith, don't let us down.

For example:

quote:

Obviously not a true story, but that is what I meant for,e.g someone psychologically unstable and prone to convey different reactions depending on her current psychological status most of times not quite politely.

As ElJay mentions you just used an obviously untrue story, why do you suppose that Hillary acts like this at any point? When has it happened? In a way that is clearly "unstable" and not just someone losing their temper due to extraordinary circumstances?

quote:

While I am not against any of the liberal ideas you have cited in your posts I have a real hard time to deal with themes supported by "political correctness extremists".

While I am raising/quirking my eyebrows at what is a pretty obvious red flag for me since "political correctness extremists" just makes me laugh my ass off because I'm pretty sure such people don't really exist as the people usually afraid of such people think; but what the heck are you talking about?

Are any of these people on these forums right now?
Can you name a specific example in any posts in this thread or that you have seen that qualify as "PC Extremism"?

If neither is true, then why talk about it? If you can't think of an example regarding Hillary that qualifies, then why talk about it?

It's like the idiots who rant and wave about Anita Sarkeesian or unironically use the term "SJW" and then try to pass it off as talking about some slacktivist from facebook and not an actual feminist with real grounding in the issues or theory; Don't be one of those people. Don't seek them out, don't bring them up; if you say you're not against treating people with basic human dignity then don't bring up the "extremists", only deal with the views and arguments in front of you now.

Deal with facts. I'm not arguing with your recollection of what someone else said, I only want to discuss either yours views or the views that you can quote or copy and paste that someone made on these forums or quote directly from a reputable source regarding Hillary Clinton.

Not stuff that is likely largely made up.

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Part of it I think might be language difficulties. Zlog walked back the evil characterizations but then used them again just now, I think perhaps in passing. Part of it also is, to be candid zlog, an apparent willingness to listen to pretty damn nutty pundits and philosophers who are pretty wacky in their own disciplines-such as hey we can't be sure the world is round!-much less fields entirely removed from their 'expertise' and experience.

Part of it also seems to be a willingness to transpose your own frustrations with Brazilian politics into an American context. While I can understand the impulse, if I were to talk about American politicians and then make pronouncements about Brazilian politics wouldn't that be a bit strange?

But part of it, I think, is sexism, subconscious or not. Let me add a little bit of context for this election: between Trump and Clinton, is it really going to be *Hilary* who gets tagged with 'moody and histrionic'? To do so suggests you're paying much closer attention for emotional 'faults' in her while he gets a pass on them. Trump has become known for throwing honest to God temper tantrums in social media alone. Many times now. But a criticism of *Clinton* is supposed to be that she's 'moody'?

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
She may be moody but Trump is out of his gods damned mind
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But she isn't moody. "Moody" is a trap word that's only used to describe women, to make them seem inherently less capable than men. She's also described as ice-cold, robotic, etc, which is the exact opposite of moody. It's blatant sexism.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zlogdanbr
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, calling her "evil" after some time was not quite really seriously intended and I kept using the term "in passing" as Rakeesh has noticed. I was partially quoting myself in mockery.

I wholeheartedly regret it now. Even though I initially meant it, I have changed my mind as I thought I had expressed myself. @Elison R. Salazar, this is my final statement if it suffices to calm you down:

Hillary is not malignant or evil at the end you have certainly convinced me.As I remarked before, I am really hoping that :

- Hillary wins
- Hillary is not as bad as politician as you claim.

If it was not clear to any of you please my apologizes. I realize I was not taking this discussion as seriously as you all are, but I usually behave like that when it comes to talk about politicians. I am quite disappointed with them despite their genders. It is not sexism at all. It is sad realization that I think I cannot see any politician who can represent me as a citizen me and a sheer distrust in the human race.

I frankly have joined this forum because I read science fiction and fantasy and it sort of makes me sad to see how little we talk about it here.

In regard to "political correctness extremists", well, it is really difficult to discuss the topic without getting flamed responses, but I promise to create a thread to discuss it.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ElJay:
But she isn't moody. "Moody" is a trap word that's only used to describe women, to make them seem inherently less capable than men. She's also described as ice-cold, robotic, etc, which is the exact opposite of moody. It's blatant sexism.

yeah and zlog, this is EXACTLY why i zeroed in on the 'histrionic moody person' language

it is language used by people who are using coded language to say that "she is a woman" and "as a woman, she is temperamentally unsuited to the office of the presidency, because women are emotional and moody and have mood swings and PMS"

American politicians on the right do the same to 'code' their messages.

When a GOP member talks about how they're going to be curbing 'welfare queens' and 'thugs' they mean "we don't like black people either"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've been called "moody" plenty of times...and no one is mistaking me for a chick...

[Angst]

Oh gods I would make a brutally ugly gal.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interesting that you bring up 'political correctness extremists' when it's pointed out that several of your criticisms of a woman make no sense from any context but sexism. You're not being asked to be politically correct. You're being asked to not be sexist.

It doesn't matter if you say you don't care about politicians genders. They way you are talking about them is strongly influenced by cultural gender bias. We all have it. Some of us are more aware of it than others. Yours is probably of a different flavor than mine, since we grew up in different countries. But the fact that you've called Clinton moody but not Trump, as Rakeesh said, shows it plain as day.

Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Well, calling her "evil" after some time was not quite really seriously intended and I kept using the term "in passing" as Rakeesh has noticed. I was partially quoting myself in mockery.

It's good if you truly didn't mean it that way, I think we can mea culpa this as a miscommunication due to the language barrier and perhaps you've haven't lurked long on this forum.

We treat political discussions and most discussions fairly seriously here because well, the majority of us who are active regulars and long time veterans came from a time when we considered this forum to be Orson Scott Card's living room; many of us know each other in real life or have met or interacted offline in some way. Tom bought me a book once.

Because of this, there's a certain level of courtesy and respect given I feel where when we are discussing stuff in good faith we come to some sort of agreement, even if its just to disagree, fairly quickly; but it makes it when some of us don't treat it respectfully, are not arguing in good faith or are just reprehensible, stand out very quickly.

So in general I suggest that you should always strive to mean what you say, and say what you mean, and think things over carefully.

I am not angry, nor do I need to be calmed.

The point though, it is very good that you enjoy science fiction, it's good to be here, god knows we need new blood. But when you wander into politics you should take careful stock of what the prevailing winds are, of who the most confident and knowledgeable active posters are (Their names rhyme with Ram, prom, lamb, and unleash), and understand the level of scrutiny your posts will fall under if you don't think it through carefully, standards are high.

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think we are all just overly sensitive to "evil Hillary" because every time Donald Trump tweets about her, he calls her "crooked Hillary" along with "goofy Elizabeth Warren" and other epithets.

There's a concept in psychology called "projecting" where you accuse the other person of doing things you have done as a way of hiding. It's apparently very common among cheating spouses (or so I've learned from reddit relationships). A faithful spouse's often writes in about a newfound paranoia from their partner about infidelity and sure enough, they're being cheated on. It's crazy.

Trump projects. A lot. He often states that Hillary lies, that she's the most crooked candidate ever (he uses hyperbole often too). However, there's an independent agency called Politifact that checks candidate statements and rates them, so things that are true from "a certain point of view" are marked as somewhere in between.

Here's an example from the primaries, so you will get a sample of not just Trump and Clinton.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/15/presidential-scorecards-so-far-march-15-2016/

It turns out that Clinton is pretty honest compared to her cohort: only 1% of her statements received the worst rating, and the lowest percentage of false or worse. Whether that is better than Bernie with no truly bad statements, but more in the false categories is up to you. Trump, however, has 19% in the worst category ALONE ("pants on fire" harkens back to the playground chant "liar liar pants on fire").

So really, the best defense to Trump is "I know you are but what am I" (another schoolyard chant-- the next line is "I hope you die in Junior High"), but it's really hard to pull off as an adult.

Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When they go down, we go up!

That can't be right...google says:


When they go low, we get high...er, go Hi!...no, go high.

Heh...but seriously,

Trump is really REALLY awful

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He is uniquely unqualified.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
While this is true, I opine that "American politician X is evil" is not a particularly extraordinary claim. Sadly, it's entirely pedestrian.

Anyway, to name one thing, intervention in Libya. You'd think someone who lived through the whole Iraq thing - sniping from the sidelines! - would have learned that intervening in a Middle Eastern country is unlikely to improve things. But no, we've got all these ships and missiles, what are they for if we can't use them?

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
King of Men, I have great respect for your reason, wit, and intellect. I do not think that it is reasonable to claim that any public figure is outright "evil" without at least some demonstrable evidence of this, mainly again to use the definition of "Profoundly immoral and malicious", which is what the situation is/was with Zlog.

I think that while we can agree that most politicians are probably of some degree of scummy in order to do their jobs and get reelected which requires soliciting funds, to be evil requires a certain degree of effort and investment.

Rumsfeld and Kissinger are about as close as I am willing to go in terms of that claim, and I say this as someone who respects Kissinger, thinks he did some excellent work in opening China and has his autographed memoirs.

Rumsfeld comes to mind from what I've seen of clips from the The Unknown Known versus what I've seen of McNamara's retrospective from The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara. McNamara strikes me as someone who was very distraught trying to square aware what he did or was a part of, as someone who wants to be a good person and was worried how he might be judged in the next life.

Rumsfeld was scum through and through the entire interview.

But to claim Hillary is evil I do not think meets any reasonable standard.

If supporting intervention in Libya is your best evidence then I can safely claim she is not evil as an objective truth.

Because first as you put it, "who lived through Iraq" is wrong. Because the Libya intervention and OIF were apples and oranges. the US intervention in Libya involved minimal boots on the ground if any, and was the US mainly supporting a NATO military operation through airstrikes and cruise missiles.

Operation Iraqi Freedom involved something of a quarter of a million US soldiers and years of US occupation of a foreign nation fighting a drawn out insurgency. None of that is the case with Libya.

Ultimately though the United States is our Hegemon, and has a moral and ethical imperative as a member of the United Nations Security Council, as a Victor of the Second World War to contain, limit, and erode acts of aggression and crimes against peace and humanity by other nations using whatever means.

Qaddafi had went too far and as a result invited US and UN intervention upon his own head and I think generally that the Left has gone literally insane after what happened with Iraq and now views any US intervention abroad as being "Another Iraq", I'm baffled.

Iraq happened because the Bush Administration was determined from Day 1 to invade the country; whether it is because of right wing neocon think tank echo chambers acting in a circle jerk since 1991 or simply unfettered imperialist capitalism not enough time has gone yet for us to know, but Iraq was a determined premeditated effort from even before Bush got into office and consequently bent the truth, lied, and pulled every political machination in the book to justify the entry into Iraq. You had Cheney going undercover to leak fabricated sources to a newspaper and then consequently using that same newspaper to say he was right.

Virtually none of this is the case with Libya and Syria. Both are ad hoc circumstances of the US reacting to changing world events and meeting their just due obligations to upholding the status quo and current world order.

The situation in Libya is still not good but the United States has more or less stepped away from it after intervention and letting the local factions sort themselves out while giving support to fight ISIS, this is arguably still better than what happened in Iraq.

Not intervening in Libya I don't think was ever a valid option for the United States, so I don't see how this makes Hillary evil without also you claiming I'm also evil for supporting it, in which case then "evil" as you currently define it is meaningless and we're back in everyone is a "last man" territory.

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heisenberg
Member
Member # 13004

 - posted      Profile for Heisenberg           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would say the Libyans were better off under Qadafi then they are now with murderous religious maniacs on the rampage.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
... You'd think someone who lived through the whole Iraq thing - sniping from the sidelines!

Indeed, if only we could have been so lucky that she only sniped from the sidelines. She "in fact, she facilitated and enabled [George W Bush] to make a decision that has been strategically damaging to the United States of America"

quote:
Senator Clinton, I think, equates experience with longevity in Washington. I don't think the American people do and I don't think that if you look at the judgments that we've made over the last several years, that that's the accurate measure.

On the most important foreign policy decision that we face in a generation, whether or not to go into Iraq, I was very clear as to why we should not, that it would fan the flames of anti-American sentiment, that it would distract us from Afghanistan, that it would cost us billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and would not make us more safe, and I do not believe it has made us more safe.
...
Once we had driven the bus into the ditch, there were only so many ways we could get out. The question is: Who's making the decision initially to drive the bus into the ditch?
And the fact is that Senator Clinton often says that she is ready on day one, but, in fact, she was ready to give in to George Bush on day one on this critical issue.


Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
just_me
Member
Member # 3302

 - posted      Profile for just_me           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mucus.... who are you quoting in your post?
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elcheeko75
Member
Member # 13292

 - posted      Profile for Elcheeko75   Email Elcheeko75         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
I would say the Libyans were better off under Qadafi then they are now with murderous religious maniacs on the rampage.

Someone would also be better off getting hit by a Volkswagen than by a cement truck but that doesn't mean you don't try and push them out of the street. Since the discussion was about whether or not HRC could be reasonably described as evil, intent would, I think be a large factor. Even if you buy the ridiculous claim that Obama and Hillary birthed ISIS, you can't possibly claim that it was on purpose.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jul 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
I would say the Libyans were better off under Qadafi then they are now with murderous religious maniacs on the rampage.

Again no, the 1991 Iraq War turned out alright, as do numerous other armed US/UN interventions around the world; that the Libyan situation is still quite short of the intent doesn't change the fact that the decision to go in was made under a rational entirely consistent with the US upholding it's legitimate duties as a Great Power and UNSC member and peacekeeper.

Things didn't go as intended because France and the UK didn't commit to ongoing operations, Clinton isn't to blame for that; the US can't let "Vietnam Syndrome" infect its ability to make the right decision in other peace keeping circumstances.

Rose coloured tinted glasses in her assessment? Perhaps, but is the decision evil? In no honest way is it evil.

Additionally ISIS will eventually be defeated, and in the long term it'll be a hard bloody struggle but there's still a chance things eventually stabilize for the Libyans.

Additionally the ISIS situation may lead finally to a de jure independent kurdistan, lots of good things all around.

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Voted...(among others) yes on 64, legalize recreational marijuana.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I voted. Got to the polling place (a local Antiochan Catholic Church, where we always vote) about 9:50 A.M., and got out 50 minutes later. Lines were long, all the way down a long hall for one of the precincts (there were two precincts at this polling place), and the large parking lot was 90% full. I thought by getting there midmorning the lines would be shorter. But I guess a lot of the 8 A.M. crowd was still finishing up. There was one lady a few people ahead of me who was ordered to turn her sweat shirt inside out. (Fortunately she had a regular shirt underneath. Perhaps she planned for this.) I didn't see the front, but apparently it advertised one of the candidates. As I approached the door, there was a sign on the sidewalk that said "100 feet. No campaigning beyond this point." Any way, it looks like voter turnout in this northern Detroit suburb is very heavy. Sure is different from the primary election last summer, when there was no line at all.

I sighed and voted for Trump. Sure wish it were Ted Cruz as the Republican nominee. Voted Republican all the way down the partisan ballot. Most of them were incumbents that I already was familiar with. I did some research on the non-partisan candidates ahead of time, so I was able to make a fairly educated choice, even though they were mostly unfamiliar to me. (Like trustees for Oakland Community College--vote for 3 out of a list of about 8. I did not vote for the teenager. I wonder how many will vote for him, not even knowing a teenager is running for college board of trustees.)

Now we can only wait and see who wins this Trick or Treat election--the scary clown or the wicked witch. Whoever wins, we all get the trick. But the worse thing that could possibly happen is for lawless serial felon Hillary Clinton to win, and place the White House under the control of her crime family.

We had one ballot proposal--to approve a millage to finance a three-county wide transit system that includes Detroit. I voted in favor. Lots of people lack their own transportation, and presently it can take many of them over an hour to get to work, if buses even run that way.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hi everyone. Long time.

Hope everyone is having a good election day.

I haven't voted yet, though I'm leaning towards Daryl Castle.

He has some positions I don't agree with, but he's the only one on the ballot here in Nevada that I feel comfortable supporting.

There's five ballot measures here in Nevada.

#1 is a gun control measure that forces private sales to be done at a FFL holder's brick and mortar facility. Not sure if it will pass or not

#2 is recreational marijuana. I expect it to pass

#3 would effectively end the monopoly Nevada Power in the state. I expect it to pass, and it should.

#4 is to remove the sales tax on medical devices such as oxygen tanks. I think it will pass.

#5 is a gasoline surcharge to "improve Nevada roads." It would potentially double the fuel taxes here in the state over the next 10 years. I don't really see the need for this, since there is currently enough money for all projects being worked on. There's no deficit.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
But the worse thing that could possibly happen is for lawless serial felon Hillary Clinton to win, and place the White House under the control of her crime family.

Again, this isn't true; Hillary has never been convicted of a crime and by definition cannot be a felon.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Whoa. Michigan is tightening but Trump still leads. And Wisconsin still looks likely to go to Trump. Prediction market odds are 10:1 for a Trump win.

Sometimes surprising things happen.

Posts: 2923 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now it's 20:1. Increasingly certain that Trump has won.
Posts: 2923 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The GOP is having a good night in the Senate races as well, taking Indiana and Wisconsin (which were rated toss-up and lean Dem, respectively). They haven't called NH, but Ayotte is leading, and Roy Blunt seems to be headed toward victory in Missouri. 538 currently expects 51-52 GOP senators.

The governors races are also leaning GOP, with Republicans winning/leading in NH, VT, NC, MO, and IN. Four of those currently have Democratic governors.

Posts: 2923 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
do you remember how i jumped up and down and celebrated that trump won the primary because it essentially surrendered the white house and the supreme court to the democratic party

i am happy to report that the state of the election is "still super over"


Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ...  12  13  14   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2