# Democratic Debates



## WD_GASTER2 (Jun 28, 2019)

Now that the first round is over for the 20 candidates... any opinions?


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 28, 2019)

Well I am a Republican but if your party wants any chance of beating Trump they better run Joe Biden. Warren is going to get crushed if you guys elect her as the democratic candidate. If you guys hadn't elected Hilary, Biden would have beat Trump in 2016.


----------



## Iamapirate (Jun 28, 2019)

Mediocre. The Hispanic pandering was cringe, Castro's trans blunder was funny (abortion rights for trans women, when he meant to say trans men, as trans women have penises and cannot biologically carry a child), predictable vilification of "dah tap one percent", bogus wealth redistribution rhetoric, etc.

I don't think these debates changed the game at all. Biden is still the most viable and the best chance of beating Trump in the general, followed by Sanders. I really like Yang personally but I don't agree with much of his platform. Gabbard is a fox with some military cred and not a war-monger, but she's too left for my taste.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Jun 28, 2019)

Iamapirate said:


> Mediocre. The Hispanic pandering was cringe, Castro's trans blunder was funny (abortion rights for trans women, when he meant to say trans men, as trans women have penises and cannot biologically carry a child), predictable vilification of "dah tap one percent", bogus wealth redistribution rhetoric, etc.
> 
> I don't think these debates changed the game at all. Biden is still the most viable and the best chance of beating Trump in the general, followed by Sanders. I really like Yang personally but I don't agree with much of his platform. Gabbard is a fox with some military cred and not a war-monger, but she's too left for my taste.


Just out of curiosity do you consider yourself conservative? I am just trying to get a pulse for the current situation.



Maluma said:


> Well I am a Republican but if your party wants any chance of beating Trump they better run Joe Biden. Warren is going to get crushed if you guys elect her as the democratic candidate. If you guys hadn't elected Hilary, Biden would have beat Trump in 2016.



would it be fair to say that if this is the case that your vote is hard locked for the next election? Just curious.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 28, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> Just out of curiosity do you consider yourself conservative? I am just trying to get a pulse for the current situation.


How will that help you get a pulse? 95% of GBAtemps population are Democrats. If Bernie wins the primary Americans will get scared and vote for Trump again(which I have no problem with). I am not sure if Biden would beat Trump but he has by far the best chance out of anyone.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Jun 28, 2019)

I want to understand how conservatives see the debates. I am Just asking people what they thought on all sides of the spectrum. If its you feel its out of place no need to answer. I am just trying to understand how conservatives from all angles of the right see this. Your answer seemed honest and earnest so it got me curious.



Maluma said:


> How will that help you get a pulse? 95% of GBAtemps population are Democrats. If Bernie wins the primary Americans will get scared and vote for Trump again(which I have no problem with). I am not sure if Biden would beat Trump but he has by far the best chance out of anyone.



ive seen pages and pages of discussion of this forum lean towards the right... so i am not sure about the 95% number


----------



## Iamapirate (Jun 28, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> Just out of curiosity do you consider yourself conservative? I am just trying to get a pulse for the current situation.
> 
> 
> 
> would it be fair to say that if this is the case that your vote is hard locked for the next election? Just curious.


I would say so. I'm fiscally conservative and socially moderate. I was actually a Bernie fan in 2015 before changing my views and educating myself.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 28, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> I want to understand how conservatives see the debates. I am Just asking people what they thought on all sides of the spectrum. If its you feel its out of place no need to answer. I am just trying to understand how conservatives from all angles of the right see this. Your answer seemed honest and earnest so it got me curious.
> 
> 
> 
> ive seen pages and pages of discussion of this forum lean towards the right... so i am not sure about the 95% number



Conservatives feel attacked here and on other websites(reddit,twitter,ect.) so they feel the need to be more vocal. Temp used to ban people much more than it does now. I think since the mods changed so much over the years most don't care enough just to ban people for having different views.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Jun 28, 2019)

Perhaps, but I am here and I am not attacking you. I am honestly just wanted to hear your thoughts. I know a lot of heavy blows in opinions get exchanged around here, but I legitimate wanted to see how people saw the ideas proposed in contrast to the 3 or so years of the current admin. I really mean it when i say i am not here to debate your opinion. I just wanted to see how the other side saw this.


----------



## Iamapirate (Jun 28, 2019)

I never got the feel that Temp was overly left wing.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Jun 28, 2019)

yeah the impression i have gotten is that its pretty back and forth... but maybe that is just me.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 28, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Conservatives feel attacked here and on other websites(reddit,twitter,ect.) so they feel the need to be more vocal. Temp used to ban people much more than it does now. I think since the mods changed so much over the years most don't care enough just to ban people for having different views.



Stop conflating conservatism and hard right either bordering on or just blatant open nationalism and racism and all the other crap you're finding on this forum apart from when you're not talking about video games.
People aren't getting attacked for 'well old values have some place in today's world too', they're being attacked for arguing bullshit about overpopulation or that Mexicans deserve dying like dogs in needlessly expensive desert concentration camps or that 'Antifa and the radical left' are much much much more dangerous than proud boys and other white pride organizations, when one has been killing people and is marching on a common believe that killing more is a good idea. 

Like, come on. Also 95%? Jesus you guys love your victim role, don't you?



Iamapirate said:


> I never got the feel that Temp was overly left wing.


Because it isn't. The adults in the room maybe, but with the influx of obvious baiting right wing trolls and hordes of 13 year old edge lords who literally have no idea what they're talking about, it's more likely to be leaning to the right here


----------



## Iamapirate (Jun 28, 2019)

okay you had me until you compared Antifa to the Proud Boys. Proud Boys aren't in the same league as Antifa, who are actually radical and protected by some in the media.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 28, 2019)

Warren and Castro were the winners from night one I think.  Harris and Buttigieg in night two.  Biggest losers were de Blasio on night one and Biden on night two.  Most of the other candidates' performances were just okay, probably not gonna move the needle much for them in either direction.  Ryan, Delaney, and Williamson have no reason to be in this race whatsoever.



Maluma said:


> Well I am a Republican but if your party wants any chance of beating Trump they better run Joe Biden.


Well that just sounds like you're trying to sabotage us, lol.  Biden I think is the least electable of the big name candidates.  He's the Hillary Clinton of this election.  Too much baggage, and too moderate to bring the base to the polls.  Not to mention he's already lost three presidential primary races.



Maluma said:


> If Bernie wins the primary Americans will get scared and vote for Trump again(which I have no problem with).


There are far more registered Democrats than Republicans.  I think if 2016 taught us anything, it's that moderates will turn out to vote for a progressive, but progressives will not turn out to vote for a moderate.  Just puts fuel on the "both parties are the same" fire when we run 'Republican Lite' candidates like Biden.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Jun 28, 2019)

Thanks Xzi. for a moment i thought the intent of this thread was gonna go the way of the dodo.
Like i said i can only speak for myself but the intent of this thread is to just legit get people's opinions. There are a ton of other threads in this forum where people can take shots at each other all they want.


----------



## cots (Jun 28, 2019)

There was a Democratic Debate? Did any of them figure out which way you turn a screwdriver when removing a screw?


----------



## deinonychus71 (Jun 28, 2019)

My opinion as an immigrant: You guys need to learn the benefits of a third party.
Yes, they can win. Happened in a few European countries already.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 28, 2019)

deinonychus71 said:


> My opinion as an immigrant: You guys need to learn the benefits of a third party.
> Yes, they can win. Happened in a few European countries already.


They can't win with our current 'first past the post' system.  We need more than three parties, but reforming to a ranked choice voting system would be necessary before we'll see more than two.


----------



## Viri (Jun 28, 2019)

Iamapirate said:


> Mediocre. The Hispanic pandering was cringe





Spoiler












--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Well that just sounds like you're trying to sabotage us, lol. Biden I think is the least electable of the big name candidates. He's the Hillary Clinton of this election. Too much baggage, and too moderate to bring the base to the polls. Not to mention he's already lost three presidential primary races.


At least someone else sees it. I don't get why people are hyping him up. He's going to lose to Trump, if he wins the primaries.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 28, 2019)

Viri said:


>


Lol, Donde Esta La Biblioteca


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 28, 2019)

I watched some youtube-parts of it. My main opinion:

Who the f*** are all those people?


Of course, as a foreigner, my views are a bit skewed. Even things like Trump almost starting a war with Iran is at best page six in my local newspaper, and I bet at least half my country wouldn't be able to tell Mike Pence when bumping into him on the street. But even with my interest in US politics, I can barely tell anyone apart (oh, so THAT's that Buttigieg guy?). I've heard of Warren, Biden and of course Sanders, but that's about it. It's not fun for them (ey...one of these is going to have to clean up the mess that Trump leaves behind), but I'll wait out until there's just a handful left.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 28, 2019)

Cory Booker he was saying he basically lives in the hood, ha ha. I hear gun shots. lol. 




De Blasio said what separates him from other candidates was that he raised a black son in America, haaaaaaaaaaaahaaaahaaaa. 


You hear that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders he just 1 upped you guys, he has a black son.


----------



## cots (Jun 28, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> I watched some youtube-parts of it. My main opinion:
> 
> Who the f*** are all those people?
> 
> ...



I'm not sure who they are either. Not only was the debate (whatever it was about) not on my radar, but just like when Trump was debating his opponents (which I also didn't pay attention to) they are just a bunch of politicians. Expect nothing, but blatant lies.

I like Trump's "mess" and I don't see any of them, whomever they are, replacing him. I expect another 4 years under the current mumbling idiot, who is actually doing an okay job. I'll reserve my judgement for the next stool pigeon to replace him after that a happens (4 years from now, give or take a few months).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> Cory Booker he was saying he basically lives in the hood, ha ha. I hear gun shots. lol.



Until a politician shows up that has been arrested for something he didn't do, injured in the incident then sent to a mental hospital without his consent and then released into the inner city wearing a hospital gown with no shoes, no money and no one to call and makes it out of that mess I can't see any of them saying they can "relate" to living in the hood. Let's see him live off of 1/2 of what is considered "being in poverty", sleeping under bridges and trying to eat off of less than $100 in food stamps a month. How many times a day does he hear those gun shots? Next!


----------



## Xzi (Jun 28, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Cory Booker he was saying he basically lives in the hood, ha ha. I hear gun shots. lol.


To be fair, there really aren't any nice parts of New Jersey, it's basically all the hood.  Lol.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 28, 2019)

cots said:


> I'm not sure who they are either. Not only was the debate (whatever it was about) not on my radar, but just like when Trump was debating his opponents (which I also didn't pay attention to) they are just a bunch of politicians. Expect nothing, but blatant lies.


Sorry...you must've watched the wrong show. These aren't republican candidates.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 28, 2019)

cots said:


> I like Trump's "mess" and I don't see any of them, whomever they are, replacing him.


Of course you don't see it when you don't want to see it.  The top three are all polling 10+ points ahead of Trump nationally, however, and Trump has managed to lose a lot of his support in the Midwest by failing to live up to any of his campaign promises.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 28, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> I watched some youtube-parts of it. My main opinion:
> 
> Who the f*** are all those people?



That's like one of the biggest issues with elections all across the globe, but especially in the usa.

These shouldn't be popularity contests, except for like major past scandals or major past accomplishments, wether you 'know' any candidate or not shouldn't even matter.
Their positions is what matters.


This is similar to NY's mayor being, by polls, the worst mayor in the states.
He's far from the worst, people just generally hate mayors and he, among the other top 10 of 'worst' mayors, is just like the most known across the nation. Most americans are more likely to know his name than the name of their own mayor, so on a numbers based poll, he'll always end up with the most 'worst of them all' votes.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 28, 2019)

Iamapirate said:


> okay you had me until you compared Antifa to the Proud Boys. Proud Boys aren't in the same league as Antifa, who are actually radical and protected by some in the media.



so proud boys and patriot prayer and whatever else flashy names they give themselves are not radical, don't bring weapons to their 'protests' and don't constantly get support from the right side of the media?
And where does 'antifa' get backed by the media? If anything, mainstream media outlets jump on the scaremongering bandwagon too.
I mean, come on, what paralell world are you living in?


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 28, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> That's like one of the biggest issues with elections all across the globe, but especially in the usa.


Erm...I do have to stress the fact that I'm a foreigner (and so are you, really). I hadn't heard of Donald Trump before he trashed his colleague republicans in the race to the white house either, but apparently he's some sort of local celebrity over there. That's fine too (or rather: it would've been fine if that status was for achieving something in the field he was running for, but that's a different matter).

I mean...I don't expect foreigners to know who Charles Michel, Bart De Wever, Elio Di Rupo or similar people are. As long as the local population has heard of them, that's okay.

The thing is...though I follow US and UK politics somewhat, I can pinpoint most of the new UK prime minister candidates, but I cannot say who most of these people are. And I'm not sure if that's their fault. I mean...why do I know what "A.O.C." stands for, even though she's not a candidate?


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 28, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Erm...I do have to stress the fact that I'm a foreigner (and so are you, really). I hadn't heard of Donald Trump before he trashed his colleague republicans in the race to the white house either, but apparently he's some sort of local celebrity over there. That's fine too (or rather: it would've been fine if that status was for achieving something in the field he was running for, but that's a different matter).
> 
> I mean...I don't expect foreigners to know who Charles Michel, Bart De Wever, Elio Di Rupo or similar people are. As long as the local population has heard of them, that's okay.
> 
> The thing is...though I follow US and UK politics somewhat, I can pinpoint most of the new UK prime minister candidates, but I cannot say who most of these people are. And I'm not sure if that's their fault. I mean...why do I know what "A.O.C." stands for, even though she's not a candidate?




Because AOC is of a much younger, social media oriented generation and she's popular with a lot of people, including political satire and daily shows.
And because that is true, the other side of the media too has a ridiculously large investent in trying to take her down. Like, fox news did entire days with back to back AOC bashing, 95%+ of it very transparently misrepresenting all of her political positions and accomplishments.
So it'd be hard not to hear of her.

Similarily to how it would be hard to not know Donald trump. Granted, it was kinda quiet about him for a half-decade somewhere, so there may be one generation of people who were spared that mans nonsense...

The others are mostly local politicians or senators, of course they wouldn't be known all over the place prior to running for president, because in normal, working politics, people don't make a spectacle out of it.

But again, neither would they need to be. Being known isn't a criteria in being a good leader or an indicator of how well anyone would represent the will of the people.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 28, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> Because AOC is of a much younger, social media oriented generation and she's popular with a lot of people, including political satire and daily shows.
> And because that is true, the other side of the media too has a ridiculously large investent in trying to take her down. Like, fox news did entire days with back to back AOC bashing, 95%+ of it very transparently misrepresenting all of her political positions and accomplishments.
> So it'd be hard not to hear of her.
> 
> ...


Yup. That's the thing I was referring to: why is she going viral with everything she does (which causes the opposition to waste time trying to debunk that) whereas these people hardly make a wrinkle?


Or to put it more cynical (because this is the USA we're talking about): if you're not being trashed by Fox and/or Donald Trump, you really aren't putting in your best effort as a democrat.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 28, 2019)

For the most part wake me up when the candidates have been actually thinned out, and the no hopers publicity boosting for their next book are gone. I will pay attention then. That said when I have been paying attention they all seem pretty weak and forgettable which is probably not ideal there, to say nothing of the rather split nature of the party at present.



Maluma said:


> Conservatives feel attacked here and on other websites(reddit,twitter,ect.) so they feel the need to be more vocal. Temp used to ban people much more than it does now. I think since the mods changed so much over the years most don't care enough just to ban people for having different views.


The entire time I have been here I don't recall people being banned or otherwise sanctioned for having different views, much less mainstream US/EU/English speaking world type ones (granted there are massive differences there). Can't speak to other sites as I am not on them. I would certainly agree the US right wing (which compared to a lot of the rest of the world is incredibly right wing, or at least incredibly different*) would tend to have had to justify everything it does, though it seems most US politics these days has since become a complete circus so now everything needs to be justified all the time.

*no UK right wing party would care about getting rid of national healthcare (such a thing would be political suicide, indeed the most likely next UK prime minister kind of had funding it as a slogan during the leave the EU campaign), gun rights are not a thing most are concerned with (indeed you could happily be a right wing UK politico and want to make things harder for gun owners without any real pushback**), outside of Ireland nobody cares at all about abortion really (some might have personal views but they will not be expressed unless pushed and nobody will really push), the rough equivalent of states rights internally in the UK would be devolved parliaments and those tend to be fairly agreed upon across the board (EU stuff, so called Euroscepticism is predominantly a UK right wing affair but not always), military wise then it is not a particularly good thing to make as your base platform or major talking point (and in any case is not a particularly left or right centric issue) and most just want it done properly***, the only reason anybody would mention communism is if they are talking about history or somewhere else in the world, lowering taxes is a minor note for most parties... and that is pretty much every topic I saw done to death in the US elections I was running around there to witness.

**and if they made it harder for the man on the street but helped the gun club/collector/existing infrastructure set then probably complete non issue.

***the new aircraft carrier stuff (all the old ones were long in the tooth so nice new one was made, but it is overrun and technically the UK is now without one, being a point of contention for everybody involved. Similar grumbles about a lack of helicopters and everybody that was not holding one had a little giggle at the earlier revisions of the L85, and those more in the know might have wondered why it got to A3 rather than being replaced as per the original timelines.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 28, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> For the most part wake me up when the candidates have been actually thinned out, and the no hopers publicity boosting for their next book are gone. I will pay attention then. That said when I have been paying attention they all seem pretty weak and forgettable which is probably not ideal there, to say nothing of the rather split nature of the party at present.
> 
> 
> The entire time I have been here I don't recall people being banned or otherwise sanctioned for having different views, much less mainstream US/EU/English speaking world type ones (granted there are massive differences there). Can't speak to other sites as I am not on them. I would certainly agree the US right wing (which compared to a lot of the rest of the world is incredibly right wing, or at least incredibly different*) would tend to have had to justify everything it does, though it seems most US politics these days has since become a complete circus so now everything needs to be justified all the time.
> ...



All South America and the Middle East is incredibly socially conservative. I am pretty sure the same goes to Asia. I am sharing my anecdotal experience from what I saw on GBAtemp, doesn't mean everyone saw the same things. All the mods here are liberal for example.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 28, 2019)

Most of the candidates had their ups and downs during the two debates (some had more ups; some had more downs). Personally, I like Elizabeth Warren most.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Warren and Castro were the winners from night one I think.  Harris and Buttigieg in night two.  Biggest losers were de Blasio on night one and Biden on night two.  Most of the other candidates' performances were just okay, probably not gonna move the needle much for them in either direction.  Ryan, Delaney, and Williamson have no reason to be in this race whatsoever.
> 
> 
> Well that just sounds like you're trying to sabotage us, lol.  Biden I think is the least electable of the big name candidates.  He's the Hillary Clinton of this election.  Too much baggage, and too moderate to bring the base to the polls.  Not to mention he's already lost three presidential primary races.
> ...



Moderates voted for Trump in 2016.







--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Clydefrosch said:


> Stop conflating conservatism and hard right either bordering on or just blatant open nationalism and racism and all the other crap you're finding on this forum apart from when you're not talking about video games.
> People aren't getting attacked for 'well old values have some place in today's world too', they're being attacked for arguing bullshit about overpopulation or that Mexicans deserve dying like dogs in needlessly expensive desert concentration camps or that 'Antifa and the radical left' are much much much more dangerous than proud boys and other white pride organizations, when one has been killing people and is marching on a common believe that killing more is a good idea.
> 
> Like, come on. Also 95%? Jesus you guys love your victim role, don't you?
> ...



Didn't you get your posts deleted a few weeks ago because you couldn't help yourself from insulting the user base of this forum? Why do you post in these threads if you don't have the temperament or the emotional maturity for these discussions. As soon as I saw the little anime stuffed animal I knew who you were without even reading your username. These political threads clearly aren't for you. You can't even type a proper sentence and those "concentration camps" where built since Clinton was in power. Your reply had absolutely nothing to do with anything that was discussed on this thread.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 28, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Moderates voted for Trump in 2016.


I don't have a problem with your comment about moderates in 2016. That being said, your map is misleading, since not all counties have the same number of people. This map, adjusted for population, is far more accurate, and one should keep in mind that Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 28, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I don't have a problem with your comment about moderates in 2016. That being said, your map is misleading, since not all counties have the same number of people. This map, adjusted for population, is far more accurate, and one should keep in mind that Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.
> 
> View attachment 171577



Why is my map misleading? In the USA we use the electoral college, not popular vote.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 28, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Why is my map misleading? In the USA we use the electoral college, not popular vote.


Because:

Your point had nothing to do with the Electoral College.
If your point had to do with the Electoral College, a county map is irrelevant.


----------



## leon315 (Jun 28, 2019)

HERE YOU GO! i don't care about 2020 race, i just found this funny


----------



## Glyptofane (Jun 28, 2019)

I wanted to watch, but was too drunk both nights by the time they started.

Glad to hear Tulsi Gabbard did well and is now polling well despite media attacks.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 28, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> I wanted to watch, but was too drunk both nights by the time they started.
> 
> Glad to hear Tulsi Gabbard did well and is now polling well despite media attacks.


I've never seen Gabbard poll higher than 3% (and that's an outlier), and there haven't been any polls from after the debate. It should also be noted that her history on LGBT issues will almost certainly keep her from getting anywhere close to the Democratic nomination.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jun 28, 2019)

My thoughts are that Biden needs to drop out before he starts an uncontrollable fire. Sanders is a close 2nd in that regard. I'm not on either side (left or right). The debate was lackluster.. And just seemed like a PR stunt of SNL skit.


----------



## leon315 (Jun 28, 2019)

@Glyptofane FROM the video i linked there's summary of major point of every candidates.

hey tempers, i heard they cutted Yang's mic to prevent him to talk, very democratic and fair indeed XDDD


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jun 28, 2019)

leon315 said:


> @Glyptofane FROM the video i linked there's summary of major point of every candidates.
> 
> hey tempers, i heard they cutted Yang's mic to prevent him to talk, very democratic and fair indeed XDDD


Saw that... Unprofessional


----------



## Glyptofane (Jun 28, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I've never seen Gabbard poll higher than 3% (and that's an outlier), and there haven't been any polls from after the debate. It should also be noted that her history on LGBT issues will almost certainly keep her from getting anywhere close to the Democratic nomination.


Yea, I just meant online polls and the search analytics for her during and after the debate. It's probably mostly fringe lunatics like when Ron Paul "won" all the debates yet never got anywhere close to the nomination.


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 28, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Well I am a Republican but if your party wants any chance of beating Trump they better run Joe Biden. Warren is going to get crushed if you guys elect her as the democratic candidate. If you guys hadn't elected Hilary, Biden would have beat Trump in 2016.


His son died and he bowed out of the race. It's a pretty heartbreaking story. But it seems enough time has passed he can handle a presidential election.

Biden is the most conservative of those to choose from, so I can see why those on the right would think he'd have the best chance to win. Bernie will bring 3rd party people on board, same for Warren. I'd be fine if Biden was vice president again, though. It's hard to change things for the better when those in power don't understand or care what the problems needing fixing are.



leon315 said:


> @Glyptofane FROM the video i linked there's summary of major point of every candidates.
> 
> hey tempers, i heard they cutted Yang's mic to prevent him to talk, very democratic and fair indeed XDDD


I'd blame the tech guys before I assumed negligence. You know the ol' adage: *Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.*


----------



## Lacius (Jun 28, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> Yea, I just meant online polls and the search analytics for her during and after the debate. It's probably mostly fringe lunatics like when Ron Paul "won" all the debates yet never got anywhere close to the nomination.


Conservative sections of Reddit, etc. also told everyone to vote for Gabbard in all of the online polls, so you are correct.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Memoir said:


> My thoughts are that Biden needs to drop out before he starts an uncontrollable fire. Sanders is a close 2nd in that regard. I'm not on either side (left or right). The debate was lackluster.. And just seemed like a PR stunt of SNL skit.


The most recent RCP aggregate is as follows (for everyone above 1%):

Biden: 32.0%
Sanders: 16.9%
Warren: 12.8%
Harris: 7.0%
Buttigieg: 6.6%
O'Rourke: 3.3%
Booker: 2.3%
Yang: 1.3%
These numbers are all before the debates, so we're probably going to see some movement over the next few weeks, especially since Biden didn't do great.

Interestingly, if you ask Democratic voters to choose the candidate they could magically put into the White House, instead of considering who would be most likely to beat Trump, the numbers are more like this:

Warren: 21%
Biden and Sanders: tied with 19%
Buttigieg: 16%
Harris: 12%
O'Rourke: 4%


----------



## leon315 (Jun 28, 2019)

@osaka35 it's easy to ''blame'' tech guy for negligence, they are racing for 2020 and one of them maybe the next Chosen One, if this is the level of seriousness in USA, then i couldn't imaging how hopeless you people when facing other lesser issues.


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 28, 2019)

It's fun when people start paying attention to the process for the first time. This is pretty normal, and happens on both sides. You've got your "buy my book", you've got your serious contenders, you've got your wanna-be-serious-contenders, and you've got your unhinged/joke people. Usually the joke people are ignored for the serious contenders, but as we found out in 2016, joke people can get elected if ignored for long enough and they lie well enough.

So it's fun to watch, but only really gets serious when it's paired down. This is mainly an opportunity to see what ideas are put out there, what ideas float to the top, and who articulates them best. These debates tend to help shape the discussions for the final contenders. So, in that regard, I'm hoping to hear more about the UBI, universal healthcare, student loans, pro-science topics (climate change, education, etc), and foreign policy. And other things.



leon315 said:


> @osaka35 it's easy to ''blame'' tech guy for negligence, they are racing for 2020 and one of them maybe the next Chosen One, if this is the level of seriousness in USA, then i couldn't imaging how hopeless you people when facing other lesser issues.


I mean, tech issues happen all the time. Especially when you're trying to mic up so many people and balance all that audio on the fly. I agree, it's pretty shoddy work, but it's a huge leap to extrapolate the attitude of the entire United States because some tech guys didn't do their job right XD.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 28, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Because:
> 
> Your point had nothing to do with the Electoral College.
> If your point had to do with the Electoral College, a county map is irrelevant.



I have no idea what you are talking about. Swing voters voted for Trump thus he won the election,not sure what is hard to understand here.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 28, 2019)

Maluma said:


> I have no idea what you are talking about.


Your point was that moderates voted heavily for Trump in 2016, but you posted a county map of the election results as evidence. County maps are misleading and don't do anything to show how moderates voted in a presidential election. A county map only shows us how rural areas take up most of the area, and that's it.

The Electoral College also has nothing to do with how _counties_ vote. The Electoral College is about how _states_ vote, and a county map can even misrepresent how a single state voted. Just look at New York state, for example. It looks almost entirely red from a county perspective, but most of the people are in urban areas, and the entire state actually went blue.

In summary, county maps are pointless, regardless of what we're talking about or trying to prove. The 2012 county map also looks quite red, but we both know that's misleading, given the results of the election.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 28, 2019)

Maluma said:


> I have no idea what you are talking about. Swing voters voted for Trump thus he won the election,not sure what is hard to understand here.


You said moderate voters voted for Trump (and from what I have seen there were several, as opposed to the normally don't vote set turning out in force or something) and then posted the county level results map for the election, resulting in something of a sea of red (in this case indicating votes for Trump). One does not have the most to do with the other but fair enough. It should be noted that sometimes such a map is used to make out that more support is enjoyed than might actually be so some are wary of such things.

It was however then noted that the county map is just a projection of the land area. If you modified it for population rather than area (which given people are supposed to be represented in voting rather than areas, though there are modifiers for area which some take issue with but we will get back to that shortly) it shows a rather different picture, something of an even split and more in line with totals.
It was also noted as part of the post that the popular vote did not go Mr Trump's way, by some margin at that. While I would agree the rather oddly setup electoral college system is in play* and by virtue of its rules Mr Trump still won the final call then is it not worth considering in all this that it does also mean he does not enjoy a particularly high support among the population at large, said large also including a great many highly populated cities (said cities also being the economic powerhouses of the country, and large numbers of the presently working people). Similarly if we are now talking about the electoral college then a county map is still of limited use as the electoral college modified vote counts still go either majorities (so called winner take all) or are split along voter totals at state level.
You then said swing voters which is a broadly analogous term to moderate voters but can have some other meanings, and might be confused for swing states which is a slightly different matter again (there are some states which reliably return a given result election on election, but others that vary presumably by strength of the candidate in that area) or the voters in said states that achieved the necessary results for the final result to happen, and again makes the county map of dubious use.

*while I can appreciate the idea that is supposed to increase the potency of smaller states which might not have as much say if their population alone dictated things I am not entirely sure how it is achieving it in the modern world, and what heed might be given to them that would otherwise not be so, and the rules of it are rather variable between states too. Measuring what heed is given to states is not something I am entirely sure how to measure (visits/addresses during campaign is poor, concessions to is terribly hard to quantify but something at least worth noting), and if said small states are also not swing states then it gets even more fun.

Short version. You almost seem to be acting like the final result was job jobbed, done, all sorted when in fact there is something of a demonstrable majority that did not fall in line with his setup. To then write off the opposition as some kind of minor rabble rouser types does rather stand in stark contrast to the raw numbers, economic power of said same, likely future voters and more besides, something someone looking to play the game would likely have a vested interest in attempting to please at least a tiny bit. There are times when serious majorities have been won in more relevant metrics and opposition can be more readily ignored but I can't see it as being a sensible plan here. This also says nothing of the rather contentious choice in the eyes of some of his opposition; personally she seemed pretty run of the mill and otherwise unremarkable to me but among the US populace at large she seemed to have more a history so I will have to go look further into that one.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 28, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Moderates voted for Trump in 2016.


And?  That ignores my larger point.  We don't need moderates to win, we need to turn out our base like we did in 2018.  Blue-collar states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are important too, but Trump has failed those states miserably.  Nearly all the Democrats are polling ahead of Trump by double digits in that region.


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> And?  That ignores my larger point.  We don't need moderates to win, we need to turn out our base like we did in 2018.  Blue-collar states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are important too, but Trump has failed those states miserably.  Nearly all the Democrats are polling ahead of Trump by double digits in that region.


As long as Biden isn't the front-runner, I see most 3rd party folks voting democrat as well.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 28, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> As long as Biden isn't the front-runner, I see most 3rd party folks voting democrat as well.


Biden consistently does the best in head-to-head polling against Trump.


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 28, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Biden consistently does the best in head-to-head polling against Trump.


Yeah, he's pretty centrist so tends to attract folks who don't want to rock the boat any. But he's not going to be the best at defusing the bombs currently in place in US politics. Plus, the 3rd party folks will probably see him as too similar to hillary. He wouldn't be the worst, but he certainly isn't the best progressive. But a quality centrist.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 28, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> As long as Biden isn't the front-runner, I see most 3rd party folks voting democrat as well.


Yep.  Bernie is an Independent, after all, and Warren would be just as good at getting Sanders supporters to show up to the polls.  Castro, Harris, and Booker are all exciting in their own ways too, but I see one of them as more likely to end up in the VP slot.  

Biden though is a piece of wet bread, he's not exciting to anybody and he's a ball of gaffes waiting to happen.  All his support right now comes purely from name recognition, I just hope people realize sooner rather than later that he's a subpar campaigner at best.  Just like Hillary was.


----------



## GhostLatte (Jun 28, 2019)

I honestly think Pete Buttigieg did a great job!


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Yep.  Bernie is an Independent, after all, and Warren would be just as good at getting Sanders supporters to show up to the polls.  Castro, Harris, and Booker are all exciting in their own ways too, but I see one of them as more likely to end up in the VP slot.
> 
> Biden though is a piece of wet bread, he's not exciting to anybody and he's a ball of gaffes waiting to happen.  All his support right now comes purely from name recognition, I just hope people realize sooner rather than later that he's a subpar campaigner at best.  Just like Hillary was.


I'm hoping Pete Buttgieg comes in and rises to the top. But he's incredibly intelligent in his thinking and speech, which usually is a negative for...some voters ("but can you drink a beer with him?"). He's going to have to prove his value to the African American community though, or else his chances will just fall apart.


----------



## GhostLatte (Jun 28, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> I'm hoping Pete Buttgieg comes in and rises to the top. But he's incredibly intelligent in his thinking and speech, which usually is a negative for...some voters ("but can you drink a beer with him?"). He's going to have to prove his value to the African American community though, or else his chances will just fall apart.


I think he handled himself well last night and stood his ground.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jun 28, 2019)

leon315 said:


> hey tempers, i heard they cutted Yang's mic to prevent him to talk, very democratic and fair indeed XDDD


Yang himself is saying this and I believe him. Even if he wasn't being deliberately silenced, he was given a pathetically low amount of speaking time.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 28, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> Yang himself is saying this and I believe him. Even if he wasn't being deliberately silenced, he was given a pathetically low amount of speaking time.


I felt like he failed to make effective use of what time he was given, but he definitely should've been given more regardless.  Even Williamson got more speaking time, and she has no qualifications whatsoever.


----------



## GhostLatte (Jun 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I felt like he failed to make effective use of what time he was given, but he definitely should've been given more regardless.  Even Williamson got more speaking time, and she has no qualifications whatsoever.


Apparently they cut off his mic.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 28, 2019)

GhostLatte said:


> Apparently they cut off his mic.


Yeah I saw that story.  TBH everyone's mic should be off until they're given the floor to answer a question or respond to another candidate.  They shouldn't be selective about whose mics they leave on to allow for interjection.  Either all on or all off.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 28, 2019)

The Scottish news just did a big piece on Joe Biden and made him out to be a huge racist and a thoroughly despicable person. Sounds like the perfect candidate to be next POTUS.


----------



## GhostLatte (Jun 28, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> The Scottish news just did a big piece on Joe Biden and made him out to be a huge racist and a thoroughly despicable person. Sounds like the perfect candidate to be next POTUS.


We're already have one in office now


----------



## Xzi (Jun 28, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> The Scottish news just did a big piece on Joe Biden and made him out to be a huge racist and a thoroughly despicable person. Sounds like the perfect candidate to be next POTUS.


Like so many issues, race seems to be one that Biden has "evolved" his stance on.  At one point he gave an impassioned speech in favor of segregation.  But Bernie is from the same generation and was on the right side of history every step of the way.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 28, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> so proud boys and patriot prayer and whatever else flashy names they give themselves are not radical, don't bring weapons to their 'protests' and don't constantly get support from the right side of the media?
> And where does 'antifa' get backed by the media? If anything, mainstream media outlets jump on the scaremongering bandwagon too.
> I mean, come on, what paralell world are you living in?


Antifa was labeled by U.S. Security agencies, The Department of Homeland Security, as domestic terrorists. Proud boys aren’t. Not a scaremonger. They attack people. The use Molotov Cocktails, throw bombs, start fires, smash windows and beat the shit out of people.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/antifa-domestic-terrorists-us-security-agencies-homeland-security-fbi-a7927881.html?amp




FBI says Proud boys aren’t extremist groups.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/12/08/fbi-says-proud-boys-are-not-an-extremist-group-after-all/?outputType=amp


If you follow Antifa and what they do it’s obvious they are domestic terrorists.



Taleweaver said:


> Yup. That's the thing I was referring to: why is she going viral with everything she does (which causes the opposition to waste time trying to debunk that) whereas these people hardly make a wrinkle?
> 
> 
> Or to put it more cynical (because this is the USA we're talking about): if you're not being trashed by Fox and/or Donald Trump, you really aren't putting in your best effort as a democrat.


She has no basic understanding of economics. She thought accounting errors was money. She thought a tax break is money we can spend.


Her Green New Deal was a disaster, no one supported it, in Congress they all voted no, and said it would cost trillions if we implemented it. And it had things in it that had nothing to do with environmentalism like the female male wage gap and socialism.



She does horrible in polling data the more people learn about her and her positions the more negatively people view her.

https://ntknetwork.com/poll-americans-view-ocasio-cortez-more-negatively/


A lot of the time she has no idea what she’s talking about. She’s the Donald Trump of the left. Basically she gets lots of coverage and it makes her more popular. Her poll data is on Trumps level.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 28, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Antifa was labeled by U.S. Security agencies, The Department of Homeland Security, as domestic terrorists. Proud boys aren’t. Not a scaremonger. They attack people. The use Molotov Cocktails, Throw bombs, start fires, smash windows and beat the shit out of people.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/antifa-domestic-terrorists-us-security-agencies-homeland-security-fbi-a7927881.html?amp
> 
> ...


According to the SPLC, Proud Boys is a designated hate group.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/proud-boys


----------



## Xzi (Jun 28, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Antifa was labeled by U.S. Security agencies as domestic terrorists. Proud boys aren’t. Not a scaremonger. They attack people.
> 
> FBI says Proud boys aren’t extremist groups.


Is it at all surprising that agencies headed by Trump appointees want to put the focus on Antifa instead of the rising attacks from white supremacist groups?  Right-wing extremism was responsible for every extremist murder in 2018.  The feds are currently tracking 850 possible domestic terrorists across the US, most of them white supremacists.  The Proud Boys definitely fall under that category too, no matter what kind of semantics game the head of the FBI wants to play.



SG854 said:


> If you follow Antifa it’s obvious they are domestic terrorists.


As long as the standard is the same for other groups, I have no issue with calling Antifa domestic terrorists.  That lowers the bar for terrorism to assault, though, a crime which the Proud Boys have also committed multiple times.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 28, 2019)

Lacius said:


> According to the SPLC, Proud Boys is a designated hate group.
> https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/proud-boys


Who's the SPLC? Are they a non profit?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 28, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Who's the SPLC? Are they a non profit?


It's a nonprofit. Check the link.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Is it at all surprising that agencies headed by Trump appointees want to put the focus on Antifa instead of the rising attacks from white supremacist groups?  Right-wing extremism was responsible for every extremist murder in 2018.  The feds are currently tracking 850 possible domestic terrorists across the US, most of them white supremacists.  The Proud Boys definitely fall under that category too, no matter what kind of semantics game the head of the FBI wants to play.
> 
> 
> As long as the standard is the same for other groups, I have no issue with calling Antifa domestic terrorists.  That lowers the bar for terrorism to assault, though, a crime which the Proud Boys have also committed multiple times.


Right Wing extremism and Proud boys are two different categories.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 28, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Right Wing extremism and Proud boys are two different categories.


The Proud Boys are a white supremacist group who have been found guilty of assault on more than one occasion.  Like I said, consistency is key.  If you believe Antifa are terrorists for assaulting people, then the Proud Boys are terrorists for the same reason.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jun 28, 2019)

we need trump out at all cost or have you not seen what he did in the Osaka summit? he's going to probably break ties with all countries but his owner Putin,as for the debate i didn't see it but read the aftermath and because of those few stances we're screwed


----------



## SG854 (Jun 28, 2019)

Lacius said:


> It's a nonprofit. Check the link.


I quickly went through it and it matches my what the FBI said. They are not labeled as Domestic Terrorists for exercising their free speech rights. And most of what I see in the website you linked I people speaking their thoughts.


All I see is them with opinions that people can just ignore. The fights seem like low level stuff compared to Antifa. Some in self defense against Antifa. Antifa uses Molotov Cocktails, Bombs, start fires, break windows, and beat the crap out of people. 

Antifa beat up a Bernie Supporter for carrying an American Flag. And blood was coming from his head.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ne...e-portland-bernie-sanders-video-1082072?amp=1

One video of Antifa dragging an old lady to the ground.

And plenty of more videos you can find of them being violent. This is why they are labeled as domestic terrorists. 


And Mc Innes said it’s ok to beat up Antifa in self defense since Antifa is know to attack people. And there was a whole debate on that a while back on who started the fight first. 


Are they on the same level as Antifa on violence? Enough to be labeled as from Domestic terrorists. I will stay consistent and go after the Proud Boys, but according to the FBI they are not comprable and Antifa is far worse and really violent.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 29, 2019)

This is the guy that formed the Proud Boys by the way. Calling video games for children and are grown up man babies. Go build a table he says. Movies and TV is bad. The Ultimate Troll, lol.

That like to dislike radio though. He’s on Bill Maher’s level of Trolling.


----------



## cots (Jun 29, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Sorry...you must've watched the wrong show. These aren't republican candidates.



All politicians are lying scum.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Of course you don't see it when you don't want to see it.  The top three are all polling 10+ points ahead of Trump nationally, however, and Trump has managed to lose a lot of his support in the Midwest by failing to live up to any of his campaign promises.



The economy is doing great. I don't see minor issues like LGBTQ rights having any bearing on the election. I mean it's possible we could regress back to the worse state we were in before the Republicans took control. I mean I'd love to be proved wrong. You know, have Democratic leadership and a good economy, but that rarely ever happens.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Taleweaver said:


> Yup. That's the thing I was referring to: why is she going viral with everything she does (which causes the opposition to waste time trying to debunk that) whereas these people hardly make a wrinkle?
> 
> 
> Or to put it more cynical (because this is the USA we're talking about): if you're not being trashed by Fox and/or Donald Trump, you really aren't putting in your best effort as a democrat.



Yeah, because the left doesn't have an entire media engine with the main purpose of doing the same thing to the right.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> I quickly went through it and it matches my what the FBI said. They are not labeled as Domestic Terrorists for exercising their free speech rights. And most of what I see in the website you linked I people speaking their thoughts.
> 
> 
> All I see is them with opinions that people can just ignore. The fights seem like low level stuff compared to Antifa. Some in self defense against Antifa. Antifa uses Molotov Cocktails, Bombs, start fires, break windows, and beat the crap out of people.
> ...



The facts and circumstances should be overlooked due to their political affiliation, of course.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> I've never seen Gabbard poll higher than 3% (and that's an outlier), and there haven't been any polls from after the debate. It should also be noted that her history on LGBT issues will almost certainly keep her from getting anywhere close to the Democratic nomination.



Considering the made up LGBTQ issue is a non issue I don't see anyone's views on it effecting the election results. We should focus on real issues.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2019)

cots said:


> Considering the made up LGBTQ issue is a non issue I don't see anyone's views on it effecting the election results. We should focus on real issues.


Before I respond, could you explain what you specifically mean by _made up LGBTQ issue_?


----------



## cots (Jun 29, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> The Scottish news just did a big piece on Joe Biden and made him out to be a huge racist and a thoroughly despicable person. Sounds like the perfect candidate to be next POTUS.



He's a normal politician  changing what he says he believes in to whatever is popular to get elected. He's another wealthy person who can't relate to the general public.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 29, 2019)

cots said:


> The economy is doing great.


If you go by the metric of the stock market or employment numbers, sure.  The reality is that we've lost tons of manufacturing jobs to other countries under Trump, farmers are suffering, and people are having to work multiple jobs to get by because the minimum wage hasn't been raised for a record amount of time.  The working class is doing very poorly, and the middle class is shrinking at an exponential rate.  Tariffs are the same as taxes on the American people, and they certainly aren't helping matters.


----------



## cots (Jun 29, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Because I respond, could you explain what you specifically mean by _made up LGBTQ issue_?



 A minor issue used to invoke an  emotional response for the purpose of controlling others while doing no good for the actual minority in question. I know because I fit under the LGBTQ demographic. Saying it's a major civil rights issue is an insult to actual civil rights issue. Because the rights of a very small minority should be compared to the enslavement of an entire race. Give me a break.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2019)

cots said:


> A minor issue used to invoke an  emotional response for the purpose of controlling others while doing no good for the actual minority in question. I know because I fit under the LGBTQ demographic. Saying it's a major civil rights issue is an insult to actual civil rights issue. Because the rights of a very small minority should be compared to the enslavement of an entire race. Give me a break.


I'm not sure whether or not you're being serious. Regardless, LGBT rights are a real issue.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 29, 2019)

SG854 said:


> This is the guy that formed the Proud Boys by the way. Calling video games for children and are grown up man babies. Go build a table he says. Movies and TV is bad. The Ultimate Troll, lol.


Less a troll and more completely batshit insane.  Dude dropped his pants and shoved a dildo up his ass on camera.  The point supposedly being to prove that he doesn't hate gays.

Anyway, Gavin McInnes isn't even a part of the Proud Boys any more, he quit the group after the FBI categorized them as having ties to white nationalism.


----------



## cots (Jun 29, 2019)

Xzi said:


> If you go by the metric of the stock market or employment numbers, sure.  The reality is that we've lost tons of manufacturing jobs to other countries under Trump, farmers are suffering, and people are having to work multiple jobs to get by because the minimum wage hasn't been raised for a record amount of time.  The working class is doing very poorly, and the middle class is shrinking at an exponential rate.  Tariffs are the same as taxes on the American people, and they certainly aren't helping matters.



Those other issues you mentioned don't personally effect me. Overall we're doing better and that is what matters to me. If I was being personally effected in a major way I might have a different opinion. I don't care if I have to pay more for cheap garbage from China. Maybe the slighty expensive alternative will last more than 2 years therefore would be a better investment. People have had to work multiple jobs for years now to get by if they're working at low wage places. That's not a Republican inclusive issue. Locally our minimum wage increased to a much larger amount and guess what? Businesses cut hours and all of the prices went up. I would have preferred to get paid more and keep my hours without every business raising prices due to having to pay their employees more, but that's not how it played out. Overall things are better and that's what matters to me.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 29, 2019)

cots said:


> Those other issues you mentioned don't personally effect me.


Guess who they do affect?  The key states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.  If Trump can't win those, he can't win in 2020.  And again, polling is showing him losing those states badly right now, to any of the top tier Dem candidates.



cots said:


> Overall things are better and that's what matters to me.


But _how_ are they better, exactly?  You're excusing away all the things he's made worse, but you aren't providing any examples of what he's made better.

Hell, this even ties back in to gaming, as Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo all sent a joint letter to the Trump administration opposing his tariffs.  Next-gen consoles are going to be way more expensive than they need to be if the tariffs stay in place.


----------



## cots (Jun 29, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Guess who they do affect?  The key states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.  If Trump can't win those, he can't win in 2020.  And again, polling is showing him losing those states badly right now, to any of the top tier Dem candidates.
> 
> 
> But _how_ are they better, exactly?  You're excusing away all the things he's made worse, but you aren't providing any examples of what he's made better.
> ...



I don't mind paying more in the short term for my next-gen console if in the end it will help out our economy. If we've  truly been have on the losing side of the trade deals then it's time to renegotiate. All these people calling simply renegotiating "trade wars" and claiming we're headed into nuclear armageddon are the same lunatics that said we'd have run out of oil by now and due to climate change then world should have ended back in the late 90s. Wait now the date has changed. "The sky is falling " screams the chicken with his head cut off.

Infasis on the word chicken aka coward.

About the polls which are usually inaccurate so I don't pay much attention to them and you yourself have already stated how the economy is doing better.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> I'm not sure whether or not you're being serious. Regardless, LGBT rights are a real issue.



Yeah, about on the same level as the frequency of minor rectile bleeding or the migration patterns of North America squirrels.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 29, 2019)

cots said:


> I don't mind paying more in the short term for my next-gen console if in the end it will help out our economy.


It doesn't though, that's not how tariffs work.  They're meant to hurt China's economy, but that only works if Americans stop buying goods made in China.  Which is impossible given the amount of goods we import from them.  Even stuff labeled 'made in the USA' often comes from China.  The end result being that Americans pay more for just about everything without any benefit to us domestically.



cots said:


> If we've truly been have on the losing side of the trade deals then it's time to renegotiate.


I agree, but tariffs do nothing to further that cause.  China can draw the trade war out as long as they want to, the US cannot afford to do the same.  All Trump is doing is putting us in an increasingly desperate situation.

You still haven't given a single example of something positive Trump has accomplished, BTW.  If his biggest accomplishment is "the bad stuff he's done isn't _that_ bad," he's gonna get slaughtered in debates and at the voting booths.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 29, 2019)

cots said:


> He's a normal politician  changing what he says he believes in to whatever is popular to get elected. He's another wealthy person who can't relate to the general public.


They basically said he was a bigger conman than Nixon and that people should fear him more than Trump if he got elected lol. Which is funny as Trump is pretty much hated by all Scottish people for his shady business deals he has done in Scotland before he became president. Like when he bought Turnberry golf course and decided to then illegally renovate it without absolutely any planning permission that is needed from the local council before any work can be done and in doing so he destroyed a large part of countryside and the environment.


----------



## cots (Jun 29, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It doesn't though, that's not how tariffs work.  They're meant to hurt China's economy, but that only works if Americans stop buying goods made in China.  Which is impossible given the amount of goods we import from them.  Even stuff labeled 'made in the USA' often comes from China.  The end result being that Americans pay more for just about everything without any benefit to us domestically.
> 
> 
> I agree, but tariffs do nothing to further that cause.  China can draw the trade war out as long as they want to, the US cannot afford to do the same.  All Trump is doing is putting us in an increasingly desperate situation.
> ...



The economy is doing better, more people are working, more businesses are opening and we're making more money. I know not everything is okay, but not everything will ever be okay. I'm also not stating that it's because of one man. Our President is only a single person. It's the Republican majority in the entire Government who are responsible for the major turnaround that has happened since they became the majority. I don't agree that everything they do is perfect or that Trump isn't a normal lying scum bag, but that generally applies to most wealthy politicians (you know the majority of them). Under Democratic leadership we'd still have a class divide, but it would be between the people in power, who would be rich and then everyone else who would be poor and under thier control, just like history has proven. Forget having a middle class anymore. You'll have the rich leaders and everyone else would be poor. An example is how the last time Democrats were in power how bad things got.

I'm not sure how international trade works, but imposing tariffs isn't  "war" and it seems in Canada's case to have worked out. China can go fuck themselves and keep their cheap shit. Too bad Walmart's sold out to cooperate interests and stopped selling only goods made in the USA. I highly doubt we're headed to the end of the world over some bad negotiations surrounding electronics and if China starts real shit then I still have my selective service card. Bring it.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Jun 29, 2019)

cots said:


> I'm not sure how international trade works, but imposing tariffs isn't  "war" and it seems in Canada's case to have worked out. China can go fuck themselves and keep their cheap shit. Too bad Walmart's sold out to cooperate interests and stopped selling only goods made in the USA. I highly doubt we're headed to the end of the world over some bad negotiations surrounding electronics and if China starts real shit then I still have my selective service card. Bring it.




you may want to inform yourself on that one. Its a doozy. Tariffs are a surcharge on your own citizens... so its kind of odd to hear conservatives get excited over taxing themselves.


----------



## Ryan Warren (Jun 29, 2019)

Putting my 2 cents in as someone who could vote either way depending. Bernie's message of forgiving student debt is enticing, but without support is meaningless. I didn't feel like any of these candidates stuck out and haven't brought anything new to my attention. If the democrats want to win they need their base to show up. I'm more conservative obviously, but don't support these extreme pro-life laws in the south. I don't like abortions, but sometimes it's needed in certain situations (rape, incest, both parents present, too young) which aren't allowed by these new laws. The dems need a reason that everyone can get behind to vote for them. Trump passed an EO for health care transparency that i really liked and was approved I feel on both sides. I just don't see a candidate i really like that could win against trump though so unless a super star is born it doesn't look good.


----------



## cots (Jun 29, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> you may want to inform yourself on that one. Its a doozy. Tariffs are a surcharge on your own citizens... so its kind of odd to hear conservatives get excited over taxing themselves.



Well considering I'm not a conservative your point is mute. I like the idea of a temporary situation where products are taxed more to solve a problem. That's normally not the case with normal taxes though. Usually when a new tax pops up that is supposed to be only for a year or so they never go away. If the tariffs are a temporary measure that's a different story. If they are never lifted then hopefully I can get the product I want elsewhere and hopefully the quality will be better than the shit we get from China. Weird that stuff I purchased in the 80s still functions when the stuff I bought 2 years ago no longer does.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I will definitely look into what the Democrats have to offer as soon as they decide on who they're running with. Student loan debt relief sounds enticing, but I rather not vote for it and then have it become another broken promise (aka another lie from a person who has built thier career on lies).


----------



## Xzi (Jun 29, 2019)

cots said:


> The economy is doing better, more people are working, more businesses are opening and we're making more money.


So Trump's biggest accomplishment is that the economy has been growing at the same stable rate it did during Obama's final years.  Or put another way, his biggest accomplishment is that he hasn't managed to crash the economy yet.  That's a pretty low bar to set.  Hopefully most voters are more discerning than that.



cots said:


> Under Democratic leadership we'd still have a class divide, but it would be between the people in power, who would be rich and then everyone else who would be poor and under thier control, just like history has proven. Forget having a middle class anymore. You'll have the rich leaders and everyone else would be poor.


You're definitely getting your parties mixed up there.  Nobody in the middle or working classes saw any benefit from the Trump tax cuts.  It all went to the corporations and wealthiest individuals in this country.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Jun 29, 2019)

cots said:


> Well considering I'm not a conservative your point is mute. I like the idea of a temporary situation where products are taxed more to solve a problem. That's normally not the case with normal taxes though. Usually when a new tax pops up that is supposed to be only for a year or so they never go away. If the tariffs are a temporary measure that's a different story. If they are never lifted then hopefully I can get the product I want elsewhere and hopefully the quality will be better than the shit we get from China. Weird that stuff I purchased in the 80s still functions when the stuff I bought 2 years ago no longer does.


based on all of your stances you do seem to lean very to the right.



Ryan Warren said:


> Putting my 2 cents in as someone who could vote either way depending. Bernie's message of forgiving student debt is enticing, but without support is meaningless. I didn't feel like any of these candidates stuck out and haven't brought anything new to my attention. If the democrats want to win they need their base to show up. I'm more conservative obviously, but don't support these extreme pro-life laws in the south. I don't like abortions, but sometimes it's needed in certain situations (rape, incest, both parents present, too young) which aren't allowed by these new laws. The dems need a reason that everyone can get behind to vote for them. Trump passed an EO for health care transparency that i really liked and was approved I feel on both sides. I just don't see a candidate i really like that could win against trump though so unless a super star is born it doesn't look good.



Hey thanks for your two cents. These are the type of comments that seem interesting to me. well thought out and something for people to have food for thought. Thanks again.



cots said:


> I will definitely look into what the Democrats have to offer as soon as they decide on who they're running with. Student loan debt relief sounds enticing, but I rather not vote for it and then have it become another broken promise (aka another lie from a person who has built thier career on lies).


This seems interesting to me. So there is a chance that your vote not hard locked? just curious. What is it that you would want if that is the case.


----------



## cots (Jun 29, 2019)

Xzi said:


> So Trump's biggest accomplishment is that the economy has been growing at the same stable rate it did during Obama's final years.  Or put another way, his biggest accomplishment is that he hasn't managed to crash the economy yet.  That's a pretty low bar to set.  Hopefully most voters are more discerning than that.
> 
> 
> You're definitely getting your parties mixed up there.  Nobody in the middle or working classes saw any benefit from the Trump tax cuts.  It all went to the corporations and wealthiest individuals in this country.



At least there still is a middle class and I believe keeping the economy going strong, which it wasn't under Democratic leadership an improvement.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WD_GASTER2 said:


> based on all of your stances you do seem to lean very to the right.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's the problem with the Republicans and Democrats. They seem to base their definition of each other based on a set of values whereas I'm not part of either party. I stand alone and vote on my own values and don't limit myself to a single party. As for my vote I tend to vote for the more honest person with goals I agree with which means who I vote for rarely gets elected, but I refuse to go around following a particular party just because it's popular at the moment and act like thier leaders who blatantly lie to thier voters to get elected. I rather be honest and not lie to be cool to myself or others. That usually doesn't win me any popularity contests, but I rather be real instead of fake, which is one of the time tested ways to feel good about yourself (as it's all about how you feel,  right?).


----------



## Iamapirate (Jun 29, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> so proud boys and patriot prayer and whatever else flashy names they give themselves are not radical, don't bring weapons to their 'protests' and don't constantly get support from the right side of the media?
> And where does 'antifa' get backed by the media? If anything, mainstream media outlets jump on the scaremongering bandwagon too.
> I mean, come on, what paralell world are you living in?


I have never seen the proud boys being defended by anyone. I have seen cowards in black masks set shit on fire, attack Trump supporters and whack people over the head with bike locks, and then shitstains like you come out and say "oh, they're anti-fascists hurdur"

fuck off.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 29, 2019)

cots said:


> At least there still is a middle class and I believe keeping the economy going strong, which it wasn't under Democratic leadership an improvement.


There's barely a middle class any more, and Trump is helping to shrink it faster.  Obama's job growth numbers were better than Trump's, too, so I don't know where you're getting your info on that.  The last person to do lasting and severe damage to the economy was GWB, who was a neocon just like Trump.


----------



## cots (Jun 29, 2019)

Iamapirate said:


> I have never seen the proud boys being defended by anyone. I have seen cowards in black masks set shit on fire, attack Trump supporters and whack people over the head with bike locks, and then shitstains like you come out and say "oh, they're anti-fascists hurdur"
> 
> fuck off.



I've never heard of either Antifa or these Proud boys, probably because I don't care much for extremism from either side. Although our Country wasn't founded by pacifists sitting on their asses discussing things in open forums, but by blood and sweat, so what do I know.


----------



## Iamapirate (Jun 29, 2019)

cots said:


> I've never heard of either Antifa or these Proud boys, probably because I don't care much for extremism from either side. Although our Country wasn't founded by pacifists sitting on their asses discussing things in open forums, but by blood and sweat, so what do I know.


I don't know what you're trying to say. all I'm saying is that comparing the Proud Boys to Antifa is like comparing Glass Joe to Mike Tyson. Completely nonsensical and that's evident to anyone that is familiar with these two groups.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 29, 2019)

Iamapirate said:


> I don't know what you're trying to say. all I'm saying is that comparing the Proud Boys to Antifa is like comparing Glass Joe to Mike Tyson. Completely nonsensical and that's evident to anyone that is familiar with these two groups.


It's completely nonsensical to dismiss violence from either group just because it's politically expedient.  And it's an undeniable fact that both of these groups do commit violent acts regularly.  The Proud Boys haven't been around nearly as long as Antifa in its various forms, so they have yet to commit _as many_ violent acts, but that's largely irrelevant.  You either condemn violence or you don't.


----------



## GhostLatte (Jun 29, 2019)

It's a shame there are people on here who think known white supremacist groups have done nothing wrong. You're making your parents proud!


----------



## cots (Jun 29, 2019)

Iamapirate said:


> I don't know what you're trying to say. all I'm saying is that comparing the Proud Boys to Antifa is like comparing Glass Joe to Mike Tyson. Completely nonsensical and that's evident to anyone that is familiar with these two groups.



Well, if one is more prone to violence than the other they'd possibly have the upper hand in a fight. I was trying to say that violence shouldn't be considered as not an option as clearly it has worked in the past. I guess it just matters which group wins. If we would have lost our fight for independence the other side would have been the victor and their version of history would claim them as such. Although I think violence should be a last resort maybe these groups are at their last resort. All I know if I'm at a rally I'm going to defend myself at all costs if someone attacks me. It might not help and I might lose, but that isn't going to stop me from trying.


----------



## Iamapirate (Jun 29, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It's completely nonsensical to dismiss violence from either group just because it's politically expedient.  And it's an undeniable fact that both of these groups do commit violent acts regularly.  The Proud Boys haven't been around nearly as long as Antifa in its various forms, so they have yet to commit _as many_ violent acts, but that's largely irrelevant.  You either condemn violence or you don't.


I am not dismissing violence from anyone. all I am saying is that antifa is larger, has committed far more violent acts and have been granted more protection/credibility than the Proud Boys.


----------



## cots (Jun 29, 2019)

Xzi said:


> There's barely a middle class any more, and Trump is helping to shrink it faster.  Obama's job growth numbers were better than Trump's, too, so I don't know where you're getting your info on that.  The last person to do lasting and severe damage to the economy was GWB, who was a neocon just like Trump.



I'm not sure what fantasy land you're living in, but the job growth is due to the change to leadership. Remember when having a low GDP and high unemployment "was the new normal and something we'd have to get used to". We still have a middle class and under socialism we'd simply have the 1% ruling class, which would all be wealthy Democrats and then the poor class, the 99% of the rest of us. I rather not turn into China or Venezuela, as both are examples of what socialism and communism leads to.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2019)

cots said:


> I'm not sure what fantasy land you're living in, but the job growth is due to the change to leadership.


Yes, I agree. The job growth is because of the change in leadership from Bush to Obama. The rate of job growth hasn't changed much since Trump took office.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Jun 29, 2019)

cots said:


> I'm not sure what fantasy land you're living in, but the job growth is due to the change to leadership. Remember when having a low GDP and high unemployment "was the new normal and something we'd have to get used to". We still have a middle class and under socialism we'd simply have the 1% ruling class, which would all be wealthy Democrats and then the poor class, the 99% of the rest of us. I rather not turn into China or Venezuela, as both are examples of what socialism and communism leads to.


job growth in the sense that there is a lot more part time jobs than full time jobs. and quite frankly its kind of a crappy deal for a lot of peeps.


----------



## cots (Jun 29, 2019)

Iamapirate said:


> I am not dismissing violence from anyone. all I am saying is that antifa is larger, has committed far more violent acts and have been granted more protection/credibility than the Proud Boys.



And he's stating what might happen. You're correct and he's deflecting to make the side he chose look less guilty when in reality you're right. Xzi isn't one to admit he's wrong. Example being the Mueller report. No collusion and the Democrats were wrong, yet he won't admit that fact that he was wrong. It's a sign of weakness, not being able to admit you're wrong.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Jun 29, 2019)

cots to be fair... here in the politics forum I rarely hear anyone say "I was wrong"
Too many trolls that would furiously touch themselves inapropriately to someone admitting they are incorrect. ( I am talking about people being wrong in general and in no way of xzi btw)


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> cots to be fair... here in the politics forum I rarely hear anyone say "I was wrong"


Cots, for example. He's been shown to be wrong a lot.


----------



## cots (Jun 29, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Yes, I agree. The job growth is because of the change in leadership from Bush to Obama. The rate of job growth hasn't changed much since Trump took office.



Under Obama we had a decline and it wasn't until the Republicans took over that it bounced back. I understand the economy isn't just based on our current leadership and that previous policies impact it, but generally speaking the Democratic policies prevented growth and we saw a decline in jobs and the overall economy while the Republican policies did just the opposite.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2019)

cots said:


> Under Obama we had a decline and it wasn't until the Republicans took over that it bounced back. I understand the economy isn't just based on our current leadership and that previous policies impact it, but generally speaking the Democratic policies prevented growth and we saw a decline in jobs and the overall economy while the Republican policies did just the opposite.


Did you forget about the Great Recession, or are you just pretending it didn't happen?


----------



## cots (Jun 29, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Cots, for example. He's been shown to be wrong a lot.



I don't think you have proven me wrong about much as saying you're opinions are right and mine are wrong doesn't change the facts. You see things differently than me, but that doesn't make you right.

Antifa has been around longer than the Boys group and has committed more acts of violence. Prove me wrong.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2019)

cots said:


> I don't think you have proven me wrong about much as saying you're opinions are right and mine are wrong doesn't change the facts. You see things differently than me, but that doesn't make you right.


What I've just said about job growth is an objective fact, and the idea that jobs went down under Obama is just absurd. He inherited the Great Recession and turned it around. You are wrong.



cots said:


> Antifa has been around longer than the Boys group and has committed more acts of violence. Prove me wrong.


Why are you trying to talk to me about Antifa? I think you're confusing me with someone else.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Jun 29, 2019)

cots said:


> I don't think you have proven me wrong about much as saying you're opinions are right and mine are wrong doesn't change the facts. You see things differently than me, but that doesn't make you right.
> .



I am not arguing with anyone here but the problem with this though, somebody with opposing views can say the same to you and you would be left off where you started


Again not picking fights with peeps here. I opened this thread to get people's thoughts so i am backing out of any arguments here.


----------



## cots (Jun 29, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Did you forget about the Great Recession, or are you just pretending it didn't happen?



I'm not forgetting who was in power during the recession or that both Clinton's and Bush's policies caused it. I'm not arguing the raw data about job growth under Obama,but you're using it out of context. 

https://www.investors.com/politics/...rowth-the-chart-obama-doesnt-want-you-to-see/

Under. Trump there has been more job growth and no major decline. Yes, Obama's administration helped get us out of the recession and there was a lot of bipartisan effort that went into that, but the growth is greatly overstated and under Republican leadership it's gotten better and hasn't declined. It about context. Sort of like how you'll argue a face with me based on a very minute factor to justify the viewpoint of the majority. I'm not debating the minute factor, just stating it's insecnificant shouldn't be used out of context to try to win an argument. Same thing about the minority non-issues being pushed on people from the left to gain sympathy for thier cause - it's inseqential and doesn't matter. Basically,  it's a derailing technique that I don't buy into. "What about the minute possiblity that something very rare could happen?" It's a rare minority that isn't likely to happen so I'm not going to worry about it. Context, buddy. Context.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2019)

cots said:


> *Under Obama we had a decline and it wasn't until the Republicans took over that it bounced back*. I understand the economy isn't just based on our current leadership and that previous policies impact it, but generally speaking the *Democratic policies prevented growth and we saw a decline in jobs and the overall economy* while the *Republican policies did just the opposite*.


Respectfully, until I see a concession, I'm not interested in continuing this conversation.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 29, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> I am not arguing with anyone here but the problem with this though, somebody with opposing views can say the same to you and you would be left off where you started
> 
> 
> Again not picking fights with peeps here. I opened this thread to get people's thoughts so i am backing out of any arguments here.


Too much pandering and ridiculousness.

I don’t think they’ll beat Trump. Polling data says Dem candidates will beat Trump but that’s what they said about Hillary and look what happened. News outlets polling data is unreliable.

I would instead pay attention to Data collected but Economists because they are more accurate. They account for the Economy, hugely influential to presidential election. Public opinion is generally positive about the Economy right now. And if the Economy continues this positive trend Trump will win re-election. Economic models after economic models puts Trump at a landslide victory. And the same models predicted previous presidents. And accurately predicted a Trump 2016 victory, when all other poling data put Hilary at a landslide victory.

As long a recession doesn’t happen or we don’t go to an unnecessary war with Iran Trump will win. With Iran Trump promised to be non interventionist but with the way he handled things recently he’s not being consistent and it’s like he said it with his fingers crossed. There’s people slapping sense into him right now but Trump is all over place so who knows what will happen?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Too much pandering and ridiculousness.
> 
> I don’t think they’ll beat Trump. Polling data says Dem candidates will beat Trump but that’s what they said about Hillary and look what happened. News outlets polling data is unreliable.
> 
> ...


The polling in 2016 was fairly accurate. What ended up actually happening was only slightly to the right of the polls and was well within the margins of error. You have to remember that Clinton won the popular vote by about 3 million votes (pretty much where she was in the polls), and Trump won the Electoral College by only 78,000 votes.

Edit: I forgot to mention that the polling showed Clinton ahead by narrow margins in 2016. While a lot can happen between now and the 2020 election, Biden and others are far more ahead of Trump in the head-to-head polls than Clinton was.


----------



## cots (Jun 29, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I'm not sure whether or not you're being serious. Regardless, LGBT rights are a real issue.



Why is the LGBTQ issue a real issue to you? Are you part of the LGBTQ group? Other than for political purposes how are you effected by the issue? If the Liberals weren't using the issue and the LGBTQ group as political pawns would you even be concerned with them? I'd like an answer to each question.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WD_GASTER2 said:


> job growth in the sense that there is a lot more part time jobs than full time jobs. and quite frankly its kind of a crappy deal for a lot of peeps.



Well, overall there are more jobs and more people are working, but due to policies like universal health care and minimum wage increases we have more employers hiring part time. Regardless more people are working so that's better than having them not working at all. Under the previous administration we were told things were as good as they were going to get and we should get used to it which the current administration proved wrong.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2019)

cots said:


> Why is the LGBTQ issue a real issue to you? Are you part of the LGBTQ group? Other than for political purposes how are you effected by the issue? If the Liberals weren't using the issue and the LGBTQ group as political pawns would you even be concerned with them? I'd like an answer to each question.


See my last response to you. I don't find it a valuable use of my time to continue our conversation if you're not going to concede when shown you're demonstrably wrong about simple facts.

You said under Obama, we had an economic decline, and it wasn't until the Republicans took over that it bounced back. We can fact-check this. You're wrong. The economy improved dramatically under Obama, as did job growth. When Trump took office, job growth didn't change much, and he's done little to nothing to improve the economy. See the month-to-month job additions attached to this post.
You said Democratic policies prevented growth, and we saw a decline in jobs and the overall economy. You're wrong. That's not what happened at all. Economies tend to do better under Democratic presidents, actually. It only takes a basic understanding of economics to know that tax breaks for the rich do little, if anything, to stimulate an economy.
I'm holding your feet to the fire on this one. You like to frame the conversation your way when things aren't going well for you (e.g. randomly bringing up Antifa when I never mentioned it or moving backwards to a previous topic on LGBT rights), but I'm uninterested in how you want to move this conversation. Concede or don't bother tagging me.


----------



## tatripp (Jun 29, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> I want to understand how conservatives see the debates. I am Just asking people what they thought on all sides of the spectrum. If its you feel its out of place no need to answer. I am just trying to understand how conservatives from all angles of the right see this. Your answer seemed honest and earnest so it got me curious.
> 
> 
> 
> ive seen pages and pages of discussion of this forum lean towards the right... so i am not sure about the 95% number



I'm conservative. My opinion is that the person who won the debates was Trump. Most of it was absolutely embarrassing. The pandering was just sad. The ideas were incoherent; they all wanted illegal immigrants to get free medicaid but they also wanted to decriminalize illegal immigration. These two ideas make no sense together. Harris was shameless and dishonest in attacking Biden. I think Biden has a legitimate chance of beating Trump because people know what to expect from him and he is the only Democrat who has a chance of winning who isn't completely pandering to the far left nuts of the party. Biden actually has a chance at winning the blue collar workers that Hillary ignored. I respect Bernie's honesty even though I think that all of his ideas are completely based on emotion. I think Warren played it relatively smart and safe.
If I had to vote for one of them, I would vote for Andrew Yang. He's honest and sincere, but no one cares about him. He can actually listen to the other side of an argument and doesn't just accuse people of being a racist/sexist/xenophobe/homophobe.

Thanks for keeping this post civil.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2019)

tatripp said:


> they all wanted illegal immigrants to get free medicaid but they also wanted to decriminalize illegal immigration. These two ideas make no sense together.


Why don't you think they _make sense together_?


----------



## SG854 (Jun 29, 2019)

Lacius said:


> The polling in 2016 was fairly accurate. What ended up actually happening was only slightly to the right of the polls and was well within the margins of error. You have to remember that Clinton won the popular vote by about 3 million votes (pretty much where she was in the polls), and Trump won the Electoral College by only 78,000 votes.
> 
> Edit: I forgot to mention that the polling showed Clinton ahead by narrow margins in 2016. While a lot can happen between now and the 2020 election, Biden and others are far more ahead of Trump in the head-to-head polls than Clinton was.


She won the popular vote but Trump won more counties.

Trump won 2,626
Hilary won 487


This should put into perspective why Trump won. He spoke to the working class promising jobs. To counties that were hurting loosing jobs to automation.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-clinton-counties-won/


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2019)

SG854 said:


> She won the popular vote but Trump won more counties.
> 
> Trump won 2,626
> Hilary won 487
> ...


You can read the Snopes article you linked to for why the number of counties a candidate won is largely irrelevant to how well a candidate did. Counties vary wildly in population. Obama only won ~680 counties in 2012, for example.

Counting counties is mostly just counting rural areas, which is another way of saying you're counting Republican areas. It's largely meaningless.


----------



## tatripp (Jun 29, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Why don't you think they _make sense together_?


I should've been more clear. They don't make economic sense together. You can't incentivize illegal immigration by making it legal and then give them free healthcare. That will be outrageously expensive.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2019)

tatripp said:


> I should've been more clear. They don't make economic sense together. You can't incentivize illegal immigration by making it legal and then give them free healthcare. That will be outrageously expensive.


Illegal immigration would still be illegal, and there would still be deportations, if Section 1325 were repealed (which I think you're referring to). They were talking about making the illegal border crossing itself no longer illegal.

As for health care costs, you act as though immigrants don't pay taxes already. And regardless, I don't think we should be a country that allows anyone here to not be able to receive basic healthcare.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Jun 29, 2019)

they said they would keep it as a civil offense instead of a criminal one. This is still grounds for getting deported. 
The reality is though if people have hard stances on this issue they already have chosen a side on this if you ask me.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tatripp said:


> I'm conservative. My opinion is that the person who won the debates was Trump. Most of it was absolutely embarrassing. The pandering was just sad. The ideas were incoherent; they all wanted illegal immigrants to get free medicaid but they also wanted to decriminalize illegal immigration. These two ideas make no sense together. Harris was shameless and dishonest in attacking Biden. I think Biden has a legitimate chance of beating Trump because people know what to expect from him and he is the only Democrat who has a chance of winning who isn't completely pandering to the far left nuts of the party. Biden actually has a chance at winning the blue collar workers that Hillary ignored. I respect Bernie's honesty even though I think that all of his ideas are completely based on emotion. I think Warren played it relatively smart and safe.
> If I had to vote for one of them, I would vote for Andrew Yang. He's honest and sincere, but no one cares about him. He can actually listen to the other side of an argument and doesn't just accuse people of being a racist/sexist/xenophobe/homophobe.
> 
> Thanks for keeping this post civil.



So then i ask of you... would you say your vote is already hardlocked for the next election? This is something that has received interesting answers thus far.


----------



## cots (Jun 29, 2019)

Lacius said:


> See my last response to you. I don't find it a valuable use of my time to continue our conversation if you're not going to concede when shown you're demonstrably wrong about simple facts.
> 
> You said under Obama, we had an economic decline, and it wasn't until the Republicans took over that it bounced back. We can fact-check this. You're wrong. The economy improved dramatically under Obama, as did job growth. When Trump took office, job growth didn't change much, and he's done little to nothing to improve the economy. See the month-to-month job additions attached to this post.
> You said Democratic policies prevented growth, and we saw a decline in jobs and the overall economy. You're wrong. That's not what happened at all. Economies tend to do better under Democratic presidents, actually. It only takes a basic understanding of economics to know that tax breaks for the rich do little, if anything, to stimulate an economy.
> I'm holding your feet to the fire on this one. You like to frame the conversation your way when things aren't going well for you (e.g. randomly bringing up Antifa when I never mentioned it or moving backwards to a previous topic on LGBT rights), but I'm uninterested in how you want to move this conversation. Concede or don't bother tagging me.



Taken out of context and looking at just the raw numbers you're correct in your statement, but if you look at the bigger picture (see the link I gave you previously), your statement is wrong. It's like saying that something today costs more than something 20 years ago, but not taking into account inflation. 

The recession, caused by both policies that Clinton and Bush put into place was stopped shortly after Obama took office, mainly due to bipartisan efforts to get us out of it. If you look at just the growth during this time, taken out of context, then under Obama, more jobs were created at first, but then leveled out. If you take into account the other variables mentioned in the article I linked to we have better growth and more jobs under the current administration than the previous, plus things haven't gotten worse.

I addresses your questions, now are you going to answer each one I asked about your position on the LGBTQ non-issue?



tatripp said:


> I should've been more clear. They don't make economic sense together. You can't incentivize illegal immigration by making it legal and then give them free healthcare. That will be outrageously expensive.



The Democratic leadership doesn't care about how much something else would cost the general public and only justifies monetary sums when it's the Right talking about spending. If it's an issue they are pushing then the cost should be irrelevant, but if it's an opposing issue then suddenly the cost should be taken into consideration.

The goal with having out country overrun by illegal aliens that will vote Blue is so their leadership can sit back, in power, with all sorts of money, while the rich and the middle class are forced to spend their income sustaining the illegals, therefor making us all having the same income level, which would mean, we'd all be living in poverty while they fly around in their million dollar jets talking about how we need to take care of the climate, but set no sort of example themselves.



WD_GASTER2 said:


> So then i ask of you... would you say your vote is already hardlocked for the next election? This is something that has received interesting answers thus far.



Nothing is written in stone. Trying to predict an election is like trying to predict the weather with interference from the spectrum that 5G uses. Polls and the general consensus was that Hillary would win, but that didn't happen. Rest assured you, if one of the Democratic candidates win, suddenly, the Left will have no problem with the electoral college. I'm not sure who I will vote for yet. I don't think voting straight down your own party line makes any sort of logical sense, nor do I belong to either party, so my mind isn't made up yet.



Lacius said:


> As for health care costs, you act as though immigrants don't pay taxes already. And regardless, I don't think we should be a country that allows anyone here to not be able to receive basic healthcare.



Sure, a lot of them pay taxes, like sales taxes, using the money they are being given for free, out of my taxes or the money they are making by human smuggling or running drugs. Not to mention the free housing, health care and food assistance they are receiving for simply being here illegally and not working or coming here illegally and using one or more childen as an anchors. Some of them have illegitimate jobs (working at legal businesses, illegally) which they shouldn't have to begin with, so some of those might be paying taxes using stolen identities, but the majority of illegal immigrants cost legal citizens a lot more money then they're putting back into the economy as for every one you have paying some sort of tax there's more leeching off of the system.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 29, 2019)

Your COMMENTARY from investors.com compares obamas recovery to reagans recovery in substantially different economic and political contexts. Which is ironic, since it seems to put so much emphasis on the idea of context.

The argument: Population grew more under obama so his job numbers should've grown much higher... sounds kinda dumb since a) children usually don't join the labour force until their late teens and that number speaks nothing of the population growth 14-18 years prior, the relevant one to maybe look at if you wanna go this weirdly round about way. Why not look at the number of actual able bodied, working age people? Knowing my statistic hustlers, probably because that didn't make it seem like the numbers were bad. But that's just assuming.

and b) putting all that aside, more people currently spent time on education before even entering the labor force than like I wanna say 40 years ago under reagan? So the relevance between current population growth and job numbers is kinda flimsy at best.

Second, the context of time, it was supposedly easier to make jobnumbers grow when they were way down, compared to when they're further up.
While historically, Reagan himself is the best example of that being true (the legendary 1,1 million jobs in one month myth being the result of a ~700.000 person strong decline of people on payroll caused by a temporary strike one month before in i wanna say the communications sector, which were counted towards the job growth the following month as they stopped striking and were added to the payroll again) but despite that, I wanna say that one is debatable in general. It's not like the us economy just has literally no room to grow further, there's no magical barrier capping it out right now. THere's physical room for it, the us is mostly empty wasteland still. There's wealth in the hands of supposed capitalists/investors, and there's definitely enough work force to exploit for profit and since this whole thing is a circle, if you pay more people, there's more people to buy your crap/service. 

Little is truly preventing it from expanding and creating more jobs. There's stuff like ever increasing student debt preventing a new generation from trying their hand and risky entrepreneur stuff and capping potential sales of whatever right now and of course there's automation to look forward too, increasing opportunistic costs of employing people today when just tomorrow, a cool machine could make people unnecessary. But that can be solved politically with a tax on not employing actual people. Looking at policy and it's ability to create incentives or kill incentives to work against the population for profit, it wouldn't be hard to make those job numbers explode even today, if you wanted. That tax cut nonsense from 2 years ago? The money lost there could've created job growth to -actually- blow obamas out of the water for real.

Third from the COMMENTARY labor participation changing.
Yes, that's personally the weirdest one in my book, because it makes it sound like people weren't dropping out of the work force during reagans time or today under trump.


Overall, that investors.com COMMENTARY seems like it was hurriedly thrown out to obfuscate reality by making a needlessly complex argument where 'context' could as well translate to 'shit i can say that you wouldn't check anyways, because you're either too lazy or too stupid to do it right'

As for your constant persistence that things kept going on under trump with no major declines, again, context. He inherited a system that would've continued to grow with a monkey and a magic 8-ball in charge. 
The surprising thing isn't that it continued on like before, but that the needlessly expensive for all americans trade wars and the stock market still dumping around at early 2018 levels (they pretty much all peaked out the day before trump discovered and promptly misunderstood the concept of a trad war and tariffs) with no major growth since then, have not managed to bring it all crashing down again -yet-.


----------



## leon315 (Jun 29, 2019)

here's another funny story about Coal and the consequence who vote Orange man, by Olive John


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2019)

cots said:


> Taken out of context and looking at just the raw numbers you're correct in your statement


I'm uninterested in this kind of half-assed nonconcession. The context is you said the economy did worse under Obama and that jobs went down. That's empirically and objectively untrue. Unless by "out of context" you mean "out of reality," I don't know what you're doing.



cots said:


> but if you look at the bigger picture (see the link I gave you previously), your statement is wrong. It's like saying that something today costs more than something 20 years ago, but not taking into account inflation.


Monthly job gains now are virtually identical to the monthly job gains of the Obama administration post-recession. If you're going to argue that Obama's economy wasn't as good as it could have been, then what's Trump's excuse? It's hard to commit both a false equivocation and a double standard in one comment though. Good job.



cots said:


> The recession, caused by both policies that Clinton and Bush put into place was stopped shortly after Obama took office, mainly due to bipartisan efforts to get us out of it.


Here is another instance where I'm going to use cold facts to demonstrate you're wrong, and you're not going to concede: Republicans largely opposed the stimulus of 2009 and successfully blocked more of it after the 2010 elections. It was a Democratic president with a Democratic congress using Democratic policies that got us out of the recession, and the month-to-month job gains have been largely consistent ever since.

Side note: The economic recovery would have been much better if Republicans hadn't blocked additional stimulus spending, so whenever you say "it could have been better," you have Republicans to blame for that. I guess saying "it could have been better" is better than saying "the economy got worse under Obama, and jobs went down," but that's something you still haven't conceded, and I am waiting. Anything less than "I was wrong" is insufficient.



cots said:


> If you look at just the growth during this time, taken out of context, then under Obama, more jobs were created at first, but then leveled out. If you take into account the other variables mentioned in the article I linked to we have better growth and more jobs under the current administration than the previous, plus things haven't gotten worse.



Under Obama, more jobs were created, and while the rate of job increases decreased after getting out of the recession (since, you know, many of those jobs that were lost during the Bush Recession had come back), brand new jobs were still consistently being created month to month. Please don't talk about context like you know what the word means.
We have not had better growth and more jobs under Trump. Look at the month-to-month chart I posted earlier. Job growth under Trump is comparable to what it was under Obama post-recession. Trump inherited a healthy economy. Since the trendline has hardly moved on job additions, we can arguably thank Obama for the jobs totals between 2017-2019 in addition to the jobs totals from his terms.



cots said:


> I addresses your questions, now are you going to answer each one I asked about your position on the LGBTQ non-issue?



I have demonstrated, objectively, how you've been wrong numerous times, and you haven't conceded.
You (incorrectly) insulted another person here for never concededing when he's wrong.
I don't feel like wasting my time having a conversation with someone who both a.) can't concede when he's proven to be wrong, and b.) is a hypocrite. Respectfully, if I wanted to waste my time with self-righteous neocons who can't ever admit when they're wrong, are hypocritical about it, and reframe the conversation as part of a scattershot approach to arguing conservatism for the sake of arguing conservatism, regardless of the facts, I'd go to conservative areas of Reddit and 4chan.
You're the one who said LGBT issues aren't real issues, so I don't know why you want to talk about them.
Speaking of your pivot to LGBT issues (for some reason?), you have a habit of arguing against strawmen. Like, a lot. For example, when I call you out for being wrong, you brought up Antifa as though that's what I was criticizing you for. When I said that LGBT rights was a real issue, you started acting as though I was equivocating LGBT rights and the "enslavement of an entire race," and that's why I was wrong. Putting aside for a moment your hypocrisy and your absurd unwillingness to concede objective facts, I find it uninteresting to have a conversation with someone who, instead of responding to me, appears to be responding to an imaginary friend.



cots said:


> Sure, a lot of them pay taxes, like sales taxes, using the money they are being given for free, out of my taxes or the money they are making by human smuggling or running drugs. Not to mention the free housing, health care and food assistance they are receiving for simply being here illegally and not working or coming here illegally and using one or more childen as an anchors. Some of them have illegitimate jobs (working at legal businesses, illegally) which they shouldn't have to begin with, so some of those might be paying taxes using stolen identities, but the majority of illegal immigrants cost legal citizens a lot more money then they're putting back into the economy as for every one you have paying some sort of tax there's more leeching off of the system.


Read above for why I'm not moving on to a different conversation with you. If you want, I'll make it easy for you. Here are *some* of the things (paraphrased) you have said recently that are objectively false. If you can respond to each and every one by saying "I was wrong" without inserting unnecessary (and incorrect) commentary about "context," I'll have whatever conversation you want. Until then, I can't overstate how uninterested I am in doing so.

"Under Obama, jobs went down."
"Under Obama, the economy got worse."
"The economy didn't do better until the Republicans took over."
"Under Trump, monthly job additions are higher than what they were under Obama."
"The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was bipartisan."


----------



## cots (Jun 29, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> Your COMMENTARY from investors.com compares obamas recovery to reagans recovery in substantially different economic and political contexts. Which is ironic, since it seems to put so much emphasis on the idea of context.
> 
> The argument: Population grew more under obama so his job numbers should've grown much higher... sounds kinda dumb since a) children usually don't join the labour force until their late teens and that number speaks nothing of the population growth 14-18 years prior, the relevant one to maybe look at if you wanna go this weirdly round about way. Why not look at the number of actual able bodied, working age people? Knowing my statistic hustlers, probably because that didn't make it seem like the numbers were bad. But that's just assuming.
> 
> ...



Thank you for your commentary about thier indepth analysis of the facts as you can clearly see using data out of context from a single source is an invalid way to go about winning a debate or trying to make a point.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> I'm uninterested in this kind of half-assed nonconcession. The context is you said the economy did worse under Obama and that jobs went down. That's empirically and objectively untrue. Unless by "out of context" you mean "out of reality," I don't know what you're doing.
> 
> 
> Monthly job gains now are virtually identical to the monthly job gains of the Obama administration post-recession. If you're going to argue that Obama's economy wasn't as good as it could have been, then what's Trump's excuse? It's hard to commit both a false equivocation and a double standard in one comment though. Good job.
> ...



Nice way to avoid adressing my LGBTQ question after I did as you asked and responded to you. It seems though, until I concede that your simple out of context opinion is any more valid then mine you're refusing to answer the question, which I won't do because it's simply your opinion and it's very narrow and limited compared to the other factors involved. Seeing this is the case, that one must agree with you're simple opinion and 3rd grade debate tactics I see no point in continuing the discussion with you now or in the future related to any topic. I tend to filter out white noise so you're now blocked.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2019)

cots said:


> Nice way to avoid adressing my LGBTQ question after I did as you asked and responded to you. It seems though, until I concede that your simple out of context opinion is any more valid then mine you're refusing to answer the question, which I won't do because it's simply your opinion and it's very narrow and limited compared to the other factors involved. Seeing this is the case, that one must agree with you're simple opinion and 3rd grade debate tactics I see no point in continuing the discussion with you now or in the future related to any topic. I tend to filter out white noise so you're now blocked.



Jobs did not go down under Obama (they went up).
The economy did not get worse under Obama (it got better).
The economy did better before the Republicans took over.
Monthly job additions are not higher under Trump than they were under Obama.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was not bipartisan. Zero Republicans voted for it in the House, and only three Republicans voted for it in the Senate.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 29, 2019)

Lacius said:


> The economy did better before the Republicans took over.


It's amazing that anyone would even try to argue this point.  Bill Clinton not only balanced the budget, but gave us a budget surplus by the end of his second term.  We were well on our way to paying off the entire national debt.  Then GWB comes along, starts two never-ending wars, cuts taxes (primarily for the rich), and crashes the economy/puts us into a recession.  Which in turn forced us to spend even more to dig ourselves out of that hole.  Trump's priorities have been very similar to GWB's, only difference being he hasn't started a war yet.  But he has taken the corporate boot-licking to an extreme: cutting the corporate tax rate in half, and giving out free money to private prison companies for doing a shit job with immigrant detention facilities.


----------



## cots (Jun 30, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It's amazing that anyone would even try to argue this point.  Bill Clinton not only balanced the budget, but gave us a budget surplus by the end of his second term.  We were well on our way to paying off the entire national debt.  Then GWB comes along, starts two never-ending wars, cuts taxes (primarily for the rich), and crashes the economy/puts us into a recession.  Which in turn forced us to spend even more to dig ourselves out of that hole.  Trump's priorities have been very similar to GWB's, only difference being he hasn't started a war yet.  But he has taken the corporate boot-licking to an extreme: cutting the corporate tax rate in half, and giving out free money to private prison companies for doing a shit job with immigrant detention facilities.



Yeah, at first glance, if you look at the raw data without interpreting or using it in context, your misleading statements (aka lies) look valid. Anyone with a mind knows that the economy isn't mainly influenced by just the President.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016...-economy-1990s-ronald-reagan-george-h-w-bush/

It's funny how everyone blames Trump for anything they dislike in the government, the same way someone particular in my family used to blame Obama, when they are single people who rely on countless others to have their branch function. Saying it's all Trump's fault is giving him way too much credit. He, nor Obama, Bush or Regan could ever be smart enough to run the entire branch of government by themselves. Most of the policies and agendas that are put forth aren't in any way, shape or form their sole ideas or creations. Presidential Derangement Syndrome a seems to be a real thing, whether it's Obama Derangement Syndrome or Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Instead of blaming a single man for all of your personal problems, why not look at the fact they are *YOUR PROBLEMS*, and it's up to you to fix them yourself. If you would take some responsibility for your own personal actions you might not be so fucking deranged. At least you wound't be trigger ready bait lining up for the slaughter.

Of course, people who are outraged or are angry that act solely on their butt-hurt feelings are much easier to manipulate and control, which is why it's so easy to control the Liberal lemmings. Every time I hear the words "Liberal Outrage", not only do I don't care, but I think of a baby with down syndrome that just stubbed it's toe.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 30, 2019)

cots said:


> Yeah, at first glance, if you look at the raw data without interpreting or using it in context, your misleading statements (aka lies) look valid.


Yeah...you're going to have to do better than the National Review if you're concerned about lies.



cots said:


> Instead of blaming a single man for all of your personal problems, why not look at the fact they are *YOUR PROBLEMS*, and it's up to you to fix them yourself.


I haven't mentioned a single personal problem, we're discussing issues that are relevant to the entire nation's well-being.


----------



## cots (Jun 30, 2019)

As I've already stated it's both Clinton's policies and Bush's war that triggered the recession. Seeing that the current Republican leadership policies have been keeping job growth (more than under the Democrats lead by Obama, which I already linked to an article explaining the details) and improving the overall economy, plus no sort of war has started we're doing much better. 

I don't see minor issues like LGBTQ rights or the well being of the minority of some minority of really stupid people who are in bad camps (which all the camps aren't bad), mainly due to the fact they tried to* illegally enter our country* (hence the stupidity) changing these facts. They are emotional tear jerker issues. Sure, they might make you feel good about yourself or sad, but that's the point. To get an emotional, not logical, response. These non-issues don't really matter compared to real issues like the state of the economy.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 30, 2019)

cots said:


> I don't see minor issues like LGBTQ rights or the well being of the minority of some minority of really stupid people who are in bad camps (which all the camps aren't bad), mainly due to the fact they tried to* illegally enter our country* (hence the stupidity) changing these facts. They are emotional tear jerker issues. Sure, they might make you feel good about yourself or sad, but that's the point. To get an emotional, not logical, response. These non-issues don't really matter compared to real issues like the state of the economy.


So you don't think minority issues should be addressed.  I'm sure you'll stay consistent with that stance when white people become a minority in this country 5-10 years from now, right?


----------



## cots (Jun 30, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Yeah...you're going to have to do better than the National Review if you're concerned about lies.



So, of course, you debunk the entire article based on the fact you don't like where it came from. Figures.



> I haven't mentioned a single personal problem, we're discussing issues that are relevant to the entire nation's well-being.



Most of the stuff you mentioned is what you personally see are problems with the nation's well being and most are irrelevant to the survival of our country (on the contrary, a lot of the stuff you're personally concerned about would harm the country, not make it better). The issues you bring up are mainly personal issues you and your party share, which, aren't a single man's fault, so going around with your TDS and outrage isn't going to make anyone take you seriously, not even the people in your own party using you to get rich.

Take some personal responsibility.

More white noise, I welcome you to my ignore list.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 30, 2019)

cots said:


> So, of course, you debunk the entire article based on the fact you don't like where it came from. Figures.


Just as you wouldn't accept an article if it came from CNN.  It shouldn't be hard to find a more neutral source if your claims are accurate and not based entirely on opinion/hypocrisy.



cots said:


> Most of the stuff you mentioned is what you personally see are problems with the nation's well being and most are irrelevant to the survival of our country (on the contrary, a lot of the stuff you're personally concerned about would harm the country, not make it better). The issues you bring up are mainly personal issues you and your party share, which, aren't a single man's fault, so going around with your TDS and outrage isn't going to make anyone take you seriously, not even the people in your own party using you to get rich.


The only issues I've brought up in our discussion are issues relevant to the working class (most of America) and the economy.  These are very much national issues.  The right-wing ignores them at their own peril.



cots said:


> More white noise, I welcome you to my ignore list.


Oh boy, another Trump supporter triggered by level-headed discussion just because it isn't playing out in favor of his biases.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Jun 30, 2019)

Everyone is going to feel the same way after the Mueller investigations, the Debates, the clear proof of constitutional violations (hatch, emoluments,) everything that has come out....you're either for or against the Trump Adminstration

 - Trump supporters will always look at him with no issues and will declare "fake news" when they see news that doesn't support their ideas.  They feel the socialist left is out to get him and is fabricating evidence with witch hunts

 - While the anti-trump resist group will always hate him and will want him ultimately impeached.  They view him as a fascist and a threat to the rule of law.

Neither side will ever change their minds no matter what's presented.  I will say that the NationalReview that cots posted has an is extremely right leaning bias so if you have an argument, you need to show evidence from a provider that is more balanced.

I'm not saying that discussions like this are futile but you could be blue in the face and minds will not be changed.


On topic...the debates were...Cringy.  The Spanish speaking, the attacks Kamela had against Biden, Yang barely getting time, and the clear "open borders" ideals that they appeared to support.  (even if it potentially came off the wrong way) Even our ancestors had to have a checkpoint via Ellis  Island to America.  They couldn't just go carte blanche on the boat to the USA.  We should be a country of open arms of all types of people, I don't believe in deportation, but you should go through the process of being a citizen if you plan on staying here. We need more judges to review immigration cases and the process needs to be streamlined.  People's future shouldn't be reviewed and judged in literal minutes because they have literally thousands of cases to review and the pressure from higher ups to review more and more cases only makes this worse.


----------



## cots (Jun 30, 2019)

stanleyopar2000 said:


> Everyone is going to feel the same way after the Mueller investigations, the Debates, everything that has come out....



Considering, there was no evidence of collusion the democrats are holding onto a pipe dream lie they created and can't admit they were wrong, that just shows what sort of cowards they are. What you think about the debates isn't any sort of factual timeline of events and actions like the report, it's simply your opinion on the matter so there is no right or wrong answer.



> - Trump supporters will always look at him with no issues.



This is also a major problem. Giving a President credit for the current economy whether good or bad or generally blaming him or giving him credit for everything that happens is batshit stupid. The economy is a living beast that is influenced by policies created by previous administrations and other factors that have nothing to do with either party.

Everything is Trump's fault - bullshit.
Everything is thanks to Trump - bullshit.

Anyone that think's either way shouldn't be allowed to vote until they take a basic economics course and don't cheat to pass it.



> - While the anti-trump resist group will always hate him and will want him ultimately impeached.



These same morons going around stating "he's not my President". Unless you're an illegal alien and not a citizen you might be right, but if you're an actual legal American citizen he is your President and deserves respect. It shouldn't matter what political party the President belongs to for you to respect the office and position.



> Both sides will never change their minds and will always declare "fake news" for stories that they don't like



Yeah, which is why I refuse to pick a side. I vote for who I think is honest and will do the best job. Seeings as most politicians are rich, lying scumbags that simply want power and can't relate to normal people, my votes usually don't impact elections much, but at least I'm not some sellout lying to my self and others for the sole purpose of doing what's popular to make me feel better and "fit in", which, for them, could change, on a moments notice, depending on those factors. Having "floating standards" simply means you have no standards and are full of shit. It means you'll change your position on the drop of a hat due to the fact you're lying scum.

It's easy to follow a party and be dishonest. Try following your heart and mind and be honest to yourself and others. It's not easy at all, but that's the point. Life isn't easy, unless you're a fake piece of shit and in that case I don't want anything to do with you. If that puts me at what you consider a disadvantage then so be it, because I consider it an advantage.



> I will say that the NationalReview has an is extremely right leaning bias so if you have an argument, you need to show evidence that is more fair.



What do you suggest, a left leaning organization, because the numbers coming from either side usually don't line up? I tried to find an article that had the more correct factual data. I had no idea there were right leaning, but their logic is sound.

I read stuff from left sites all day long and a lot of it isn't simple "guess what this person said today on the phone" bullshit gossip columns marked as front page major headline news. There is actual real good content that can be found from either side (that includes on CNN and Fox), which if you read, sites from both sides that don't try to take things out of context, used made up numbers or try to skew the results agree that giving sole credit to the President for the economy, whether it's Obama or Trump, is fucking retarded.

People dislike me because I refuse to jump on the "let's hate the President" bandwagon. I had the same reaction from Republicans when Obama was in office. I simply won't hate on a man that should be respected. You know what, those kinds of people can hate me all day long and usually hate themselves and generally speaking hate everything around them. They are toxic trash, which, as you see, after trying to reason with, will be added to my ignore list on any site that offers me the functionality. I don't need that kind of trash in my life, virtual or real.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 30, 2019)

What's funny is that everyone at GBAtemp thinks they are these intelligent independent thinkers when in reality they follow the same political party that the Kardashians and other celebrities follow. It's absolute comedy 

https://people.com/tv/every-time-the-karjenners-have-chimed-in-on-political-issues/


----------



## Xzi (Jun 30, 2019)

Maluma said:


> What's funny is that everyone at GBAtemp thinks they are these intelligent independent thinkers when in reality they follow the same political party that the Kardashians and other celebrities follow. It's absolute comedy
> 
> https://people.com/tv/every-time-the-karjenners-have-chimed-in-on-political-issues/


Let me know when a Kardashian gets the Democratic nomination for president.  Then our candidate would finally have the same level of intelligence as the Republican incumbent for once.

I also find it ironic that Trump is the only president to invite them to the White House.  Multiple times, none the less.  Reality TV airheads tend to flock together, regardless of their stated political views.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 30, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Let me know when a Kardashian gets the Democratic nomination for president.  Then our candidate would finally have the same level of intelligence as the Republican incumbent for once.
> 
> I also find it ironic that Trump is the only president to invite them to the White House.  Multiple times, none the less.  Reality TV airheads tend to flock together, regardless of their stated political views.



Ah so now you are calling Trump dumb even though he has billions of dollars. How much money did you make last year?


----------



## Xzi (Jun 30, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Ah so now you are calling Trump dumb even though he has billions of dollars. How much money did you make last year?


You're suggesting it requires intelligence to be born rich?  The reality is quite the opposite: those who never have to lift a finger to survive tend to never develop proper critical thinking skills.  Trump would have more money today if he had just taken what his dad gave him and stuck it in a savings account, rather than blowing it on so many failed business ventures.

And for a supposed "billionaire," he sure is secretive about who gets to see his tax returns.


----------



## x65943 (Jun 30, 2019)

Maluma said:


> What's funny is that everyone at GBAtemp thinks they are these intelligent independent thinkers when in reality they follow the same political party that the Kardashians and other celebrities follow. It's absolute comedy
> 
> https://people.com/tv/every-time-the-karjenners-have-chimed-in-on-political-issues/


The reality of the situation is we need to change voting laws from FPTP so that we have more options to choose from than the toxic R or D


----------



## cots (Jun 30, 2019)

Maluma said:


> What's funny is that everyone at GBAtemp thinks they are these intelligent independent thinkers when in reality they follow the same political party that the Kardashians and other celebrities follow. It's absolute comedy
> 
> https://people.com/tv/every-time-the-karjenners-have-chimed-in-on-political-issues/



Well, considering I couldn't remember how to spell Kardashian let alone know anything about them, other than a lot of people tend to follow their every move, I don't really care about their views on politics, whatever they are. I believe, other than exposure to simple headlines about them, the most I've seen is around 2 minutes of some TV show featuring them, that I watched, unwillingly for those 2 minutes, after someone changed the channel from a movie I was watching to view the show. I'm not sure what the show was called nor do I care. I mean, I like actors, but I don't idolize them. They're just normal people who pretend to be other people, and some of them are good at it and entertaining, but I stop thinking about them the minute the movie or TV show is over. I personally rather not know the political identify of actors. I don't watch them pretend to be other people based on their personal beliefs. So I wouldn't want to know if someone I enjoy in movies is a Liberal or Neo Nazi. I rather enjoy their performance based on their acting skill, not who they voted for in reality.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 30, 2019)

x65943 said:


> The reality of the situation is we need to change voting laws from FPTP so that we have more options to choose from than the toxic R or D


I'm also in favor of that, but it's hard to see a path to get there, at least on a national level.  Particularly when the Supreme Court is willing to allow gerrymandering to continue on unhindered.  This not only locks us into the two-party system, it potentially locks us into minority rule.  Feels like we're moving further away from the ideals of democracy and freedom every day, not closer.


----------



## cots (Jun 30, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Ah so now you are calling Trump dumb even though he has billions of dollars. How much money did you make last year?



Here's me thinking that someone involved in running for-profit businesses is doing a good job if they have more income than the competition. Silly me for thinking the business that makes the most money is doing better than the ones who aren't when the goal is to see who can make the most money. We live in a society based on money. The more you have generally means the better off you're going to be and if you don't have much that means you're losing and doing something wrong. Although, how you make that money is also important. If you're a lying scumbag ripping people off, like most politicians, then you are still winning, but you're doing it dirty.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 30, 2019)

cots said:


> Here's me thinking that someone involved in running for-profit businesses is doing a good job if they have more income than the competition. Silly me for thinking the business that makes the most money is doing better than the ones who aren't when the goal is to see who can make the most money.


Running a country like a business is the quickest way to run it into the ground.  The majority of the populace gets stepped on with stagnating wages to ensure that corporate interests and profit margins are prioritized.  This should be common sense, but I guess some people think a few extra table scraps make it worth licking the corporate boot.  It's almost like Stockholm syndrome.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 30, 2019)

cots said:


> Well, considering I couldn't remember how to spell Kardashian let alone know anything about them, other than a lot of people tend to follow their every move, I don't really care about their views on politics, whatever they are. I believe, other than exposure to simple headlines about them, the most I've seen is around 2 minutes of some TV show featuring them, that I watched, unwillingly for those 2 minutes, after someone changed the channel from a movie I was watching to view the show. I'm not sure what the show was called nor do I care. I mean, I like actors, but I don't idolize them. They're just normal people who pretend to be other people, and some of them are good at it and entertaining, but I stop thinking about them the minute the movie or TV show is over. I personally rather not know the political identify of actors. I don't watch them pretend to be other people based on their personal beliefs. So I wouldn't want to know if someone I enjoy in movies is a Liberal or Neo Nazi. I rather enjoy their performance based on their acting skill, not who they voted for in reality.



My point was mainly that Democrats say that Trump supporters are brainwashed, but brainwashed by who? Every public school from K-12 to State Universities are filled with Liberal indoctrination from the teachers/professors. The entirety of the entertainment industry including hollywood and music artist push the Democratic narrative. I just find it ironic that the Republicans are the brainwashed ones when literally every form of media goes against conservatism full force which is why GBAtemp leans so heavily democratic. Most people on this website are addicted to media in one form or another, even videogames push a liberal agenda.



cots said:


> Here's me thinking that someone involved in running for-profit businesses is doing a good job if they have more income than the competition. Silly me for thinking the business that makes the most money is doing better than the ones who aren't when the goal is to see who can make the most money. We live in a society based on money. The more you have generally means the better off you're going to be and if you don't have much that means you're losing and doing something wrong. Although, how you make that money is also important. If you're a lying scumbag ripping people off, like most politicians, then you are still winning, but you're doing it dirty.



Well I disagree with the people on here that say that Trump is stupid. Nothing he has said or done show this to be true. Trump almost certainly has an above average IQ and he raised the hell out of his kids.It's funny how people can think a man as successful as Trump is of below average intelligence. If he is so stupid, why couldn't Hilary Clinton a skilled top tier politician defeat him in the general election? Now people in this thread are advocating that we change the rules of the game because they lost the election in 2016.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Jun 30, 2019)

sacrificing the well being of your constituents for profit (which is the end result if you hit a recession if you run the joint like a business) is one of the quickest ways of getting the boot (as in voted out).



Maluma said:


> My point was mainly that Democrats say that Trump supporters are brainwashed, but brainwashed by who?



while im not accusing of saying anyone is brainwashed we do have the rise of the "internet cool kid, anti sjw" youtube personality host in the last couple of years and quite frankly they do spout a bunch of half truths that have not helped the situation(this replaced the AM radio talk show host format a few years back).

Not going to lie we have some of those on the left but holy crap, listening to those guys is like listening to the edgelord olympics. Its a race to who can be the biggest a**hole in the room sometimes.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 30, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Well I disagree with the people on here that say that Trump is stupid. Nothing he has said or done show this to be true.


Orly?







I'll link you to the video if you need more proof that he said it.  He also said of Puerto Rico, "this is an island surrounded by water, big water, ocean water."


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 30, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> sacrificing the well being of your constituents for profit (which is the end result if you hit a recession if you run the joint like a business) is one of the quickest ways of getting the boot (as in voted out).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Youtube is banning most conservative channels from what I read on liberal Yahoo!. Before I even knew about politics, I became a republican by watching CNN and the debates. How would I get brainwashed into becoming a republican when I was a teenager watching a liberal biased channel(which I didn't know at the time, I had no idea news channels were biased) ? I used to watch CNN every day and even then I knew my values were conservative.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Jun 30, 2019)

you can be a marketing genius and still know nothing about running a place and be a "bull in a china shop" type of person.
if you think everything he has executed was "brilliant" then i dont know what to tell you



Maluma said:


> Youtube is banning most conservative channels from what I read on liberal Yahoo!. Before I even knew about politics, I became a republican by watching CNN and the debates. How would I get brainwashed into becoming a republican when I was a teenager watching a liberal biased channel(which I didn't know at the time, I had no idea news channels were biased) ? I used to watch CNN every day and even then I knew my values were conservative.


LMAO. sorry but calling yahoo liberal with the amount of deranged, lunatic heavy right wing comment section is silly.

i have seen people spout things that go beyond extreme in the comment section and its tolerated over there.

also if we are going to say how i became to identify as "X" politically speaking. the biggest factor tends to be your family.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 30, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Orly?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This doesn't even prove that he has low IQ. There are people on GBAtemp that use unnecessarily long words and spend hours proof reading to sound smart, trying to sound smart all the time doesn't actually make you smart. Even on reddit, people will try for hours to sound intelligent by asking for "sources" even though you can find sources for every opinion you have on the internet. If you know any high IQ people irl, they sometimes say or do stupid things. Those that are obsessed with always sounding smart, are usually pseudo intellectuals with average IQ that are insecure about their intelligence.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Jun 30, 2019)

"we have good x. the best x. Trust me i know x"
this is something he says often and while im not calling him low iq he doest tend to have a very limited method of communication when he says things.

(replace x with the topic at hand)


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 30, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> you can be a marketing genius and still know nothing about running a place and be a "bull in a china shop" type of person.
> if you think everything he has executed was "brilliant" then i dont know what to tell you
> 
> 
> ...



I am not sure if you are joking or genuinely ignorant. Yahoo shows liberal articles on their website and the website itself mostly has a liberal bias. You can look this up on google if you would like. The comment section is just what the people that read the articles comment and they are usually full of people raging at Yahoo for being liberal. They always complain that Yahoo is hiding the full story.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...oo-users-fed-steady-diet-of-liberal-headlines


----------



## cots (Jun 30, 2019)

Maluma said:


> My point was mainly that Democrats say that Trump supporters are brainwashed, but brainwashed by who? Every public school from K-12 to State Universities are filled with Liberal indoctrination from the teachers/professors. The entirety of the entertainment industry including hollywood and music artist push the Democratic narrative. I just find it ironic that the Republicans are the brainwashed ones when literally every form of media goes against conservatism full force which is why GBAtemp leans so heavily democratic. Most people on this website are addicted to media in one form or another, even videogames push a liberal agenda.



They don't comply and stand up against the bullshit, so they should be targeted and destroyed by any means necessary for simply having their own opinion. I can definitely relate to that as having faith in God means I'm a ripe target. Liberals can't win using fair tactics or logic, so they try to play emotions and division. The let hatred control them and will burn eternally for it, unless they repent.



> Well I disagree with the people on here that say that Trump is stupid. Nothing he has said or done show this to be true. Trump almost certainly has an above average IQ and he raised the hell out of his kids.It's funny how people can think a man as successful as Trump is of below average intelligence. If he is so stupid, why couldn't Hilary Clinton a skilled top tier politician defeat him in the general election? Now people in this thread are advocating that we change the rules of the game because they lost the election in 2016.



Yeah, the same people are blaming him for everything that goes wrong in their life like he's the "man" controlling everything. If that's true he's the smartest man alive. However, that's not the case. He's a successful business man, parent and our President, who did beat the competition. I didn't see the Liberals complaining about the electoral college when the candidates they support won nor would see it being any issue to them in they win the next presidential election. They are so blind and filled with hatred that they betray themselves, which makes them dangerous, not to mention lying scum that doesn't want to take any sort of personal responsibility for their own actions. They are a sick and need help.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 30, 2019)

Maluma said:


> This doesn't even prove that he has low IQ. There are people on GBAtemp that use unnecessarily long words and spend hours proof reading to sound smart, trying to sound smart all the time doesn't actually make you smart. Even on reddit, people will try for hours to sound intelligent by asking for "sources" even though you can find sources for every opinion you have on the internet. If you know any high IQ people irl, they sometimes say or do stupid things. Those that are obsessed with always sounding smart, are usually pseudo intellectuals with average IQ that are insecure about their intelligence.


Oh okay.  So the _truly_ intelligent people are the ones who had their parents pay for good grades.  And/or the town drunks.  Makes sense. 

I can guarantee you that my vocabulary at age 7 was far more robust than Trump's is at age 73.  Again, that's the consequence of being in an affluent bubble all your life.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Jun 30, 2019)

except that most yahoo news sources are from various journalist joints around the net. In turn that would mean you are calling the media at large biased towards liberalism.

to say that yahoo is liberal bias because they link to a few huffpo articles ( i dislike them myself by the way) is silly.


----------



## cots (Jun 30, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> "we have good x. the best x. Trust me i know x"
> this is something he says often and while im not calling him low iq he doest tend to have a very limited method of communication when he says things.
> 
> (replace x with the topic at hand)



You're too caught up in small things like literal meaning when he's using words as a tool. Contradicting himself a lot plays out into a larger picture and if it's causing "Liberal Outrage" then I'm all for it. There is a method behind the madness, otherwise, we wouldn't be doing as well as we're doing. Not that I always agree with what he says, but that's illogical. You can't just blindly agree with what your leaders say because they are in your own political party or simply always disagree with others because they don't share your own beliefs. You'll get nowhere in life if you think everyone has to agree with you all of the time on every issue and your way is the only way and everyone else is to blame, but not you. Well, you'll get somewhere, to a place filled with hatred and misery. I hope you find your way out.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Yahoo! doesn't hide they are simply an entertainment company with a web portal. I find their variety of linked articles, which rarely are ever news, entertaining. I've never been to their comment section, so I can't comment on that. I find it a good place to read about current entertainment and popular events. If I want real news I'm not going to load up their site.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Jun 30, 2019)

cots said:


> You're too caught up in small things like literal meaning when he's using words as a tool. Contradicting himself a lot plays out into a larger picture and if it's causing "Liberal Outrage" then I'm all for it. .



You see i think this is the crux of my disagreement with you. I dont think its healthy trying to constantly provoke an opposing political party "because it triggers them". Thats just me though.



cots said:


> Yahoo! doesn't hide they are simply an entertainment company with a web portal. I find their variety of linked articles, which rarely are ever news, entertaining. I've never been to their comment section, so I can't comment on that. I find it a good place to read about current entertainment and popular events. If I want real news I'm not going to load up their site.



fair enough if you ask me.


----------



## cots (Jun 30, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> You see i think this is the crux of my disagreement with you. I dont think its healthy trying to constantly provoke an opposing political party "because it triggers them". Thats just me though.



It's not healthy to get triggered all of the time, but if you're going to allow yourself to do so I see no problem in the other side taking advantage of your personal weakness to get policies passed. Allowing yourself to become full of blind hatred and rage makes you a prime target for manipulation. Someone with a clear head and level mind doesn't have to worry much about that.

Personally, I enjoy when the Liberals don't get their way and throw hissy fits. That may be insensitive, but I don't care. What they are trying to push on me goes way behind on how I feel or how they feel. They are a dangerous cancer, so excuse me when I don't really give two shits about how the cancer "feels" when it's being removed.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 30, 2019)

cots said:


> Contradicting himself a lot plays out into a larger picture and if it's causing "Liberal Outrage" then I'm all for it.


And there it is.  Making the entire country look like fucking morons to the rest of the world is perfectly okay as long as some liberal somewhere is angry about it.  Same deal with killing the planet through pollution and too much reliance on fossil fuels.  Same deal with violating human rights and the constitution.  

I'm glad you're willing to admit that Trump is a shit president who was elected for the sole purpose of pissing off more than half the country, rather than doing a good job of governance/legislation.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Jun 30, 2019)

cots said:


> It's not healthy to get triggered all of the time, but if you're going to allow yourself to do so I see no problem in the other side taking advantage of your personal weakness to get policies passed. Allowing yourself to become full of blind hatred and rage makes you a prime target for manipulation. Someone with a clear head and level mind doesn't have to worry much about that.
> 
> Personally, I enjoy when the Liberals don't get their way and throw hissy fits. That may be insensitive, but I don't care. What they are trying to push on me goes way behind on how I feel or how they feel. They are a dangerous cancer.



quite frankly people getting offended is silly to me but it is also juvenile to think that this is a worthy endeavour.



cots said:


> They are a dangerous cancer, so excuse me when I don't really give two shits about how the cancer "feels" when it's being removed.



you just called nearly half the peeps of the country that. ok.


----------



## cots (Jun 30, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> quite frankly people getting offended is silly to me but it is also juvenile to think that this is a worthy endeavour.



It's well worth the oppositions time to take advantage of their weakness (which is their hatred and outrage). We should remove the cancer at all costs to save the host, no matter how the cancer personally "feels" about it. Allowing themselves to become outraged is only going to help the opposition with this goal.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 30, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> except that most yahoo news sources are from various journalist joints around the net. In turn that would mean you are calling the media at large biased towards liberalism.
> 
> to say that yahoo is liberal bias because they link to a few huffpo articles ( i dislike them myself by the way) is silly.



Yahoo picks what articles it puts on the front page, the commentators are regular users that complain about yahoo being liberal biased and your argument was that yahoo wasn't liberal because of the commentators.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Jun 30, 2019)

.........
Yahoo doesnt pick the articles dude. its all handled by an algorithm based on what news stories you read.
Dont believe me? Load up opera and have a clean break. The page will reinforce based on what you constantly click...

hell got a mobile phone? you can personalize the stories you get on the front page.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 30, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Oh okay.  So the _truly_ intelligent people are the ones who had their parents pay for good grades.  And/or the town drunks.  Makes sense.
> 
> I can guarantee you that my vocabulary at age 7 was far more robust than Trump's is at age 73.  Again, that's the consequence of being in an affluent bubble all your life.



You didn't even reply anything remotely related to my post. I said that average intelligence people try to use big words to seem smart since that is what they are taught in school. Again,if Trump is so dumb why didn't Hilary beat him?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> And there it is.  Making the entire country look like fucking morons to the rest of the world is perfectly okay as long as some liberal somewhere is angry about it.  Same deal with killing the planet through pollution and too much reliance on fossil fuels.  Same deal with violating human rights and the constitution.
> 
> I'm glad you're willing to admit that Trump is a shit president who was elected for the sole purpose of pissing off more than half the country, rather than doing a good job of governance/legislation.



Liberals make us look like morons/weak to countries in the middle east,Russia,South America, and Asia. If you even mention political correctness in those countries, they will laugh right at your face. In their eyes we are effeminate men that are easy to push over. Non European countries see us as weak, but not for the reasons you think and certainly not because of Donald Trump. This is the only place in the world were we encourage degenerates and pander to minorities.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Jun 30, 2019)

since when the opinion of Russia, South America and Asia senpai matters to you?
I never thought I would see the day conservatives cared about what other countries thought about them.

Also someone who doesnt align with your views doesnt equal a degenerate. Never thought i had to explain that but here we are.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 30, 2019)

Maluma said:


> You didn't even reply anything remotely related to my post. I said that average intelligence people try to use big words to seem smart since that is what they are taught in school.


Yes, people are taught big words in school.  They're also taught grammar, pronunciation, history, the sciences, and critical thinking skills.  Yet Trump's knowledge in all of these categories is extremely lacking, because he knew any F he earned would be changed into an A by the grace of his daddy's donations.



Maluma said:


> Again,if Trump is so dumb why didn't Hilary beat him?


Several reasons.  Hillary was the worst possible candidate Democrats could have chosen to run against Trump.  Far more intelligent than him, but still a terrible campaigner who failed to even visit the key states that ended up losing her the election.  She was seen as a bureaucratic moderate, so she didn't inspire progressives to turn out and vote.  Then there's that whole subsection of voters who would rather pick a president they can "have a beer with" instead of one who is smarter than your average dipshit.  Y'know, the same ones that helped elect GWB to the office twice.  There are several more reasons, but the bottom line is that intelligence isn't necessarily the key factor in getting elected.  There are idiots out there who will vote based solely on who has the better four-word slogan.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 30, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> since when the opinion of Russia, South America and Asia senpai matters to you?
> I never thought I would see the day conservatives cared about what other countries thought about them.
> 
> Also someone who doesnt align with your views doesnt equal a degenerate. Never thought i had to explain that but here we are.



@Xzi said that we looked like morons to the rest of the world, I informed him the reasons as to why that was the case. This is one of the few places were degenerates are encouraged to do as they please with zero regards on the effect it will have on society as a whole. This country is the epitome of freedom and the only place were people of every culture are allowed to keep their traditions without assimilating. I know that not even in France do you guys have the amount of tolerance we do for different cultures. My understanding is that if you are not ethnically French you will never truly fit into French society as a Frenchman. In other words, there is no opportunity for Arabs born in France to assimilate as French. Why is the USA always held to a higher moral standard than any other country in the world?


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Jun 30, 2019)

Just me but I like to believe this is one of the greatest countries in the world. A lot of people here believe that too.
Thats why.

Also this country was founded on the idea of immigration.

The US is a leader. The opinions of others competitors rivals should mean squat.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 30, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Liberals make us look like morons/weak to countries in the middle east,Russia,South America, and Asia.


Christ, so your primary concern is looking strong in front of dictators and despots?  Even if that is the case, Trump looks like a whipped puppy whenever he's next to Putin.  By no means has he ever been the picture of strength on the world stage.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jun 30, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Yes, people are taught big words in school. * They're also taught grammar, pronunciation, history, the sciences, and critical thinking skills.  Yet Trump's knowledge in all of these categories is extremely lacking, because he knew any F he earned would be changed into an A by the grace of his daddy's donations.*
> 
> 
> Several reasons.  Hillary was the worst possible candidate Democrats could have chosen to run against Trump.  Far more intelligent than him, but still a terrible campaigner who failed to even visit the key states that ended up losing her the election.  She was seen as a bureaucratic moderate, so she didn't inspire progressives to turn out and vote.  Then there's that whole subsection of voters who would rather pick a president they can "have a beer with" instead of one who is smarter than your average dipshit.  Y'know, the same ones that helped elect GWB to the office twice.  There are several more reasons, but the bottom line is that intelligence isn't necessarily the key factor in getting elected.  There are idiots out there who will vote based solely on who has the better four-word slogan.



Regurgitating what they teach you in a liberal arts college doesn't actually make you smart though. Intelligence is hereditary and isn't something that an education can give you.You state that Hillary is smarter than Trump but completely contradict yourself with the rest of your paragraph. 

The part of your quote that I highlighted is a mix of your opinion and slander. Repeating what your parents taught you at home and what you learned at school is NOT critical thinking at all, it's called indoctrination. It takes no critical thinking to memorize and regurgitate what you have been told. You haven't actually provided any proof that Trump has a low IQ. If Trump is so stupid and you are so smart, when are you going to become a billionaire president? According to you, an idiot can accomplish these things so why haven't you?


----------



## Xzi (Jun 30, 2019)

Maluma said:


> If Trump is so stupid and you are so smart, when are you going to become a billionaire president? According to you, an idiot can accomplish these things so why haven't you?


If I was born to an insanely wealthy family and willing to sell out all my morals and values to align myself with the Republican party, it would be easy.  Neither of these things is true in my case.

The standards and expectations are much lower for Republican candidates than they are for Democratic candidates.  Thus the reason Trump decided to switch party affiliation before running.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 30, 2019)

Since when is it smart to be pathetic and edgy?  That's only faking it.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 30, 2019)

tabzer said:


> Since when is it smart to be pathetic and edgy?  That's only faking it.


I'd much rather have a president with the good sense to at least fake some semblance of intelligence.  At least he might fool some people some of the time, instead of presenting the image of a backwards, clueless country to the rest of the world all of the time.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 30, 2019)

Didn't we learn from Bush Jr. is that speaking like an everyday hick is more appealing to the mass than someone whose vocabulary reeks pretentiousness?  Being "funny" and relatable is more useful than just being right.  That's intelligent.  Even if he is clueless, Trump doesn't come off as clueless.  That's an image that you wish to ascribe to him after the fact.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 30, 2019)

tabzer said:


> If anybody learned from Bush Jr. is that speaking like an everyday hick is more appealing to the mass than someone whose vocabulary reeks pretentiousness.


And by the end of his second term, Americans were in unanimous agreement that GWB was one of the worst presidents ever elected.  Treating presidential elections like popularity contests ensures that each president will be progressively more disastrous for the country's interests than the last.  The sooner voters realize that, the better.



tabzer said:


> Being "funny" and relatable is more useful than just being right.  That's intelligent.  Even if he is clueless, Trump doesn't come off as clueless.


Constantly hurling insults at our allies and heaping praise on dictators/adversaries is not funny, and it absolutely makes him look clueless from a foreign policy standpoint.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 30, 2019)

cots said:


> Thank you for your commentary about thier indepth analysis of the facts as you can clearly see using data out of context from a single source is an invalid way to go about winning a debate or trying to make a point.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



that is not the moral of the story though, but I expect no less than endless bad faith arguments from you.

you can very much use just one source of information to make a valid point.
what you can't do is use invalid information to make a valid point.
what they did there wasn't an indepth analysis of 'the facts'.
they made up facts and used too complicated to easily check arguments to support those made up facts, giving it a semblance of credibility.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



cots said:


> As I've already stated it's both Clinton's policies and Bush's war that triggered the recession. Seeing that the current Republican leadership policies have been keeping job growth (more than under the Democrats lead by Obama, which I already linked to an article explaining the details) and improving the overall economy, plus no sort of war has started we're doing much better.



not an article, A COMMENTARY that we've all agreed on is using faulty logic to come to its wrong conclusions...


----------



## tabzer (Jun 30, 2019)

Xzi said:


> And by the end of his second term, Americans were in unanimous agreement that GWB was one of the worst presidents ever elected. Treating presidential elections like popularity contests ensures that each president will be progressively more disastrous for the country's interests than the last.



That's the trend and it isn't likely that it is going to change.  When candidates pander for votes, it quite literally is a popularity contest.



Xzi said:


> Constantly hurling insults at our allies and heaping praise on dictators/adversaries is not funny, and it absolutely makes him look clueless from a foreign policy standpoint.



This is your idea of "Trump in a nutshell".  Too bad we aren't talking about the same thing.  We could have had a conversation.


----------



## cots (Jun 30, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> you just called nearly half the peeps of the country that. ok.



Since when is the Liberal minority considered "half of the peeps of the country"? It's just their shit is pushed on us from their vocal leaders and the media eats it up. They are in reality a minority, which is how they should be and their numbers need to be reduced even further to make sure they don't come even close to breaking out of their minority status, let alone compare to the other majorities. I could see how saying a large percentage of Democrats populate the country, but even to normal Democrats Liberals are considered freak shows.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 30, 2019)

tabzer said:


> That's the trend and it isn't likely that it is going to change.  When candidates pander for votes, it quite literally is a popularity contest.


Having some charisma isn't a bad thing, but it is possible to have charisma and still be qualified and intelligent.  Republicans continue to nominate the least-qualified candidates they can possibly find, while Democrats value the skills necessary to legislate and govern.



tabzer said:


> This is your idea of "Trump in a nutshell".  Too bad we aren't talking about the same thing.  We could have had a conversation.


No, that's his foreign policy writ large.  Nothing 'in a nutshell' about it.



cots said:


> Since when is the Liberal minority considered "half of the peeps of the country"?


Registered Democrats aren't quite half of all registered voters, you're correct on that.  Neither are they a minority among registered voters, however.  The breakdown is 40% Democrat, 29% Republican, 28% Independent.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 30, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Having some charisma isn't a bad thing, but it is possible to have charisma and still be qualified and intelligent.  Republicans continue to nominate the least-qualified candidates they can possibly find, while Democrats value the skills necessary to legislate and govern.
> 
> 
> No, that's his foreign policy writ large.  Nothing 'in a nutshell' about it.
> ...



You aren't very intelligent.  So let it go.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 30, 2019)

tabzer said:


> You aren't very intelligent.  So let it go.


Wow, you're a fucking douchebag.  Don't bother interjecting in threads like this if you're just going to resort to personal insults instead of sticking to the discussion at hand.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 30, 2019)

So it's not personal when you are doing it about a President?  I see integrity is just a buzzword for you.  Too bad Trump probably doesn't know who you are, because you and him might have been able to relate to this feeling you are experiencing.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 30, 2019)

tabzer said:


> So it's not personal when you are doing it about a President?


Obviously not, the president is a public figure and not a part of this discussion.  If I could insult him to his face like he's insulted so many other people, I would in a heartbeat, but the odds of me ever getting that chance are extremely low.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 30, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Obviously not, the president is a public figure and not a part of this discussion.  If I could insult him to his face like he's insulted so many other people, I would in a heartbeat, but the odds of me ever getting that chance are extremely low.


And you are just some satirical self-debasing internet personality.  By no means a real person.  I find it hard to tell if "you" ever were really apart of any discussion.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 30, 2019)

tabzer said:


> And you are just some satirical self-debasing internet personality.  By no means a real person.


That's the best you can do?  If you're going to get butthurt over every mildly negative thing said about Trump on the internet, you're gonna have to step up your insult game bro.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 30, 2019)

I can't imagine a low-iq idiot making sense of the point I've already made, so I'll let it go.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 30, 2019)

tabzer said:


> I can't imagine a low-iq idiot making sense of the point I've already made, so I'll let it go.


Just FYI: hurling another weak insult isn't the same thing as letting it go.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 30, 2019)

I let go of trying to make you understand, and am embracing you for all you can be.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 30, 2019)

tabzer said:


> I let go of trying to make you understand, and am embracing you for all you can be.


You are vastly overestimating your English skills if you think you've made any statement I was incapable of understanding.  The shit you're flinging is just too weak to stick, and it proves that you're incapable of carrying a mature conversation beyond the point of your petty insecurities.  Grow the fuck up kiddo.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 30, 2019)

I'm not trying to "talk smarter" than you.  



Xzi said:


> Grow the fuck up kiddo.



You are too much fun.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 30, 2019)

tabzer said:


> I'm not trying to "talk smarter" than you.


Nobody asked you to.  Your vocabulary and grammar can be at the level of a first-grader for all I care, as long as you've actually got something to contribute.  Instead you've got your identity entirely too wrapped up in your political loyalties and/or the cult of personality you've joined.  Because of that, it's plainly obviously that you don't have the fortitude necessary for political discussion.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 30, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Nobody asked you to.



The following quote inferred that I already tried:



Xzi said:


> You are vastly overestimating your English skills if you think you've made any statement I was incapable of understanding.



Which adds further emphasis to missing the point.



Xzi said:


> Instead you've got your identity entirely too wrapped up in your political loyalties and/or the cult of personality you've joined.



See.  It's not that I like or dislike Trump.  It's just that you give him more appeal the more you try to be a center of attention.  It's ironic and pathetic.  To top it off, you want both see yourself and be seen as smart.  I'm doing you a favor.  It's not smart to reject the existence of intelligence in your adversaries.  It's just as easy for an adversary to do the same to you.  It doesn't require anything "special".  You've taken the level of denial to such an incredible display that it is hard consider you level-headed.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 30, 2019)

Lacius said:


> You can read the Snopes article you linked to for why the number of counties a candidate won is largely irrelevant to how well a candidate did. Counties vary wildly in population. Obama only won ~680 counties in 2012, for example.
> 
> Counting counties is mostly just counting rural areas, which is another way of saying you're counting Republican areas. It's largely meaningless.


Thats true. Trump won a few key big areas though that voted for Obama then switched to Trump.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Oh boy, another Trump supporter triggered by level-headed discussion just because it isn't playing out in favor of his biases.


How many people have you blocked now? lol.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WD_GASTER2 said:


> since when the opinion of Russia, South America and Asia senpai matters to you?
> I never thought I would see the day conservatives cared about what other countries thought about them.
> 
> Also someone who doesnt align with your views doesnt equal a degenerate. Never thought i had to explain that but here we are.


Asia Senpai? Your weeb is leaking, lol.

That Nazi sign though. I like how he destroys the world at the end.


----------



## leon315 (Jun 30, 2019)

now THE ORANGE MAN has lifted the Huawei ban, this man has absolutely no idea about anything he says or does and its consequence. probably The orange man begged President Xi to import americunt's soybean again.
_
Tempers, pls vote Trump 2020! cauz he will make China Great again. _*XDDDD*


----------



## notimp (Jun 30, 2019)

(In response to the Trump press conference video.)

Here is how nobody is able to compete without Android. As a chinese handset manufacturer.

You make it free.

You make your own appstore mandatory - and forbid the appstore of others to be preinstalled on the same device.

You take 30% of all profits through the app store.

You bank on at least one app developer in the world, making and app that many users want and thats spreads causing a network effect.


Its highly technical, complicated, and complex, Todd. Here - I needed three sentences to explain it.

Four if I need to explain it even further. If you prevent one of the hardware manufacturers from using your free operating system - suddenly they loose all popular apps on the plattform - have to pay for an OS, and make and OS - with all the localization and PR issues in the world coming up at once, while the competition gets theirs for free.

So complicated Tod, so complicated. I'm not sure you would understand it Tod. Its highly technical.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Jun 30, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Asia Senpai? Your weeb is leaking, lol



Never hid it?

you should switch back to your k-pop avatars. it made you more recognizable.

back to the topic at hand. The whole trade dispute thing has been turned into a side show.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 30, 2019)

tabzer said:


> See. It's not that I like or dislike Trump.


Riiight.



tabzer said:


> It's just that you give him more appeal the more you try to be a center of attention.


We were 8-9 pages deep into a discussion that had already been taken way off-topic, a discussion you had no involvement in.  You decided to seek my comments out specifically, so I think you know who to blame for putting me at the center of attention, if that's indeed where I'm at.



tabzer said:


> To top it off, you want both see yourself and be seen as smart.


We've all got our positive and negative attributes to contend with, English just happens to be one of my strong suits.  I can't help it if that creates a negative perception of me in the eyes of people used to the level of discourse over at 8chan.  I can tell you that my math skills are subpar at best, and there are several subjects which I have zero knowledge about.  Of course, none of this is relevant to the fact that you decided to drag this conversation into the mud for no particularly good reason.



SG854 said:


> How many people have you blocked now? lol.


Like 4-5.  Basically every conservative on the site who feels like I'm insulting them personally whenever I insult one of this country's worst modern presidents.  People like you and Maluma can be a bit on the rude/blunt side, and you like to make generalizations, but at least you aren't thin-skinned.  So it is possible for you to carry a conversation without it devolving into a mud-slinging contest.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 30, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> Never hid it?
> 
> you should switch back to your k-pop avatars. it made you more recognizable.
> 
> back to the topic at hand. The whole trade dispute thing has been turned into a side show.


I like to mix things up and throw people off. I use to have a bunch of Anime and Anime style avatars. Before that Marvel and Comic Book type characters. Alien and Predator. Then joke ones like a random old lady and some random baby with glasses giving a thumbs up.


The whole trade tariff thing is bad. The Tariffs are not a good thing. And prices are rising. I was against them from the beginning.


I wanted to hear more from Yang but apparently his mic had problems.



Xzi said:


> Riiight.
> 
> 
> We were 8-9 pages deep into a discussion that had already been taken way off-topic, a discussion you had no involvement in.  You decided to seek my comments out specifically, so I think you know who to blame for putting me at the center of attention, if that's indeed where I'm at.
> ...


Ya Sorry, about being rude. I don’t hate you or anyone else I debate. It’s just all talking. Some of the stuff I say can come off as rude. And I think some of it is lost online when you can’t use tone of voice and it’s all just text. And I think blocking people over these stuff is ridiculous. But I got nothing against anyone here. That’ll be dumb over topics like these and people are sharing thoughts and opinions. And I don’t really hold grudges it’s just a waste of time.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 30, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Riiight.



I don't have to like Trump to recognize the hypocrisy in your own grand-standing.  Everything you say is established on the idea that you are better than someone, and it is clearly not the case.



Xzi said:


> We were 8-9 pages deep into a discussion that had already been taken way off-topic, a discussion you had no involvement in. You decided to seek my comments out specifically, so I think you know who to blame for putting me at the center of attention, if that's indeed where I'm at.



Sorry I wasn't here first, dude.  



Xzi said:


> English just happens to be one of my strong suits.



No, it isn't.  Comprehension of English requires comprehension of logic.  You may think you have an extended vocabulary and that makes you smart, or maybe you are just a grammar nazi raised on spell-check, but to be good at English is to also be good at communication.  Really you are just someone who wants to talk about themselves and gloat, but needs hot topic political issues as an excuse to do so.  Nobody loves Trump more than you.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 30, 2019)

tabzer said:


> I don't have to like Trump to recognize the hypocrisy in your own grand-standing.  Everything you say is established on the idea that you are better than someone, and it is clearly not the case.


Multiple times I've stated that it shouldn't be asking too much for a president who's more intelligent than the average American.  It's not about me, no matter how much you want to frame it that way.  Trump's primary issue isn't that he's stupid, either, but instead that he surrounds himself with sycophants out to serve their own interests regardless of how damaging that might be to the country at large.



tabzer said:


> Sorry I wasn't here first, dude.


Again, not the issue.  Your lack of any meaningful contribution is.  You came to this thread with the sole intent of starting shit, so you shouldn't be surprised when it gets thrown back in your face.



tabzer said:


> No, it isn't.  Comprehension of English requires comprehension of logic.  You may think you have an extended vocabulary and that makes you smart, or maybe you are just a grammar nazi raised on spell-check, but to be good at English is to also be good at communication.


It's clear that you've understood every nuanced and not-so-nuanced point I've made in this conversation, that means I'm a sufficiently effective communicator.  The fact that you hate my opinions and often get triggered by them is a different subject entirely that has nothing to with my effectiveness as a communicator.



tabzer said:


> Really you are just someone who wants to talk about themselves and gloat, but needs hot topic political issues as an excuse to do so.


If I want to discuss my personal life, I'll make a blog post.  Again, you're the one putting the focus on me due to your inability to stick to the topic at hand.  A new thread will be necessary for the next set of debates because of all the garbage you've helped to fill this one with.


----------



## cots (Jun 30, 2019)

tabzer said:


> The following quote inferred that I already tried:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When I hate something I tend to avoid discussing it or generally thinking about it because I don't enjoy being miserable. It's funny how people are so obsessed with one man that they blame him for everything wrong that happens in their lives and can't help, but to follow Trump's every move. It's like all they see in my last sentence is the word Trump and are so filled with hatred and outrage they miss the point. Is having to dodge your own personal responsibility for the way things are going in your life that important? Xzi seems to really enjoy being part of the shit talking crowd. Who knows, maybe this is the first time in his life he feels accepted. If so I feel sorry for him because the type of people doing the accepting aren't the type of people you should be looking for acceptance from.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 1, 2019)

cots said:


> Xzi seems to really enjoy being part of the shit talking crowd..


Or maybe I've been involved with political discussion and debate since high school, and it's something I enjoy as long as all parties involved manage to stay level-headed and cordial toward one another.  Hurl as many insults as you want at Hillary Clinton, I couldn't possibly care less.  At the end of the day, however, Trump is the guy in office, and he's going to be the one who gets the blame/backlash when the consequences of his policy decisions come back to bite the entire country in the ass.  People who can't deal with that reality have no business attempting to involve themselves in political discussion.


----------



## cots (Jul 1, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Or maybe I've been involved with political discussion and debate since high school, and it's something I enjoy as long as all parties involved manage to stay level-headed and cordial toward one another.  Hurl as many insults as you want at Hillary Clinton, I couldn't possibly care less.  At the end of the day, however, Trump is the guy in office, and he's going to be the one who gets the blame/backlash when the consequences of his policy decisions come back to bite the entire country in the ass.  People who can't deal with that reality have no business attempting to involve themselves in political discussion.



Well, that's finally something I believe. If your school chose your political preference for you then I understand that's one lousy school and it explains your lack of intelligence and commonsense. How long ago did you graduate? 1 or 2 years, because clearly you haven't learned anything new since then. This is why school's shouldn't push a political preference on thier students, they should teach thier students how to actually think for themselves and leave politics out of it. Thanks for being a prime example of how this problem effects students after they graduate. If you ever learn any real non-democrat pretend critical thinking skills let me know otherwise you're staying on my ignore list and this is my last message to you that you're ever going to get the privilege of enjoying.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jul 1, 2019)

Trump is way above average intelligence. Just lol at people in this thread really believing otherwise. Dunning-Kruger effect at it's finest.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 1, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Trump is way above average intelligence. Just lol at people in this thread really believing otherwise. Dunning-Kruger effect at it's finest.


Trump can't even form coherent sentences.

I can say this, Trump is really good at convincing idiots he's really smart.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Trump is way above average intelligence. Just lol at people in this thread really believing otherwise. Dunning-Kruger effect at it's finest.


There's a lot of evidence that Trump either a.) Isn't very smart, or b.) Pretends to not be very smart

The Dunning-Kruger Effect is also irrelevant, as we are talking about someone else.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 1, 2019)

cots said:


> Well, that's finally something I believe. If your school chose your political preference for you then I understand that's one lousy school and it explains your lack of intelligence and commonsense.


So your reading comprehension is for shit, or this is just more bad faith garbage coming from you.  Either way not worth a response.  Be sure to keep me on ignore so my comments can't hurt your fee-fees again.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2019)

Xzi said:


> So your reading comprehension is for shit, or this is just more bad faith garbage coming from you.  Either way not worth a response.  Be sure to keep me on ignore so my comments can't hurt your fee-fees again.


You can look back at my posts in this thread for why I stopped wasting my time with this one.


----------



## cots (Jul 1, 2019)

brandonspikes said:


> Trump can't even form coherent sentences.
> 
> I can say this, Trump is really good at convincing idiots he's really smart.



Underestimating your enemies is why the Democrats lost the Presidential election. If they keep it up they're going to lose again. Trump loves that he's outsmarting the Liberals at almost every turn and they are too stupid to realize why. I'll look for more Liberal outrage in the news tomorrow and rest sound in my conclusion.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

You can be good at spelling and grammar, but actually being able to communicate honestly in an accurate and informative way that is comprehensivable outweighs your simple book knowledge. Trump's use of English in this manner seems to work just fine for him otherwise he wouldn't be our President. You claim he's stupid, but at the same time hold him responsible for everything that happens that you dislike. Clearly if he's responsible for the sun setting he's not that dumb.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2019)

cots said:


> Underestimating your enemies is why the Democrats lost the Presidential election. If they keep it up they're going to lose again. Trump loves that he's outsmarting the Liberals at almost every turn and they are too stupid to realize why. I'll look for more Liberal outrage in the news tomorrow and rest sound in my conclusion.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> You can be good at spelling and grammar, but actually being able to communicate honestly in an accurate and informative way that is comprehensivable outweighs your simple book knowledge. Trump's use of English in this manner seems to work just fine for him otherwise he wouldn't be our President. You claim he's stupid, but at the same time hold him responsible for everything that happens that you dislike. Clearly if he's responsible for the sun setting he's not that dumb.


A person can be stupid and evil at the same time. Often times, the former can lead to the latter.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Jul 1, 2019)

Lacius said:


> A person can be stupid and evil at the same time. Often times, the former can lead to the latter.


_Often times, the former can lead to the latter._

Otherwise its conjecture.


----------



## osaka35 (Jul 1, 2019)

With politics, and even more so in the US than other places, the perception of the thing usually replaces the actual thing. If he seems like someone you can get a beer with, he must be a good guy. And good guys will fight for the normal person, because that's what makes a good guy a good guy. Right? right?

As long as the economy seems to be doing okay for you, then just vote for whoever's currently in office. As long as they speak to your ideals, then how they actually vote and act don't matter. As long as a politician says they're fiscally conservative or socially responsible, then vote for them because they can't just lie about things like that. If there are any issues, then it must be the other person's fault, certainly not the one I voted for.

As long as you think a thing is true, if you're told the thing is true by an authority figure, the facts and figures hardly matter. You can cherry pick whatever supports you, because you're obviously right so why bother looking deeper into it? Your right, they're wrong. They should be putting in the effort to understand why yours is the right way, not the other way around.

There's so much talking past each other, conceptual frameworks based on biased and incorrect information, idealogically different goals,  and other things in conversations like this. But the things that get me the most is when folks support a politician who actively fight against what that person believes.

tl;dr: What does being a conservative/liberal/centrist/etc mean to you? What qualities and idealogies should they show and support? What kind of laws should they pass? Why?


----------



## cots (Jul 1, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> With politics, and even more so in the US than other places, the perception of the thing usually replaces the actual thing. If he seems like someone you can get a beer with, he must be a good guy. And good guys will fight for the normal person, because that's what makes a good guy a good guy. Right? right?
> 
> As long as the economy seems to be doing okay for you, then just vote for whoever's currently in office. As long as they speak to your ideals, then how they actually vote and act don't matter. As long as a politician says they're fiscally conservative or socially responsible, then vote for them because they can't just lie about things like that. If there are any issues, then it must be the other person's fault, certainly not the one I voted for.
> 
> ...



This is why I usually hear the word politician and think of a snake. I rarely fall for thier broken promises and outright lies. Someone who does these things and would say anything to get elected won't get my vote, unless both candidates are doing the same thing and then I'll vote for the less crooked one or not vote at all (sometimes I'll write in my cats name as he's more qualified in some instances). When I  vote I look for honest policies that will help our country and environment and look for issues that would personally effect me. I rather not vote for someone that thinks I'm too dumb to make my own decisions and should then rely on them or is handing out carrots while hiding a noose behind thier back. I'll vote for less Government power and policies that help the environment and then will participate afterwards in things that limit Government power and help the environment - like owning a car and then claiming I support the environment and make excuses why I don't take any personal responsibility to change it when driving is one of the main contributors to pollution whether it's electric or not. Any excuse for not setting an example is just an excuse and you're just full of shit.


----------



## GreatCrippler (Jul 1, 2019)

brandonspikes said:


> Trump can't even form coherent sentences.
> 
> I can say this, Trump is really good at convincing idiots he's really smart.



To be fair, it's not a lack of overall intelligence that drags the man down. It's the fact that he's a narcissist with very little grip on reality that makes him scary. On paper he would potentially score well on an IQ test. That said, The Democrats are REALLY good at shooting themselves in the foot... So yea... I have no idea how this side show of an election is going to play out, but I assume it will cause me to cringe.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 1, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Your lack of any meaningful contribution is



Pointing out how self-defeating name-calling Trump is in the context of a Democratic debate is the best contribution.




Xzi said:


> Multiple times I've stated that it shouldn't be asking too much for a president who's more intelligent than the average American.



You really aren't an authority to evaluate Trump's mental capacity when you mimick the things you say you don't like about him.  It makes you a follower of Trump, not an advent of any type of reform.



Xzi said:


> Again, not the issue.



Yeah, it is.  You don't like my opinion and you are territorial.  I don't blame you for that. 



Xzi said:


> It's clear that you've understood every nuanced and not-so-nuanced point I've made in this conversation, that means I'm a sufficiently effective communicator.



Then maybe you should consider that when I point out a fault, that there is something of accuracy there, too.  You aren't good enough.  It's too bad.



Xzi said:


> If I want to discuss my personal life, I'll make a blog post.



Missing my point once again.  It's obvious to anybody who reads your posts that you talk a bit about yourself.  It's an objective fact.  I would say that it's a lot and particularly boastful as well as lacking in substance.  It all hinges on Trump being bad, which everyone already knows.  Your content is dull and uninspired.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2019)

0x3000027E said:


> _Often times, the former can lead to the latter._
> 
> Otherwise its conjecture.


"Often" is a subjective term, so you can get off your high horse.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 1, 2019)

tabzer said:


> Pointing out how self-defeating name-calling Trump is in the context of a Democratic debate is the best contribution.


I suppose it's a good thing I wasn't the one to first bring up his name in this thread, then.  I don't think I was even second.  God forbid you actually do your research, though.  Much easier to throw out whiny bullshit and insults with no context.  That way you don't even have to _pretend_ you have a surface-level understanding of American politics.

I think everybody gets the goddamn point that you don't like me.  So either put me on ignore like the other thin-skinned conservative snowflakes here, or accept the fact that political discussions are going to involve some opinions which might offend you.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jul 1, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I suppose it's a good thing I wasn't the one to first bring up his name in this thread, then.  I don't think I was even second.  God forbid you actually do your research, though.  Much easier to throw out whiny bullshit and insults with no context.  That way you don't even have to _pretend_ you have a surface-level understanding of American politics.
> 
> I think everybody gets the goddamn point that you don't like me.  So either put me on ignore like the other thin-skinned conservative snowflakes here, or accept the fact that political discussions are going to involve some opinions which might offend you.



Snowflake is a term that the geezers use to refer to the young liberal population. Anyways, how many conservatives have you spoken to on this website? There are barely any conservatives here and the entire GBAtemp staff is filled with liberals. I don't think there is a single conservative moderator on this website.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 1, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Snowflake is a term that the geezers use to refer to the young liberal population.


It's a fitting term for anyone whose emotional state is easily shattered into a thousand pieces, which means it applies to just as many conservatives.  Case in point: a Gillette commercial or AOC saying absolutely anything.  Or a corporation pandering to the LGBTQ community during pride month.



Maluma said:


> Anyways, how many conservatives have you spoken to on this website?


There seem to be quite a few people with conservative viewpoints who stay quite active in this subforum.  You, SG854, cots, Iamapirate (given his willingness to defend the Proud Boys), tatripp, and Glyptofane just to name a few.



Maluma said:


> I don't think there is a single conservative moderator on this website.


Well there's Foxi4 and Joe88 for sure.  Most of the moderators don't often chime in on these discussions either way.  And they're pretty lax about allowing viewpoints from all sides of the political spectrum to stay visible, even some of the more extremist viewpoints.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 1, 2019)

Xzi said:


> More dumb bs that is irrelevant to all points made.



I've only been able to do exactly what you do, but better.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 1, 2019)

tabzer said:


> I've only been able to do exactly what you do, but better.


This is straight-up out of the kindergarten playbook.  Next you're gonna tell me that you're rubber and I'm glue.

How about I redirect back to the thread's original purpose: since I've already made my opinions on the subject known (page 1), what did _you_ think of the first Democratic debates, tabzer?  Who were the winners and losers in your opinion?  I'm sure we can all learn a lot from your expertise and in-depth analysis.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Jul 1, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> tl;dr: What does being a conservative/liberal/centrist/etc mean to you? What qualities and idealogies should they show and support? What kind of laws should they pass? Why?



or peeps can keep hurling insults at each other because they think acting like little turds on the internet is a past time.

Quite frankly this thread has devolved into ad-hominems and gone way past topic. Can a moderator lock the thread at OP's request?

I am sure there are plenty of threads in the forum where peeps can keep beating on each other. I just wanted to get peoples opinion.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jul 1, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It's a fitting term for anyone whose emotional state is easily shattered into a thousand pieces, which means it applies to just as many conservatives.  Case in point: a Gillette commercial or AOC saying absolutely anything.  Or a corporation pandering to the LGBTQ community during pride month.
> 
> 
> There seem to be quite a few people with conservative viewpoints who stay quite active in this subforum.  You, SG854, cots, Iamapirate (given his willingness to defend the Proud Boys), tatripp, and Glyptofane just to name a few.
> ...



So that's less than 10 people. I don't have any facts, but I would guess that less than 10% of this forums user base is conservative. I just post on this subforum for fun as I know that I won't change anyone's opinion.


WD_GASTER2 said:


> or peeps can keep hurling insults at each other because they think acting like little turds on the internet is a past time.
> 
> Quite frankly this thread has devolved into ad-hominems and gone way past topic. Can a moderator lock the thread at OP's request?
> 
> I am sure there are plenty of threads in the forum where peeps can keep beating on each other. I just wanted to get peoples opinion.


Mods really shouldn't close this thread as it would be unfair to those that aren't hurling insults. Said insults aren't really even all that bad anyways.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Jul 1, 2019)

Insults none the less. If you read the rules heated debate is encouraged. Attacking people with ad-hominems isnt. Also there are plenty of threads where this can keep on going.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 1, 2019)

Maluma said:


> So that's less than 10 people. I don't have any facts, but I would guess that less than 10% of this forums user base is conservative.


Maybe, but a guess is a guess.  There probably aren't more than 20 people who are regularly active on this subforum, making the conservative presence here very noticeable.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jul 1, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> Insults none the less. If you read the rules heated debate is encouraged. Attacking people with ad-hominems isnt. Also there are plenty of threads where this can keep on going.


Yeah but I am not insulting anyone so why should I be punished by locking the thread? What other thread is even hot right now?


----------



## cots (Jul 1, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> Insults none the less. If you read the rules heated debate is encouraged. Attacking people with ad-hominems isnt. Also there are plenty of threads where this can keep on going.



Would that include insulting the current President of the United States? If you're going to go crying to the moderators because a few conservatives are making valid points then the rules should also apply to anyone speaking badly about our President.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Maluma said:


> Yeah but I am not insulting anyone so why should I be punished by locking the thread? What other thread is even hot right now?



Liberals get insulted pretty easily. Just having an opposing viewpoint to them is insulting. I rather not pander to their idiotic views. No one is blatantly cursing at one another or posting memes or talking pure trash talk. It seems having a few people with opposing views is enough to warrant calling in the mods, as it's best not to allow others with different viewpoints the ability to speak.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 1, 2019)

cots said:


> Liberals get insulted pretty easily. Just having an opposing viewpoint to them is insulting.


Says the guy who put me on ignore for having an opposing viewpoint. 



cots said:


> It seems having a few people with opposing views is enough to warrant calling in the mods, as it's best not to allow others with different viewpoints the ability to speak.


The OP has every right to request his own thread locked, regardless of his reasoning.  And you're clearly misrepresenting that reasoning.  Whether the mods choose to honor the request or not is a different matter.


----------

