U.S. Elections: Orange is the New Wack

[Jasta11]

29 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Sure, I'll give you that point. No one knows for sure who did it at this point.

My own beef is really that Clinton did what she had to do, denouncing political violence in a democracy even if her opponents suffered from it, no matter who does it.

Trump immediately tried to use the event as an attack against his opponent and a shameless self-promoting tool (''because we are winning''? the hell), before anyone knows anything about the attack, While also, of course, staying completely silent after three dudes were arrested before bombing a Mosque.

But then people will say Clinton is the shifty, corrupt politician.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Daniel Plainview said:

Then ignore the fucking election and comments about it. They are compared since they are running against one another. They are compared since people keep saying how Clinton is worse than Trump or how they are similar etc.  Also, her gaffes haven't been downplayed. What fucking world do you live in that you think her deplorable comment was down played? Did you miss the ridiculous media coverage over such a petty comment? Did you miss how it was brought up in a debate? And you do realize she is held to a higher standard and more of a double standard compared to any other politician that has run for president? 

I was referring to this board. The last thread specifically. There are a number of posters here who simply refuse to admit she has any faults, and I find it to be a bit annoying. It was a stupid statement for her to make. She even apologized for it. Yet many here seem to find no fault with it  "because equivalencies". Thanks for the suggestion about ignoring the election, but I'm not a fucking ostrich, thank you very much. That was also a stupid statement by the way.

[LongRider]

13 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Hey, now. Mr. "I'm living in Ayn Rand Novel" is a "numbers guy".

Wait, he's not. Yep, he's a moron.

Yanno, Ayn Rand is so 20^th century man.  I mean, can waving "The Fountianhead" get anyone laid anymore?  Really, blue eyed granny starver, move on!

[Jace, Extat]

5 minutes ago, Jasta11 said:

My own beef is really that Clinton did what she had to do, denouncing political violence in a democracy even if her opponents suffered from it, no matter who does it.

Trump immediately tried to use the event as an attack against his opponent and a shameless self-promoting tool (''because we are winning''? the hell), before anyone knows anything about the attack, While also, of course, staying completely silent after three dudes were arrested before bombing a Mosque.

But then people will say Clinton is the shifty, corrupt politician.

It's politically expedient to denounce such things.

[Castel]

2 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

It's politically expedient to denounce such things.

If you're a candidate for presidency. 

Donald Trump is not actually a candidate at this point so much as he is a ball of narcissistic rage, projected unto half of a very partisan nation.

Now, come the debate they may dress him up as one again, but for now that's what he is.

[DunderMifflin]

33 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

 

 

So, how bout that Bernie, anyone think his endorsement of Clinton was actually paid for? Feel the sellout Bern? If he was ever truly sold in that is.

[Boris the Blade]

6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I was referring to this board. The last thread specifically. There are a number of posters here who simply refuse to admit she has any faults, and I find it to be a bit annoying. It was a stupid statement for her to make. She even apologized for it. Yet many here seem to find no fault with it  "because equivalencies". Thanks for the suggestion about ignoring the election, but I'm not a fucking ostrich, thank you very much. That was also a stupid statement by the way.

No one is admitting she has no faults. Cut that out that hyperbolic bullshit. 

How was it a bad statement? I mean seriously, his supporters are terrible people, and yes, I mean every single fucking one of his supporters are terrible. I have no issue labeling every single supporter of his as a deplorable piece of shit.

Do you need me to breakdown why they are all terrible? 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Daniel Plainview said:

How was it a bad statement? I mean seriously, his supporters are terrible people, and yes, I mean every single fucking one of his supporters are terrible. I have no issue labeling every single supporter of his as a deplorable piece of shit.

You just asked me to cut out the hyperbolic bullshit, then you wrote those last two sentences.

[Boris the Blade]

5 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

You just asked me to cut out the hyperbolic bullshit, then you wrote those last two sentences.

It's not hyperbolic. Everyone one of them is shit if they support him. You have people that either agree with everything he says which means they're bigots, agree with some of it, which means they are bigots, excuse his sexually predatory language and behavior which means they're horrible people, people that may not agree with any of what he says but are just voting for him for "change" which means they still support him even with knowing how terrible he is which means they are selfish and terrible themselves, people that are just voting for him party wise even if they agree or disagree with his views which makes the same as what I just said regarding just supporting him for change. And then you have some people that are voting for him as a stick it to the DNC types because Bernie lost and they think he was screwed over, that makes them terrible people as well since they are still supporting a person that is so bigoted and a sexual predator.
Yea, all of them suck and are terrible people for supporting him, regardless of their reasons. 

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Except he's referring to specific folks who did something deplorable. Don't see an equivalency here. Had Hillary specifically pointed to say David Duke or the KKK and called them deplorable, there wouldn't have been an issue.

She did refer to specific people. Donald Trump supporters. About half of those.

She was probably lowballing it, but you gotta be diplomatic so I'll give her that.

[Dr. Pepper]

6 minutes ago, Daniel Plainview said:

No one is admitting she has no faults. Cut that out that hyperbolic bullshit. 

How was it a bad statement? I mean seriously, his supporters are terrible people, and yes, I mean every single fucking one of his supporters are terrible. I have no issue labeling every single supporter of his as a deplorable piece of shit.

Do you need me to breakdown why they are all terrible? 

It's undoubtedly true that a fair portion of his supporters are deplorable.  However, a presidential candidate shouldn't be calling entire groups of citizens that.  It's better to identify the specific deplorable being supported - in this case Donald Trump - than to call all those in his basket deplorables.  Leave calling them terrible pieces of scum to us little people.  

[OldGimletEye]

26 minutes ago, LongRider said:

Yanno, Ayn Rand is so 20^th century man.  I mean, can waving "The Fountianhead" get anyone laid anymore?  Really, blue eyed granny starver, move on!

No it can't. Quite the opposite actually.  It's probably a great form of birth control.

But, he's lookin for his Dagny Taggart, so they can run off to Galt's Gulch and show us a peasants  thing or two.

[OldGimletEye]

22 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

 

So, how bout that Bernie, anyone think his endorsement of Clinton was actually paid for? Feel the sellout Bern? If he was ever truly sold in that is.

Now why in the heck would Bernie endorse Trump? That makes no sense.

Sanders has his disagreements with Clinton, but he is miles of part from what Trump stands for. Trump would scuttle the ACA, do away with Dodd-Frank, and give massive tax cuts to the wealthy. Why on earth would Sanders support that?

[LongRider]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

But, he's lookin for his Dagny Taggart, so they can run off to Galt's Gulch and show us a peasants a thing or two.

LOL!  Wonder if he and his truuu luvre have their bags packed and tickets bought for a quick plane out on Nov. 9, they just might need it. 

[DunderMifflin]

5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Now why in the heck would Bernie endorse Trump? That makes no sense.

Sanders has his disagreements with Clinton, but he is miles of part from what Trump stands for. Trump would scuttle the ACA, do away with Dodd-Frank, and give massive tax cuts to the wealthy. Why on earth would Sanders support that?

There are other options besides supporting Trump or Hillary. For example, no one.

I'm just refering to the latest round of email hacks that Trump is more important than.

Would seem very out of character for him to take money for his endorsement. This is a man that by all accounts has driven the same peice of shit car to work for decades by choice.

[Shryke]

42 minutes ago, Castel said:

No. Too much of a narcissist to torpedo himself for someone else. And enough of a narcissist to try to lash out and try to take everyone with him when he feels he's sinking. 

Yeah, the truth is that Trump is startlingly easy to understand (and manipulate) once you realise he's a thin-skinned ignorant misogynistic narcissist who views every interaction as a dominance game.

He's desperate for validation, can't stand to be challenged (especially by women), constantly lies and rambles to make himself look better to himself and treats every single interaction as a game to be won via asserting his dominance.

It's why he has to lash out at every one who challenges him. Especially women. It's why he's so petty and vindictive. It's why he needs to pretend the election is gonna be rigged. And it's why he wants to win the election and can't stand the fact that it looks like he won't.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, DunderMifflin said:

There are other options besides supporting Trump or Hillary. For example, no one.

I'm just refering to the latest round of email hacks that Trump is more important than.

Would seem very out of character for him to take money for his endorsement. This is a man by all accounts has driven the same peice of shit car to work for decades by choice.

No the choice is pretty much Trump or Clinton. Bernie knows that. Clinton is a lot closer to him on policy matters than Trump is. I'm pretty sure Bernie knows it's better to get some  of things you want, than to get nothing, or in Trump's case it would be less than nothing. Trump's tax cuts are going to be a big driver of wealth inequality, and I'm sure Bernie ain't down with that.

[Shryke]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

No the choice is pretty much Trump or Clinton. Bernie knows that. Clinton is a lot closer to him on policy matters than Trump is. I'm pretty sure Bernie knows it's better to get some  of things you want, than to get nothing, or in Trump's case it would be less than nothing. Trump's tax cuts are going to be a big driver of wealth inequality, and I'm sure Bernie ain't down with that.

Sanders was playing the game of threatening to split the party in return for concessions at the policy table. Which he got way more of then any challenger I'm aware of in the modern primary era and more then he deserved frankly. He endorsed Clinton in the end because he's not a moron and knows how the electoral system works.

[Shryke]

26 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

It's undoubtedly true that a fair portion of his supporters are deplorable.  However, a presidential candidate shouldn't be calling entire groups of citizens that.  It's better to identify the specific deplorable being supported - in this case Donald Trump - than to call all those in his basket deplorables.  Leave calling them terrible pieces of scum to us little people.  

No, it's not. Frankly, the media throwing a fit about her telling the truth and others reluctance to tell the truth about this facet of the US electorate is the whole problem. It's why Trump is where he is right now. Because no one wants to come out publicly and say the truth: that the US has a fucking substantial portion of it's electorate, almost entirely white, that are deeply racist and vote accordingly.

This is basically one of the cornerstones to understanding the shape of American politics since at least the end of the civil war.

But it's not "polite" to point it out apparently. And so it festers like a sore. And then it explodes.

[Dr. Pepper]

2 minutes ago, Shryke said:

No, it's not. Frankly, the media throwing a fit about her telling the truth and others reluctance to tell the truth about this facet of the US electorate is the whole problem. It's why Trump is where he is right now. Because no one wants to come out publicly and say the truth: that the US has a fucking substantial portion of it's electorate, almost entirely white, that are deeply racist and vote accordingly.

This is basically one of the cornerstones to understanding the shape of American politics since at least the end of the civil war.

But it's not "polite" to point it out apparently. And so it festers like a sore. And then it explodes.

Except pointing out that this almost entirely white electorate is deeply racist and vote accordingly isn't the same as calling them all a basket full of deplorables.  Deplorable can mean practically anything.  Racist is pretty specific.  I don't support shying away from that word.