Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The main debate starts tonight, but before that, one that's already happened was the Second Tier debate, where 7 people who didn't make the primary cut all participate in a secondary debate.

second article


Fiorina seems to be the interesting winner there, by most reactions. Reportedly, practically no-one showed up to watch, but there's enough debates that if someone can get 'promoted' to the main debate next time they're far from out.


Anyway, main debate coming soon

NOOOOOOOOOBODY STUMPS THE TRUMP!

Wow, Look at just how little people cared about the second tier.

Meanwhile, I expect first tier to make debate rating records.

Aaand we're off, and Trump certainly makes an impression.


Oooh, good reply by Rubio on the resume question.

BASED TRUMP TOOK MEGYN KELLY'S SOUL.

I DONT NEED EVIDENCE YOU ****ING UNAMERICAN DEGENERATE

CHRIS CHRISTIE ON SUICIDE WATCH

GET A WARRANT YOU FAT ****

I have no interest in this but your commentary is fantastic.

This is pretty interesting. Trump is doing it for show.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
CHRIS CHRISTIE ON SUICIDE WATCH

GET A WARRANT YOU FAT ****

Dude, shut the **** up.

Originally posted by psmith81992
This is pretty interesting. Trump is doing it for show.

I like Ben Carson, he's solid. Has had really solid answers.

Carson and Bush have been my favorites thus far. Christie and Rubio were good too. I can't NOT love Trump. He's a douchebag with the utmost confidence.

Trump might be but he destroyed the guy complaining about "your investors lost a billion dollars"

He said "these investors arnt the cute cuddly people you portray the as, they are sharks."

So ya, **** the bankers.

TRUMP HAS BEEN STUMPED

BAH GAWD

ITS ALL OVER

MEGYN KELLY BACK FROM THE GRAAAAAAAAVE

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Trump might be but he destroyed the guy complaining about "your investors lost a billion dollars"

He said "these investors arnt the cute cuddly people you portray the as, they are sharks."

So ya, **** the bankers.

Not all investors are bankers/sharks (and bankers are kinda *vital*).

Granted, these people invested in Trump with his track record, but in some cases that's just gullibility and not anything all that bad.

Apparently your two stupid and drunk to understand what's happening Tze.

Clinton's name has been dropped over and over and the first Dem debate isn't until Oct, the Hill-fear rubs deep. Deep.

Tzeentch, I heart you +1

Originally posted by Q99
Not all investors are bankers/sharks (and bankers are kinda *vital*).

Granted, these people invested in Trump with his track record, but in some cases that's just gullibility and not anything all that bad.

You realize no investment is 100% guaranteed? Let's be real here.

Originally posted by Robtard
Clinton's name has been dropped over and over and the first Dem debate isny until Oct, the Hill-fear rubs deep. Deep.

Tzeentch, I heart you +1

We all know you going to vote for that ugly broad. Hell Bill won't even sleep with her, why should we vote for her

At this point I don't think anyone fears Hilary.. Unless of course Trump becomes the voice of the right. I'd be much more comfortable with Bush or Carson.

I'm not watching the debates. I've had other responsibilities this evening. I'm sure I'll catch the highlights and synopses tomorrow. It will be interesting to read articles on both conservative and liberal websites. I look forward to the differences in perspective.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
We all know you going to vote for that ugly broad. Hell Bill won't even sleep with her, why should we vote for her

Viability of coitus is a valid criteria to consider for a presidential candidate?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
We all know you going to vote for that ugly broad. Hell Bill won't even sleep with her, why should we vote for her

She has't even won the nom and you're shitting your pants as well.

Do this, take a sip of your grandpa's cough-syrup everytime one of them name-drops Hillary, you'll be constise in 14 mins

Funny when I said people fear trump and everyone lost their shit and screamed "PROOF!!!????"

Where was your proof?

Let us see how many times the Dems name-drop Trump in Oct.

Originally posted by Robtard
She has't even won the nom and you're shitting your pants as well.

Do this, take a sip of your grandpa's cough-syrup everytime one of them name-drops Hillary, you'll be constise in 14 mins

Excuse me, what the hell are you even talking about? Your the one who brought up Hill dog.

Originally posted by Robtard
Where was your proof?

Let us see how many times the Dems name-drop Trump in Oct.

I posted proof. Ur seriously saying because people bring up hill they are afraid of her

Weak claim, try again.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Funny when I said people fear trump and everyone lost their shit and screamed "PROOF!!!????"


Actually more like people calmly point out that polls indicate that while his primary foes have reason to worry, in the general he'd be slaughtered....

*Shrugs* Not really sure why Dems are supposed to be worried. I think you're just trying to convince yourself here.



Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
We all know you going to vote for that ugly broad. Hell Bill won't even sleep with her, why should we vote for her


Btw, sexist stuff like this is likely to cost the Republican party. Dislike someone because she's an 'ugly broad,' immediately go for sex insults... not exactly appealing to female voters who hear Republicans say crap like that.


Granted, you're just a random voter, but if it gets widespread, that'll turn people off.

No you didn't, people posted proof showing how far Trump is behind in the polls.

I will say, he by far is the most entertaining.

Oh funny Q99, Tze can call Chris chisty fat, yet you say nothing. Take your bias and shove it

Originally posted by Robtard
No you didn't, people posted proof showing how far Trump is behind in the polls.

I will say, he by far is the most entertaining.

I did, lol.

I'm DVRing it so I can skip parts and just watch Megyn Kelly and the Donald.

UNDER OBAMAS LEADERSHIP THE MILITARY IS ONLY STRONGER THAN 26 OF THE COUNTRIES BELOW US

THE MILITARY NEEDS TO BE 100 TIMES STRONGER THAN THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED OR PUTIN AND IRAN WILL INVADE US

Megyn Kelly is HOT

Just played a nice test on you liberals.

Digi, Rob and Q99 exposed their biasm.

Tze talks about how Chri Christy is a fat ****.

I say Hilary is an ugly broad.

Yet neither three of them say shit about the first comment.

You three just got Rick rolled.

Sucks to be caught being biased

WHICH ONE OF YOU ARE HEARING VOICES IN YOUR HEAD?

B A S E D K E L L Y

A

S

E

D

AMERICA IS BLESSED AND WE'RE SUPER BLESSED TO HAVE GOD'S BLESSING

Originally posted by Tzeentch
AMERICA IS BLESSED AND WE'RE SUPER BLESSED TO HAVE GOD'S BLESSING

Aren't you Mexican?

Originally posted by Stringer
Aren't you Mexican?

He wishes, then he would have a job, and legal status.

DEBATE STRATEGY: REMIND EVERYONE THAT I AM A SMART DOCTOR AT LEAST TWICE PER TOPIC

NOBODY ARSONS THE CARSON

Carson is awesome.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
DEBATE STRATEGY: REMIND EVERYONE THAT I AM A SMART DOCTOR AT LEAST TWICE PER TOPIC

I've never met a Mexican doctor. Please elaborate

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He wishes, then he would have a job, and legal status.

Medicaid also and a drivers license

I am actually less worried about Hilary(not that I was worried before) after watching this. Again, that is assuming Trump does not win.

He won't

"The military is not a social experiment"

Sorry black people and women.

Originally posted by Robtard
"The military is not a social experiment"

Sorry black people and women.

No worries

But...It's not. Also the conclusion you reached isn't valid.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Just played a nice test on you liberals.

Digi, Rob and Q99 exposed their biasm.

Tze talks about how Chri Christy is a fat ****.

I say Hilary is an ugly broad.

Yet neither three of them say shit about the first comment.

You three just got Rick rolled.

Sucks to be caught being biased

You're a child who would rather (incorrectly) "Rick Roll" strangers on the internet than have a serious discussion. Tzeentch is the most entertaining part of this entire thread. No one responded to him bc he's obviously just d*cking around. The controls on your experiment leave more than a bit to be desired. And you don't prove any points or convince anyone of anything or provide a valuable conservative perspective on these issues...ever. All you do is whine and accuse, and act like petty oneupmanship like this post is equivalent to reasoned debate. The only rick roll that is perpetrated upon us is because we respond to you at all.

srug

Blax is always drunk.

I took a shot for everytime Obama or Hillary were mentioned to draw attention away from actually answering a question, needless to say I'm pretty smashed.

I like Carson as a person, he seems like the most intelligent and genuine person of the group. He has no chance of winning though, and even if he did and became president I'm not convinced he'd do a great job.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Blax is always drunk. lol, didn't see this post.

Bush is so unlike W. He had good answers and he felt very comfortable up there. But Carson killed it.

Originally posted by Digi
You're a child who would rather (incorrectly) "Rick Roll" strangers on the internet than have a serious discussion. Tzeentch is the most entertaining part of this entire thread. No one responded to him bc he's obviously just d*cking around. The controls on your experiment leave more than a bit to be desired. And you don't prove any points or convince anyone of anything or provide a valuable conservative perspective on these issues...ever. All you do is whine and accuse. The only rick roll that is perpetrated upon us is because we respond to you at all.

srug

Oh you mad now!

Christy Christy is a phat ****...silence...

Hilary is ugly.....thats sexist!

Really enjoyed listening to the debate tonight.

Originally posted by Star428
Really enjoyed listening to the debate tonight.

Yea it was a really good debate. I hope to see a lot more.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Oh you mad now!

Ah yes, the classic:
http://i.imgur.com/vSpNRB4.jpg

Nah, not really, obviously. Just like the million other times some variation of "u mad bro?" has been posted on the internet. The last time KMC upset me was probably during the Bush presidency (not a political statement, just a gauge of time).

It's just...tired. You really aren't worth talking to. Not because our views are different - that's actually something I value in debates - but because you'd rather post stuff like this instead of talking with us/me.

Originally posted by Digi
Ah yes, the classic:
http://i.imgur.com/vSpNRB4.jpg

Nah, not really, obviously. Just like the million other times some variation of "u mad bro?" has been posted on the internet. The last time KMC upset me was probably during the Bush presidency (not a political statement, just a gauge of time).

It's just...tired. You really aren't worth talking to. Not because our views are different - that's actually something I value in debates - but because you'd rather post stuff like this instead of talking with us/me.

Talk about what, you wanting to talk my ear off about calling Hilary ugly but giving pass to Tze cause "oh he was joking"

Im good.

So it's settled, Blax is a fattist and you're a sexist

Originally posted by Robtard
So it's settled, Blax is a fattist and you're a sexist

Is that an insult?

No, I mean talk about the debates. Ya know, like the topic.

And if a drunken Tzeentch channeling Jim Ross isn't joking, what is?

Originally posted by Digi
I'm not watching the debates. I've had other responsibilities this evening. I'm sure I'll catch the highlights and synopses tomorrow. It will be interesting to read articles on both conservative and liberal websites. I look forward to the differences in perspective.



Viability of coitus is a valid criteria to consider for a presidential candidate?

This was your only response to me Digi, you didn't want to talk about anything but this topic. So unless I missed something, that was the topic you addressed to me.

Originally posted by Digi
No, I mean talk about the debates. Ya know, like the topic.

And if a drunken Tzeentch channeling Jim Ross isn't joking, what is?



Channeling. Sounds like a satanic comedy club already.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
This was your only response to me Digi, you didn't want to talk about anything but this topic. So unless I missed something, that was the topic you addressed to me.

Yes, the only one I managed to type before you started us on this rick roll thing. I also mentioned wanting to see reaction from both sides. I fully expected to contribute to this topic once I had a chance to invest time into it.

You also never answered the question. You've said dumber things when it comes to your political views, so I considered it a valid question, given that it came from you.

these debates were really boring imo. too much filler, not enough trump.

bush is such a dreadful bore.

Originally posted by red g jacks
these debates were really boring imo. too much filler, not enough trump.

bush is such a dreadful bore.

Def needed more Trump, Bush was like a stale unsalty cracker.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I like Ben Carson, he's solid. Has had really solid answers. shit token black candidate imo

bring back the herman cain train

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Funny when I said people fear trump and everyone lost their shit and screamed "PROOF!!!????"

Originally posted by red g jacks
shit token black candidate imo

bring back the herman cain train

Originally posted by psmith81992
This is pretty interesting. Trump is doing it for show.




LOL. Looks like someone is in denial. Newsflash: He has a good lead in the GOP polls and he ain't going anywhere. Get used to it.

finally finished, recorded it and watched in chapter:

Carson was the most likeable, though I did find his "I'm a neurosurgeon" dropping annoying, reminded me of when Frankenstein's monster (aka J. Kerry) kept dropping his "I have 137 purple hearts" in 2004.

Bush showed the most amount of confidence in his answers and if the nom was decided off this debate alone, he'd likely deserve it. Going on the basis that his answers were truthful, I wasn't fact-checking.

Cruz, guy just looks creepy. Hard to focus on his thoughts when I keep seeing the water-hag from the film Legend when his face moves.

The Wisconson guy, he pulled off the everyday/common man well, no idea if it's a mask or legit.

as bill mahr once suggested, the republican ticket should def be trump/christie

just all around pure east-coast, in-your-face mafioso swagger

He was dropping it like Isaac Hayes in Shaft though so it was great.





Lol, I forgot what she looks like.

i am 100% confident that ted cruz is a closet homosexual (...not that it matters... /seinfeld)

Originally posted by red g jacks
i am 100% confident that ted cruz is a closet homosexual (...not that it matters... /seinfeld)

Originally posted by psmith81992
Lol, I forgot what she looks like.

http://cdn.buzznet.com/assets/users16/lipglossgrrrl/default/meg-mucklebones--large-msg-120070401982.jpg

edit:

Made a side by side comparison. Which one is Ted and which one is Meg?

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee289/GFO106/TCMM.jpg

i could def picture ted on an episode of to catch a predator... with his pedo grin

Originally posted by psmith81992

Lol, I forgot what she looks like.

http://russia-insider.com/sites/insider/files/Hillary.jpg

Talk time: 1 Trump 5:06 2 Bush 4:29 3 Crz 3:30 4 Rbio 3:00 5 Chrstie 2:50 6 Carson 2:45 7 Kasich 2:11 8 Huck 2:03 9 Paul 2:01 10 Walker 1:54

That was as of about 10pm EST. Seems unofficial, but it got picked up by a couple major news sources, so it's likely fairly accurate.

I'm starting to filter through many of the responses and clips from the debate. Undoubtedly a good night for Kasich. First, he got into the debate, which was in some question when he announced his candidacy last week. Second, I can't find any negative reactions to his comments.

It seems Trump wasn't hurt by his occasional outbursts. The field will have to narrow some before he's in any real danger; at this point the top 2-3 guys are likely just standing pat, while the ones behind in the polls need to make a splash. I lol'd at Trump when he ducked out of the question on illegal immigration, but he also had a few really strong responses that I've seen or read.

The commentary on Hillary did seem to assume her as the Democratic nominee, which is a little surprising. I won't get into the fear debate that the forum seems to be obsessed with - I find it largely irrelevant - but one or two comments did steer the debate toward Hillary-bashing. I would have avoided it entirely, were I them. Tonight was either about differentiating themselves as candidates, or not screwing up (Trump, Bush, etc.). And you're not going to be able to take a stand on Hillary-bashing; there's no differentiation to be had there among GOP candidates. Everyone's basically the same there.

And ouch to Walker's air time. He's up there with Trump, Bush, and Rubio in the polls right now iirc. Only comments I see about him are about how it felt like he wasn't there.

Liberal media isn't important right now. Conservative media is. They'll control the narrative for the GOP until the nomination. Trump's antagonism toward Fox may end up being a thorn in his side. But if they don't go after him for this debate, it will have been a win for him.

Originally posted by Digi
Only comments I see about him are about how it felt like he wasn't there. to be fair, it also felt like he wasn't there even when he was talking

Walker had really bad hair day, its bald in the back and has a weird scalp. Lets be honest, its all you can look at, and your glad when its over. Pretty sure its canon you have to have good hair and not be bald to be president.

Originally posted by Digi
Talk time: 1 Trump 5:06 2 Bush 4:29 3 Crz 3:30 4 Rbio 3:00 5 Chrstie 2:50 6 Carson 2:45 7 Kasich 2:11 8 Huck 2:03 9 Paul 2:01 10 Walker 1:54

That was as of about 10pm EST. Seems unofficial, but it got picked up by a couple major news sources, so it's likely fairly accurate.

I'm starting to filter through many of the responses and clips from the debate. Undoubtedly a good night for Kasich. First, he got into the debate, which was in some question when he announced his candidacy last week. Second, I can't find any negative reactions to his comments.

It seems Trump wasn't hurt by his occasional outbursts. The field will have to narrow some before he's in any real danger; at this point the top 2-3 guys are likely just standing pat, while the ones behind in the polls need to make a splash. I lol'd at Trump when he ducked out of the question on illegal immigration, but he also had a few really strong responses that I've seen or read.

The commentary on Hillary did seem to assume her as the Democratic nominee, which is a little surprising. I won't get into the fear debate that the forum seems to be obsessed with - I find it largely irrelevant - but one or two comments did steer the debate toward Hillary-bashing. I would have avoided it entirely, were I them. Tonight was either about differentiating themselves as candidates, or not screwing up (Trump, Bush, etc.). And you're not going to be able to take a stand on Hillary-bashing; there's no differentiation to be had there among GOP candidates. Everyone's basically the same there.

And ouch to Walker's air time. He's up there with Trump, Bush, and Rubio in the polls right now iirc. Only comments I see about him are about how it felt like he wasn't there.

Liberal media isn't important right now. Conservative media is. They'll control the narrative for the GOP until the nomination. Trump's antagonism toward Fox may end up being a thorn in his side. But if they don't go after him for this debate, it will have been a win for him.

This is pretty good assessment.

Trump crashed and burned.

Maybe, but if he doesn't drop his clown douchebag act in the next debate, he's likely done aside from entertainment purposes, people are going to want some substance out of him, instead bravado.

http://www.drudgereport.com/now.htm


Not even close.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
We all know you going to vote for that ugly broad. Hell Bill won't even sleep with her, why should we vote for her

I take it back, sexism plays no part in the group that hate Hillary Clinton...

Originally posted by Bardock42
I take it back, sexism plays no part in the group that hate Hillary Clinton...

Why? Is Hillary Clinton a women, or something?

Watching Chris Christie and Rand Paul take verbal jabs at each other was the highlight imo

I thought Kasich did the best. His answer on the question about gay marriage was refreshingly tolerant and straight forward.

I also didn't realize how apparently being in favor of allowing abortion in instances of rape or when the mother's life may be in danger was such a no-no in the party these days. One of the most awkward and disturbing moments was when Rubio was seemingly forced to walk back his supposed support for such allowances in the past. They really seem to be in a race to the bottom on the issue.

Trump was funny. He cracked me up when he told Paul that he "Was having trouble tonight" because he responded to something Trump didn't say.

I also thought Rubio, despite my previously mentioned moment of moral collapse, did very well and presented himself and everything he said very nicely.

Carson did well enough. Walker might as well have not been there.

Christie and Paul were both meh. Paul was pretty aggressive and confrontational and just seemed like he needed a nap or something.

Bush was okay too, I guess. I dunno. There were just too many people on that stage. It's pretty much impossible to gauge any of them to any meaningful degree because they weren't allowed to say anything but essentially taglines.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Oh funny Q99, Tze can call Chris chisty fat, yet you say nothing. Take your bias and shove it


Hey, if that gets to be a wide-spread thing, that type of stuff too can impact an election.

The GOP has a gender problem.


I'm picturing it now, "(Gendered insult) (sex comment), and the Democrats try and shut everything down by crying sexism!". That's something we'll probably be hearing a lot in the coming election, just like what happened with Obama.


Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Just played a nice test on you liberals.

Digi, Rob and Q99 exposed their biasm.

Tze talks about how Chri Christy is a fat ****.

I say Hilary is an ugly broad.

Yet neither three of them say shit about the first comment.

You three just got Rick rolled.

Sucks to be caught being biased


That's a really poor argument.


All it says is Tzeentch didn't get called for fat bias (which, yes, he was being), while you got called for blatant sexism.


This is fairly typical- You get called on something you really were doing and which is common-as-heck in talk on Hillary. But then you go, "Ah ha, but a liberal poster *didn't* get called on something else! Therefore there was nothing wrong with what I did and you're the ones who're biased!".


If you let yourself be blind to problems in your message and your party's message, and importantly if many think like you, then that leaves them in a poor position to not-cause-problems for their own party by driving people to the democrats.

Originally posted by Digi


The commentary on Hillary did seem to assume her as the Democratic nominee, which is a little surprising.


Not to me. Sanders has his crew but he's like Ron Paul, unlikely to extend past them.

Clinton dominants the polls. If the gap closed by 30 points he'd still lose.

Assuming Clinton is a safe bet.



Yea, really. Heck, well past Rubio, there's a couple people between them.





Right.

And the Fox antagonism seems interesting to me- Fox was really trying to hit him, even though they're the moderators.

Fox News is, unsurprisingly, in bed with the party, but it's interesting for it to show up so noticeably in the Republican debate (and possibly backfire?).

Most of us don't.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Most of us don't.


Ah, but here's a thing- It doesn't require most. If it's say 20-30%, and everyone else just stays quiet about it to avoid internal fighting, then that's what people see.


A large part of the Obama/Racism thing wasn't that most Republican were being openly racist, they weren't, but-


Noticeable chunk of Reps: *Says racist things*

Black Voters and those sympathetic: "You gonna do something about that...?"

Rest of Reps/candidates: "They weren't being racist/no comment!"

Black Voters and those sympathetic: "Riiight. I'm going to vote Dem even harder now. Maybe run a turn-out-to-vote campaign."



If the Republicans don't show self-control over their inner dialog, they're likely to drive away a lot of women voters this time around.


The party chose to stay silent about the racists because they thought it was convenient to do so, and it cost them.

There's a real danger of that sort of thing happening again.

I saw real promise in yesterday's debates, aside from Trump.

Originally posted by Q99
Hey, if that gets to be a wide-spread thing, that type of stuff too can impact an election.

The GOP has a gender problem.


I'm picturing it now, "(Gendered insult) (sex comment), and the Democrats try and shut everything down by crying sexism!". That's something we'll probably be hearing a lot in the coming election, just like what happened with Obama.





That's a really poor argument.


All it says is Tzeentch didn't get called for fat bias (which, yes, he was being), while you got called for blatant sexism.


This is fairly typical- You get called on something you really were doing and which is common-as-heck in talk on Hillary. But then you go, "Ah ha, but a liberal poster *didn't* get called on something else! Therefore there was nothing wrong with what I did and you're the ones who're biased!".


If you let yourself be blind to problems in your message and your party's message, and importantly if many think like you, then that leaves them in a poor position to not-cause-problems for their own party by driving people to the democrats.

No sorry this won't work.

Here in this thread Chris Christy was called a fat ****, Ted Cruz "a closet homosexual", Carson is a "black token", Donal Trump a "douche bag". But I said Hilary is ugly...

Yet you didn't lecture anyone. I'm done listening to your biased "sexist" rants from you and your liberal friends here.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No sorry this won't work.

Here in this thread Chris Christy was called a fat ****, Ted Cruz "a closet homosexual", Carson is a "black token", Donal Trump a "douche bag". But I said Hilary is ugly...

All of which are bad, and he'd already been told to shut up by you before I responded to anything, so... yea. It's not like he was responded to, or do you not count now?

Are only you allowed to call people on stuff, but not vice-versa?




Unlike Tzeentch you've also got a habit of complaining about 'liberals using racism/sexism to shut down debates,' so responding to yours made a nice meta-commentary on something we're more than likely to see a lot of in the coming year. I figured I'd pre-emptively point this out so that in the future, we have a nice clear example of you being sexist about Hillary.


But yea, you told someone to shut up on something, no-one complained. You get called on something, and it's a whole other story.




Yea, this is typical. Even if you get called on something you really were doing, if you feel someone else does something and wasn't sufficiently called on it, then your thing is ok and you don't have to feel bad or change your behavior in anyway, you feel justified in saying the other person is bad while excusing yours.


It's the party's problem with these issues in a nutshell. You care more about finding an excuse than not being (blank)ist, and only bring up racism/sexism/etc. as a deflection when you're called on something. Everyone was fine with Tze being told to shut up and then him shutting up, until it turned out you also got called on something, and only then did you get mad about other people not bringing up details. Meaning you only cared enough to get into specifics when your own behavior was called into question.


Were Tzeentch's comments bad? If you think so, then you should also accept that, hey, maybe yours were too. And not take his comments as a way to excuse yours. Would you take your complaints as a sufficient excuse for his? I don't think so.


So yea, I'm going to say- Tzeentch's comments were bad, yours was also definitely bad, and this martyr complex thing is very clearly a deflection. You want to be able to say stuff like Tzeentch does, you want to be able to say it in seriousness, and you want to not be called on it.

I never seen it but I presume it went like this
https://youtu.be/PYtbWWmtVYM

Blax is very left leaning and he was drunk, I don't think anyone should have taken offense to his rants.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Blax is very left leaning and he was drunk, I don't think anyone should have taken offense to his rants.


Still, a "dude, you're drunk. Shut up," was entirely called for.


Of course, he'd already gotten that, so, yea..

Originally posted by Q99
All of which are bad, and he'd already been told to shut up by you before I responded to anything, so... yea. It's not like he was responded to, or do you not count now?

Are only you allowed to call people on stuff, but not vice-versa?




Unlike Tzeentch you've also got a habit of complaining about 'liberals using racism/sexism to shut down debates,' so responding to yours made a nice meta-commentary on something we're more than likely to see a lot of in the coming year. I figured I'd pre-emptively point this out so that in the future, we have a nice clear example of you being sexist about Hillary.


But yea, you told someone to shut up on something, no-one complained. You get called on something, and it's a whole other story.




Yea, this is typical. Even if you get called on something you really were doing, if you feel someone else does something and wasn't sufficiently called on it, then your thing is ok and you don't have to feel bad or change your behavior in anyway, you feel justified in saying the other person is bad while excusing yours.


It's the party's problem with these issues in a nutshell. You care more about finding an excuse than not being (blank)ist, and only bring up racism/sexism/etc. as a deflection when you're called on something. Everyone was fine with Tze being told to shut up and then him shutting up, until it turned out you also got called on something, and only then did you get mad about other people not bringing up details. Meaning you only cared enough to get into specifics when your own behavior was called into question.


Were Tzeentch's comments bad? If you think so, then you should also accept that, hey, maybe yours were too. And not take his comments as a way to excuse yours. Would you take your complaints as a sufficient excuse for his? I don't think so.


So yea, I'm going to say- Tzeentch's comments were bad, yours was also definitely bad, and this martyr complex thing is very clearly a deflection. You want to be able to say stuff like Tzeentch does, you want to be able to say it in seriousness, and you want to not be called on it.

Sorry won't work again. Difference is you lecturing me about one thing when multiple comments were said from multiple people.

Nice try but you failed again

Originally posted by BackFire
I also thought Rubio, despite my previously mentioned moment of moral collapse, did very well and presented himself and everything he said very nicely.


Rubio was one of the better debaters, calm and clear; announced every syllable. His youth is probably a bonus for him in the 20-40ish voter crowd.

But I felt he teetered on the edge of sounding too preachy at times.

On the abortion thing, his rebuttal was that he never made those claims, yeah? Was that an outright lie?

Originally posted by jaden101
I never seen it but I presume it went like this
https://youtu.be/PYtbWWmtVYM

Just replace "Nine-Eleven" with "Hillary Clinton" and/or the occasional "President Obama".

Megyn Kelly: Where do you see the US' economy heading in the next ten years and what do you propose as safeguards to keep it strong and viable?

Candidate: Hillary Clinton wants to take all your money, vote for me and she won't be able to do that.

That's a gross misinterpretation of what actually transpired but your efforts are cute.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150611085549-ben-carson-gay-and-civil-rights-not-same-00004126-large-169.jpg

Originally posted by Robtard
Just replace "Nine-Eleven" with "Hillary Clinton" and/or the occasional "President Obama".

Megyn Kelly: Where do you see the US' economy heading in the next ten years and what do you propose as safeguards to keep it strong and viable?

Candidate: Hillary Clinton wants to take all your money, vote for me and she won't be able to do that.

You do realize that Clinton is a one presenter?

Originally posted by psmith81992
I saw real promise in yesterday's debates, aside from Trump.

You didn't feel like Walker's, Cruz's, or Rubio's responses were generic Republican talking points?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You do realize that Clinton is a one presenter?
You'd be hardpressed to find a non-one percenter seriously running for president in any election.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You'd be hardpressed to find a non-one percenter seriously running for president in any election.

No but only the left claims their kind cares about the other 99%.

Originally posted by psmith81992
No but only the left claims their kind cares about the other 99%.

Do you just post things to hear yourself type?

You'll be hard pressed to find a Republican that doesn't ostensibly care about the 99% (aka as their constituents).

Both sides pretend to care (or actually care) about the other 99%, however Democratic policy more often than Republican policy actually supports those in lower wealth brackets.

Was an odd statement, aside wrong the wrongness, it's basically claiming "The Right doesn't care nor does it pretend to care". Why would you support a party you believe works that way.

Cares = Zero Cares

Originally posted by psmith81992
No but only the left claims their kind cares about the other 99%.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Do you just post things to hear yourself type?

Both sides pretend to care (or actually care) about the other 99%, however Democratic policy more often than Republican policy actually supports those in lower wealth brackets.

That is a myth.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is a myth.

Well, obviously people on different sides of the spectrum will disagree, but either way the premise that psmith put forth is flawed. Republcans at least pretend to care about the 99%.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, obviously people on different sides of the spectrum will disagree, but either way the premise that psmith put forth is flawed. Republcans at least pretend to care about the 99%.

And so do the Democrats, but nether care. All they want is power. Just get in their way and see how fast the step on you.

This is my honest opinion: If Hispanics were to start voting for Republican in large numbers, Demarcates would be for deporting them as fast as possible.

Hmm, I disagree on both those points.

But at any rate, the statement " only the left claims their kind cares about the other 99%." is blatantly false. The right claims the exact same thing.

I feel as if you've missed Bardock's point entirely.

edit: nvm, he's explained it again

I was going to ask you the exact same question but I already know the answer

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, I disagree on both those points.

But at any rate, the statement " only the left claims their kind cares about the other 99%." is blatantly false. The right claims the exact same thing.

I didn't say the right claims any different. Good try

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, I disagree on both those points...

That is because you have swallowed the Democratic bait, hook line and sinker.

Also I don't care what psmith81992 said.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I was going to ask you the exact same question but I already know the answer



I didn't say the right claims any different. Good try

Because the word "only" doesn't mean what it means.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is because you have swallowed the Democratic bait, hook line and sinker.

Also I don't care what psmith81992 said.

I don't think so, obviously there's good and bad people in both parties, but I think that policy and statistics bear out the fact that Democrats in power is better for the middle class and the poor.

And you replied to my reply to psmith (as well as giving him a thumbs up for his comment), that's why that came up.

Originally posted by Bardock42
...
I don't think so, obviously there's good and bad people in both parties, but I think that policy and statistics bear out the fact that Democrats in power is better for the middle class and the poor.
...

I'm middle class and I live in Oregon, a bright blue state, and all that Demarcates do is try to take my money.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm middle class and I live in Oregon, a bright blue state, and all that Demarcates do is try to take my money.

Of course Democrats are more willing to tax in some circumstances in order to provide services. In my view a lot of these services improve the life of people considerably, and cutting them while lowering taxes, while seemingly good short term, has negative consequences that ultimately lead to wore quality of life for people.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Of course Democrats are more willing to tax in some circumstances in order to provide services. In my view a lot of these services improve the life of people considerably, and cutting them while lowering taxes, while seemingly good short term, has negative consequences that ultimately lead to wore quality of life for people.

Bullsh*t!

They tax to make themselves and the rich, richer. I see it all the time.

Remember I used to be a Demarcate, and then I woke up to what is really going on.

Sorry to wake you, just go back to sleep.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Bullsh*t!

They tax to make themselves and the rich, richer. I see it all the time.

Remember I used to be a Demarcate, and then I woke up to what is really going on.

Sorry to wake you, just go back to sleep.

I guess we just have to disagree for now. Maybe one of us will change his mind in the future...

Trump did not entertain me as much as I'd hoped.

The naivete is amusing.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is because you have swallowed the Democratic bait, hook line and sinker.

Also I don't care what psmith81992 said.
I don't imagine he's exposed to much Democrat propaganda in Germany.

Originally posted by psmith81992
The naivete is amusing.
Please vary up your word choice a little. "Naivete" and "naive" are getting stale.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't imagine he's exposed to much Democrat propaganda in Germany.

...

And I am open to the idea that what I see is because Oregon is just really screwed up.

Because I keep using it in the exact same context every time..

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And I am open to the idea that what I see is because Oregon is just really screwed up.

Well yeah, remember Oregon is the place that wants to pay for teen sex changes and let teens get sex changes without parental consent even at the age of 15.

I always say people who equate any kind of change to progress are silly.

Of course it's silly to equate change with progress. As silly as assuming that because something's traditional it must be correct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyH8P3SZk1I

This is so ****ing funny, NGL.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Of course it's silly to equate change with progress. As silly as assuming that because something's traditional it must be correct.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyH8P3SZk1I

This is so ****ing funny, NGL.

First time I've heard there is a "war on women".

Also you know what I can't speak on what he said about others, but I have no problem with what he said about Rosie O'Donnell. He insulted her appearance by calling her fat, but she had previously insulted his appearance as well(comments about his hair). So, I think if she is going to go after him for his appearance..he can go after her for her own.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Of course Democrats are more willing to tax in some circumstances in order to provide services. In my view a lot of these services improve the life of people considerably, and cutting them while lowering taxes, while seemingly good short term, has negative consequences that ultimately lead to wore quality of life for people.


So let's remove tax and assume we have the money in front of us what services are going to improve the quality of life considerably at least in the usa?

Originally posted by snowdragon
So let's remove tax and assume we have the money in front of us what services are going to improve the quality of life considerably at least in the usa?

Infrastructure, schooling, health care, police and fire departments, social welfare, prison system, military, post office, medical research, etc.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I guess we just have to disagree for now. Maybe one of us will change his mind in the future...

So you disagree that Hill has not gotten richer off her lies and scandals?

No she has, look at her wealth. She was dead broke before entering the whitehouse. I would trust s pre millionaire or billionaire who made their money off the free market then a backwater socialist who says they are public servants while increasing their wealth off their dirty politics.

If you deny this you deny reality and the history of the Clintons.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So you disagree that Hill has not gotten richer off her lies and scandals?

No she has, look at her wealth. She was dead broke before entering the whitehouse. I would trust s pre millionaire or billionaire who made their money off the free market then a backwater socialist who says they are public servants while increasing their wealth off their dirty politics.

If you deny this you deny reality and the history of the Clintons.

That has not been what Shakya and I have been discussing.

However I don't think there's evidence that she has gotten rich off illicit means. Her and Bill have definitely leveraged their position to make money, however a lot of politicians make money off of giving speeches (just remember the Newt Gingrich controversy a couple years ago) or writing books when they are out of office, and a former president can bring in very high fees, so it is not that hard to get rich once you were president.

Generally campaign finance needs to be reformed regardless, and it gives undue access to politicians, and I find it distasteful, and really I view it as legalized corruption. Hillary Clinton is not the odd one out with that, all politicians, whether they are Democrats or Republicans take money for their campaigns and it gives access to the larger donors.

Remember when I said Trump's main goal was to not screw up?
http://news.yahoo.com/trump-dumped-from-conservative-gathering-over-remarks-about-megyn-kelly-124628606.html#

...it's starting. For clarity, I don't think this torpedoes his chances, and I do think we're too politically correct at times. But he's only going to be able to burn so many bridges before the GOP turns against him entirely, and/or he loses too many groups of people (Latinos, women, etc.) that he has no chance in the general election.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That has not been what Shakya and I have been discussing.

However I don't think there's evidence that she has gotten rich off illicit means. Her and Bill have definitely leveraged their position to make money, however a lot of politicians make money off of giving speeches (just remember the Newt Gingrich controversy a couple years ago) or writing books when they are out of office, and a former president can bring in very high fees, so it is not that hard to get rich once you were president.

Generally campaign finance needs to be reformed regardless, and it gives undue access to politicians, and I find it distasteful, and really I view it as legalized corruption. Hillary Clinton is not the odd one out with that, all politicians, whether they are Democrats or Republicans take money for their campaigns and it gives access to the larger donors.

No she's not the odd one out, she's just the one who thinks she can get away with out without really covering her tracks because she knows everyone, like you will just use the excuse you just made for her. "oh everyone does it."

I'm sorry, two wrongs don't make a right. Enlighten me which person in politics has had as much public shaming besides her Husband who happened to get impeached, another thing that gets swept under the rug.

Originally posted by Digi
Remember when I said Trump's main goal was to not screw up?
http://news.yahoo.com/trump-dumped-from-conservative-gathering-over-remarks-about-megyn-kelly-124628606.html#

...it's starting. For clarity, I don't think this torpedoes his chances, and I do think we're too politically correct at times. But he's only going to be able to burn so many bridges before the GOP turns against him entirely, and/or he loses too many groups of people (Latinos, women, etc.) that he has no chance in the general election.

The problem is shit like this is going to just cause Trump to run as an independent. Which you would think is the last thing Republicans want.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No she's not the odd one out, she's just the one who thinks she can get away with out without really covering her tracks because she knows everyone, like you will just use the excuse you just made for her. "oh everyone does it."

I'm sorry, two wrongs don't make a right. Enlighten me which person in politics has had as much public shaming besides her Husband who happened to get impeached, another thing that gets swept under the rug.

Like I said, I don't think there's evidence that she is doing anything illegal. You are probably right that Hillary Clinton is the politician that has endured the most "public shaming" but that is mostly to do with her having a very long, very successful career. She's been a major public figure and has therefore received a lot of right wing media opposing her for decades. The important thing seems to be that, while there are constant accusations, there's never any proof of her wrongdoing (whether that is because she didn't do anything wrong or because she's somehow better at hiding it aside), so she doesn't have to take drastic consequences.

Her husband did get acquitted through the impeachment btw

There has been plenty of proof but it's all ignored. Her successes step on the backs of others like the poor. I like to hear how she is going to appeal to the minimum wage workers and Latino vote. She's never worked a real day in her life besides politics and has always had a silver spoon in her mouth. At least with Trump he warned his wealth. I know as a socialist you take earring million off the government side honest work and earning off capitalism. But that's why you don't live here and will never understand our system.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Like I said, I don't think there's evidence that she is doing anything illegal. You are probably right that Hillary Clinton is the politician that has endured the most "public shaming" but that is mostly to do with her having a very long, very successful career. She's been a major public figure and has therefore received a lot of right wing media opposing her for decades. The important thing seems to be that, while there are constant accusations, there's never any proof of her wrongdoing (whether that is because she didn't do anything wrong or because she's somehow better at hiding it aside), so she doesn't have to take drastic consequences.

Her husband did get acquitted through the impeachment btw

I'm not sure where you get "successful career" from, and her sole claim to fame is being Bill's wife. She's made a mess of foreign policy and couldn't be less qualified for the job as president. Having said that, she's no different than any other politician regarding funding.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm not sure where you get "successful career" from, and her sole claim to fame is being Bill's wife. She's made a mess of foreign policy and couldn't be less qualified for the job as president. Having said that, she's no different than any other politician regarding funding. I only meant successful career regarding the positions she held not the quality of her policy, although I disagree regarding her having made a mess of foreign policy.

You can disagree but facts say otherwise. You disagreed with Michael Brown shooting but facts proved otherwise.

There are some facts known, but the evaluation of them is up for debate. It's not clear cut like you make it out to be, many people think the Obama administration has been doing a good job foreign policy wise (particularly when compared to the previous administration) others think they've done a horrible job.

Regarding Michael Brown there aren't all facts clearly laid out, and while Darren Wilson was cleared by a grand jury that does not mean that he didn't do anything wrong. A legal acquittal does not mean that the person was innocent of a crime (take your OJ example from earlier)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Bullsh*t!

They tax to make themselves and the rich, richer. I see it all the time.

Remember I used to be a Demarcate, and then I woke up to what is really going on.

Sorry to wake you, just go back to sleep.

Except the easiest way to make the rich richer is to give them big tax breaks, and that's a Republican thing.

Social security, health care, food stamps, none of this makes the rich richer, unless the rich happen to own the grocery stores and hospitals. But it also definitely without a doubt helps those who use said services.

Programs that assist small businesses, another Democrat thing, done a lot in the stimulus, help the middle class.


And unions have been successful in reducing economic disparity by increasing pay, and they're a democrat thing too... heck, minimum wage raising.



A lot of people are cynical about both parties, but there really is a major difference in how much each party helps the lower and middle class. The Republican's 'hands off' approach and assuming 'rich job creators' will fix things (which data shows, they don't) really does translate into not doing anything to help.




Originally posted by Digi
Remember when I said Trump's main goal was to not screw up?
http://news.yahoo.com/trump-dumped-from-conservative-gathering-over-remarks-about-megyn-kelly-124628606.html#

...it's starting. For clarity, I don't think this torpedoes his chances, and I do think we're too politically correct at times. But he's only going to be able to burn so many bridges before the GOP turns against him entirely, and/or he loses too many groups of people (Latinos, women, etc.) that he has no chance in the general election.


Yep. Sexist comments at a *Fox* moderator.

We'll see how it plays out long run.

Really? Because Obama has been a disaster for small businesses.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/supreme-court-curbs-union-abuse/2012/06/21/gJQANKxntV_blog.html
Dated 2012 but the labor union abuse in this country has been pretty bad.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/

http://useconomy.about.com/od/Politics/p/Reaganomics.htm

Just an example of the Republicans' "hands off" approach. Although the second article is correct in saying it's unclear if Reaganomics would work in today's society. It was great in the 80s.

One of my Fb posts during the primary:

Hmm. So let's see. Corporations and banks screwed over the American economy, so rather than replenish the economy by raising our horribly low corporate tax rate (which are profiting extravagantly via outsourcing jobs and taking away employment from Americans so that CEOs can afford bigger mansions), let's instead essentially steal the retirements that people have been working for their entire lives and social programs that otherwise helpless people need to survive. Ernst Blofeld is proud.

To quote Maury, "You say you care about working class American citizens, but your policies determined that was lie."

Originally posted by Lestov16
One of my Fb posts during the primary:

Hmm. So let's see. Corporations and banks screwed over the American economy, so rather than replenish the economy by raising our horribly low corporate tax rate (which are profiting extravagantly via outsourcing jobs and taking away employment from Americans so that CEOs can afford bigger mansions), let's instead essentially steal the retirements that people have been working for their entire lives and social programs that otherwise helpless people need to survive. Ernst Blofeld is proud.

To quote Maury, "You say you care about working class American citizens, but your policies determined that was lie."