Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
For 50 million dollars, would any of you democrats vote for Trump in the election?
I'd then donate some of that money to the opposing campaign.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Yes, because if that's the price per vote, even Trump wouldn't be able to buy many votes, so I'd have no fear of him winning.I'd then donate some of that money to the opposing campaign.
I doubt that. You'd spend it all on exotic cars, top of the line mansion, and high priced hookers.
Originally posted by draxx_tOfU
Agreed. As a republican, I'm sad that the GOP candidates are all clowns.
As the saying goes, "I didn't leave the party, the party left me."
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Like Hilary does not book profitable appearances. More one sided bias from you, but it's to be expected.Hilarious
No, I'm not saying he's the only one that does profitable appearances- a lot do. I know Huckabee does. Mostly not during the campaign season to be sure, but I'd suspect most of the candidates have done paid appearances.
I'm saying he has only that instead of a campaign manager, which is darn strange if one takes it at face value he's there to try and win.
Hillary has a campaign manager 🙂 Heck, Jindal had a campaign manager. O'Malley has one. Lindsey Graham. Carson's a frontrunner but he doesn't?
Though it could just be that he's naive as to what it'll take to win the nomination.
You seem to throw around 'one-sided bias' a lot even when the situations are majorly different. And when I'm commenting on one aspect but you're trying to say the same based on another. And when I'm noting a fact-which-is-true but haven't actually gone into much depth on my stance on it- which can be taken as a sign that I'm fishing for other's opinions (which is what I was doing here).
Candidates doing book signings- old hat. Candidates doing book signings in lieu of someone running a campaign? Now that's noteworthy.
Carson is unusual in this, not compared to Hillary specifically, but to *everyone*.
There's a couple possibilities- could be riding the campaign for the fame, or he could really just think that a business manager is all he needs, but it is still something worth talking about.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I called trump an idiot today, I'm not bias, when someone does something stupid, I call it out.You accused Carson of taking profitable appearances, but didn't bother to mention yours truly does it too.
nah that's just you evacuating the latest of a long long string of failing bandwagons. on to the next one.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I called trump an idiot today, I'm not bias, when someone does something stupid, I call it out.
You're kinda gigantically biased. See, when someone you don't like says something, you leap to take it in the worst contexts, even if it doesn't really match what they say. You're also known for making up or misrepresenting things others say.
You also disbelieve when someone you don't like doesn't do something bad, like with Hillary and how probes keep clearing her.
And then when this is pointed out, you're likely to accuse the people who point it out of bias, even if they have the facts layed out for all to see.
There's more to not being biased than to giving lipservice to the idea your candidate isn't perfect. You have to not misrepresent the opposition with regularity, just for starters.
You accused Carson of taking profitable appearances, but didn't bother to mention yours truly does it too.
Except that's half the statement, I pointed out specifically his lack of campaign manager, and how his top manager's job is only to make profit and not to run a campaign, which is the actual point. That is something that's unusual- and note that I didn't call him bad for doing so, I merely noted that it was happening, and then you filled in the rest.
Sorry Time, you can't ignore half the context to change someone else's point. No-where did I say that candidates can't make profit, even if that's what you want me to have said.
Dude makes great points.
*Watches the first half, then skips to the end* Meh, a bit of sensationialism, a bit of her holding beliefs in the past that she grew out of (like gay marriage, a stance that is famous for having almost no support from up top until relatively recently, and which he is trying to paint as a bad thing)... she's still got a much better set of stances right now- or heck, back then- than any of the Republicans (and IMO, yes, a slightly better one than the other Democrats. Bernie's views towards the Federal Reserve and Foreign Trade, again, concern me. And heck, she *does* have a more comprehensive plan for reforming wallstreet), there is things she's stood on principle on throughout her career, like gender equality, equal pay for women, and similar things (so, yes, answering his complaint at the end), she's still got an entirely reasonable honesty rating, and nor is, for that matter, holding popular positions that also happen to be good a particularly bad thing.
Heck, one can check her voting record, Hillary Clinton has consistently voted a bit to the left of Biden and Obama, and that's not just words, that's action. Biden and Obama being people who we in turn thought were just fine policy and action wise!
The "don't vote for Hillary, she's just a popularist with no principles who won't really support your stuff," rhetoric doesn't really hold up when you examine her record- or at least, not more than politicians in general. Hillary is not a political 'weathervane,' changing a position is not the end of the world, especially, as one may notice, the changes have been one way. It has not been a flip-flop syndrome like caught Romney.
The reason to vote for her is because she has good positions and those will result in positive policy. It is interesting that the attack is based, in large part, on, "Oh, she has good positions now, but...", trying to imply they'll change.. which in support of people who we know, instead, definitely don't have those positions. Notice the problem there?
You may possibly note when I talk about Trump, I don't talk about his changes of positions in the past, I talk about his policy now and skills. Because that's what actually matters to Trump supporters, and to me for that matter, not what he said 10 years ago. Because even if I went after Trump's reliability, I think everyone will agree, the odds of getting Trump's policies is much lower if they don't vote for Trump than if they vote Trump.
At the end of the day, if someone's complaint is just attacks on reliability that ignore their actual record, plus major hyperbole on their characters, then I find it significant that in order to decry a candidate, he's having to avoid talking about what their policies are and why people actually want them as a candidate.
Oh, and speaking of Trump- he's regained a lead over Carson, who's slid in the polls some. I don't know if this is going to lead to a general Carson decline or if it's just a temporary down-bump that'll continue to leave the two outsider candidates jockeying with each other, but that's the latest development. It's not exactly rare for elections to have candidates that rise, peak, and fade out.
Trump has clearly shown a level of staying power, Ben Carson has come up high and now he's got to prove he can stay there.