General Primary Discussion Thread

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Short of her pulling a gun out and shooting babies in the head, it's always wrong, or sensationalism concerning anything said against Hilary according to you. When are you going to grow up?

Lemme toss that back at you.

Do you believe that against any of your candidates?

Just someone saying "Don't trust your candidate!" does not a convincing argument make, especially when their examples are her shifting points... more towards stuff I like.

If Donald Trump switched issues on something more towards you, does that make you distrust him, or go, "Yes, that's nice."? I bet it's the latter, that's the crux of the video's argument, and that's how I- and most everyone- reacts too.

Once again, I will point out her factcheck record is pretty good. Better than your candidates.

Think for a moment how you'd respond to such arguments if they were applied to Trump or Rubio or such. Someone yelling not to trust them while not actually pointing out policies you disagree with is not going to convince you one bit, is it?

You make the hyperbolic "she could shoot babies!", but you can't actually point to a policy that she supports that I find particularly horrible. Heck, even her scandals, she has no baby-shooting moment. Investigations keep on turning up no wrongdoing- the e-mails weren't security breaches and she was the cause of no deaths at Benghazi. You just assume I have no limits on my support on any candidate, while you can't actually make an argument based on policy even to start with, and the scandals you harp on keep on falling through on producing the smoking gun you insist is there.

SHE SOESNT GIVE ONE SHIT ABOUT YOU!!!!!

GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD!!!

Says you, but you're obviously biased.

And besides, she supports policy that works to a functional country, which in turn supports me. There could be a literal robot- and I don't mean a super advanced AI, I mean a car factory robot programmed to sign certain policies- who did that and it'd still be better than someone with bad policy that lead to economic turmoil or discriminate against people.

You're confusing volume with an argument here, and also assuming that my vote is based on thinking she personally loves me and not based on her policy record.

I don't know why you'd think that my vote is based on her personal love for me, I guess it's another brainbug you've got stuck in your head.

Lol, what on earth gives you the idea that "Hilary Clinton Cares For Q99!"

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Lol, what on earth gives you the idea that "Hilary Clinton Cares For Q99!"

Yeah, LOL. Only person Hilldog actually cares about is herself and perhaps the traitor currently in office. I doubt she even cares about Bill.

Originally posted by Q99
Lemme toss that back at you.

Do you believe that against any of your candidates?

Just someone saying "Don't trust your candidate!" does not a convincing argument make, especially when their examples are her shifting points... more towards stuff I like.

If Donald Trump switched issues on something more towards you, does that make you distrust him, or go, "Yes, that's nice."? I bet it's the latter, that's the crux of the video's argument, and that's how I- and most everyone- reacts too.

Once again, I will point out her factcheck record is pretty good. Better than your candidates.

Think for a moment how you'd respond to such arguments if they were applied to Trump or Rubio or such. Someone yelling not to trust them while not actually pointing out policies you disagree with is not going to convince you one bit, is it?

You make the hyperbolic "she could shoot babies!", but you can't actually point to a policy that she supports that I find particularly horrible. Heck, even her scandals, she has no baby-shooting moment. Investigations keep on turning up no wrongdoing- the e-mails weren't security breaches and she was the cause of no deaths at Benghazi. You just assume I have no limits on my support on any candidate, while you can't actually make an argument based on policy even to start with, and the scandals you harp on keep on falling through on producing the smoking gun you insist is there.

Says you, but you're obviously biased.

And besides, she supports policy that works to a functional country, which in turn supports me. There could be a literal robot- and I don't mean a super advanced AI, I mean a car factory robot programmed to sign certain policies- who did that and it'd still be better than someone with bad policy that lead to economic turmoil or discriminate against people.

You're confusing volume with an argument here, and also assuming that my vote is based on thinking she personally loves me and not based on her policy record.

I don't know why you'd think that my vote is based on her personal love for me, I guess it's another brainbug you've got stuck in your head.

You literally have not said one thing she has done worthy of being president.

Watching the news right now, apparently Clinton ranks highest among voters in the 'who can best deal with terrorist threats' among all candidates. Rubio ranks highest in the 'who can beat Clinton' category.

New Jersey denies Trump's claim that "thousands cheered while the towers came down". Says he either has memory issues or is outright distorting facts.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Lol, what on earth gives you the idea that "Hilary Clinton Cares For Q99!"

Your reading comprehension is poor- I just said 'it doesn't matter who she cares about, what's important is she supports good policy.'

This is part of why you fail, because you insist that people must dislike Hillary.... because of reasons that don't have to do with why they support her in the first place.

Trump, Rubio, etc., they don't care about you, but it doesn't affect your support.

You know, this is becoming something of a loop, isn't it?

"She doesn't care about you!"

"Whatever, I care more able her being able to do the job, support good policy, and oppose bad policy like the austerity-heavy budgets or mass deportations."

*Next week*

"She doesn't care about you! And you totally support her just because you think she does!"

It's almost like you don't know how to attack her actual policy, and have chosen to be oblivious on what other people's actual reasons are because you'd rather project a 2-d reason that is not why just about anyone supports their politician as a primary reason.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You literally have not said one thing she has done worthy of being president.

Hillary supported healthcare reform, economics that work and helped the recovery, improved our national standing, greatly improved the organization of state showing her governmental management skills, and has an overall good voting record in the senate. All of which I've said multiple times- you just blank on because it's inconvenient to your caricature of me.

"Has a solid record of running things within the government and supporting good policy," is a fairly normal presidential resume, a lot of presidents have gotten in on exactly that.

I'll toss that back- Hillary's done more than Trump, Rubio, Carson, etc.. What are they supposed to have done to show they're worthy of being President?

Or, wait, did you mean it in the 'Hillary doesn't personally/especially care' sense, or did you mean it in the 'Hillary doesn't care even in the sense that most politicians do, caring about their constituency and country in general?'.

Because if the latter, hah, you've really built up and demonized her in your minds.

If you build up your foe into a monster, you lose the ability to judge why other people may support them- and thus lose much of the way that is used to actually predict what will happen.

The fact you think she's cares about anything related to you or anyone else is pretty hilarious.

There you go with the "demonizing" and other PC rhetoric.

Originally posted by Robtard
New Jersey denies Trump's claim that "thousands cheered while the towers came down". Says he either has memory issues or is outright distorting facts.

Probably the latter, and it wouldn't be the last time either. He seems desperate.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The fact you think she's cares about anything related to you or anyone else is pretty hilarious.

There you go with the "demonizing" and other PC rhetoric.

Yea, you're literally accusing a human being of not carrying about anything.

That's pretty absurd for any candidate- and that's what I mean by demonization. You've created a negative image of her that you cling to because it's convenient for you.

Has she actually shown signs of not caring? Well, no, as pointed out to you a fair amount, she's pushed for policies that help people, and there's been issues she's stuck with throughout her career along those lines. She's also obviously shown care to her family members and such too, and seems no different than most in doing so.

But "Hillary is a completely unattached robot who cares about nothing," is how you chose to characterize her because you find it more convenient to view her that way than an opponent that has motives and desires.

Does she care about me in specific? Not so much, but 'caring specifically about a random voter' is a fairly absurd standard to hold a politician to- and one which, I will point out again, no-one you support meets either. You're trying to frame it to conflate the latter with her being a completely unattached robot because you think that's the best way to attack her- but really, you're ignoring why people support a candidate to begin with, and too attached to your negative image of Hillary.

Which is why a lot of your attacks fall flat- you aren't attacking people's actual reasons, you're attacking a straw image of people's reasons based on Hillary being a fictional caricature.

The only argument you make is "Hillary doesn't care about you," and the message that sends me is you don't actually know how to attack the actual politician-who's-done-stuff Hillary or the reasons people actually support her.

Not really

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The fact you think she's cares about anything related to you or anyone else is pretty hilarious.

There you go with the "demonizing" and other PC rhetoric.

brilliant demonstration of hypocrisy. short and to the point. oh wait...you're serious.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
brilliant demonstration of hypocrisy. short and to the point. oh wait...you're serious.

FEED HIM AND LET HIM OUT, HE WONT HURT YOU!

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Not really

Yes really.

Your argument is silly in one of two ways.

Either (1) you're insisting she doesn't personally care about us, in which case, well duh, but nor does any other politician and that's not our reason, or (2) you're insisting she doesn't care about us in even the general way politicians care about constituents, and indeed are insisting she doesn't care about anyone period, which is clearly just trying to put together a negative image of her because you don't like her and is just laughable at the face of it as well.

I do care about her policy, and her policy helps me and many others regardless of how personal or impersonal her care, but she's not an emotionless robot however you slice it and it's pretty silly that you seem to actually believe she is.

Heck, on the 'she just wants votes, she'll change her stance on the issues' argument, she changes stance less than Trump, who's gone from being a Hillary supporter and funder, actually giving money to her campaigns, to a Hillary strong opponent. Do you hate Trump for that reason or think he's unforgivably untrustworthy as a result? Not that I can see.

No I don't agree with you.

Hilary can lie about whatever she wants, but if Trump makes some exaggerations, you say he's not trust worthy, shows you are bias.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No I don't agree with you.

Hilary can lie about whatever she wants, but if Trump makes some exaggerations, you say he's not trust worthy, shows you are bias.

👆

Of course Trump doesn't promise her all kinds of freebies though like Hilldog does.

Originally posted by Star428
👆

Of course Trump doesn't promise her all kinds of freebies though like Hilldog does.

Actually Trump promises a lot of "freebies" in lowering the taxes, on top of promising to "make America great again" whatever that means.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No I don't agree with you.

Hilary can lie about whatever she wants, but if Trump makes some exaggerations, you say he's not trust worthy, shows you are bias.

But he lies a lot more, that's the point.

I'm not actually saying that he's untrustworthy- that's a subjective call when to place someone as 'untrustworthy' or not. Personally, I trust Trump to attempt a lot of he says or something close to them, and that's why I don't support him.

But when you're saying Hillary is more untrustworthy despite her telling the truth more and having changed her positions less, that's clear bias.

You're the one both trying to make this about trustworthiness, and using it to attack a candidate with an actual higher truthfulness rating than those you want to vote for. It's irony there.

Originally posted by Star428
👆

Of course Trump doesn't promise her all kinds of freebies though like Hilldog does.

No, she wants us to decide to do stuff that supports the general public, and pay for it, in ways that have often lead to times of growth and success in the past, like the 50s/60s.

As Bernie Sanders pointed out, Eisenhower, a Republican, had a higher tax rate on the rich than any of the current Democrats, and it was a period of economic plenty.

Trying to write off 'services that benefit the general public and country' as freebees is a recent Republican bugaboo, and not accurate. And ironic, when they spend their time promising breaks for the upper class while wanting to spend large amounts of money on their own pet projects like walls and deportations- which are not cheap.

https://www.instagram.com/p/-bz5HWGhXZ/?taken-by=realdonaldtrump

"She's laughing at u and ur grinch face" -brispovshes