CNN GOP Debate

Originally posted by Robtard
That's a very lowly tactic, TI.

Say what? If you are just going to ignore facts, what is there to talk about?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Say what? If you are just going to ignore facts, what is there to talk about?

It was this:

Originally posted by Robtard
No, you're welcome to not agree with my assessment, the personal attacks are uncalled for.

You're also not really in a place to tell anyone that they're "ignoring facts", considering.

Originally posted by Robtard
You already responded to that post of mine and I responded to your response.

It was this:

You're also not really in a place to tell anyone that they're "ignoring facts", considering.

So its you vs everyone else, including CNN who said the mods were failures and horrible. But I'm wrong😂

I literally just said they basically failed at their jobs on the last page and you attacked me for it.

Originally posted by Robtard
WTF, I literally just said they basically failed at their jobs on the last page and you attacked me for it.

Which post, cause I might have missed it, if so my bad.

No worries.

This specific part:

Originally posted by Robtard
they basically kowtowed to the more aggressive candidates and let themselves be bullied into submission for the most of the debate. The candidates ran that debate

Honestly I didn't know what * kowtowed meant.

I think Rubio has made a good case for being the best establishment candidate. Bush should bow out, but he won't because he can't let himself be the only Bush not to even clinch the nomination. Bush is resentful of Rubio and this is making him lash out at Rubio, while Rubio is rather wisely refusing to attack Bush. The end result is that Bush looks like the embittered mentor jealous of his protege's success while Rubio looks forgiving and confident.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think Rubio has made a good case for being the best establishment candidate. Bush should bow out, but he won't because he can't let himself be the only Bush not to even clinch the nomination.

👆

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think Rubio has made a good case for being the best establishment candidate. Bush should bow out, but he won't because he can't let himself be the only Bush not to even clinch the nomination. Bush is resentful of Rubio and this is making him lash out at Rubio, while Rubio is rather wisely refusing to attack Bush. The end result is that Bush looks like the embittered mentor jealous of his protege's success while Rubio looks forgiving and confident.

The entire night Rubio was masterful at not dignifying attacks at him.

I still see him more as a VP than a president at the moment.

Originally posted by Robtard
The entire night Rubio was masterful at not dignifying attacks at him.

I still see him more as a VP than a president at the moment.

How can you see Hilary as president, but not Rubio?

Understand that you're hatred of Hillary doesn't mean she's not a seasoned stateswoman and as the hearing showed, she can hold her own extremely well.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Oh and were you not the guy saying Trumped raped his life from the tabloids?

Hypocrite.

(Life = wife, yes?).

Uh, no. I did say that the wife would know better than us what happened, we should go with what she says, but she said there wasn't rape (though it seems there was some unpleasant experience, she was clear it was non-criminal, so really we don't know what the heck it was).

There *is* a difference between 'first-hand accounts from an involved party' and 'ok, so I heard from someone that, like, there's this whole orgy island and special flights, and they claim to have seen someone famous there once,' from a tabloid known for making stuff up to begin with.

Which is the point- you're choosing whether or not something is true based on how bad it is/who it's pointed against, not based on source quality or evidence.

And, hah, you chose 'Orgy island exists (according to this one tabloid. And not a front-page story at that!) and anyone who doesn't agree is a liberal apologist who'll ignore anything' as your metaphorical hill to die on in a 'which of us is least biased/listening to the evidence more' contest.

That's part of why I talk with you- you're fun, it's like messing around with a toy and seeing what wacky things you'll say.

Hehe, it'll be so fun to occasionally ask you, 'Does Orgy Island still exist?' when you try and claim that other people are more biased than you in anything.

Hey Star! You're in this thread too, do you think Orgy Island exists?

(Note, the hill I've chosen on the scandals is 'when discussing stuff Hillary did, look at what the Republicans have investigated and can actually prove, because they will not hide anything they've actually uncovered... unless she's covering for them, which would be amusing.' Because they want her gone, and thus, while they may say a lot of stuff, if they lack evidence of something after a whole lot of trying, then I can definitely say there was no lack of due diligence, and often excessive diligence, in trying to find proof, and if there's still none, that says a lot. Hillary is innocent on Benghazi because the Republicans in charge of investigating her have not found anything damning despite them wishing to with all their heart. Ditto e-mails. Yadda yadda.

Because if the Republicans can spend a year or two on something and still be shaking their fists in the air saying 'there must be something somewhere, even if we haven't found it! We shall press on despite the lack of evidence!' and other Republicans in the know are saying, 'Ok, yea, this is just us hating Hillary,' that says where the evidence lies)

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I can tell you didn't watch the debate, Im not going to talk to you anymore about it. Even Q99 acknowledged they were out of line.

Again, literally haven't watched the whole debate.

That said, of the snippets I've seen, there was moderators talking over moderators.

And some questions were good, others, no, not really.

So, yea, it does look to me like they were pretty crap. Worse than the other three debates in organization.

Though ironically giving out questions pretty evenly between the lot, unlike some prior debates where the gap between frontrunner and everyone else was huge questions-wise.

Originally posted by Robtard
Understand that you're hatred of Hillary doesn't mean she's not a seasoned stateswoman and as the hearing showed, she can hold her own extremely well.

What does this have to do with anything, you said you cant see Rubio as President, but you can see Hilary as President.

Rubio>Hilary

First I hated Obama, now I hate Hilary. According to you anyone who I don't agree with, I hate.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial

First I hated Obama, now I hate Hilary. According to you anyone who I don't agree with, I hate.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
What does this have to do with anything, you said you cant see Rubio as President, but you can see Hilary as President.

Rubio>Hilary

First I hated Obama, now I hate Hilary. According to you anyone who I don't agree with, I hate.

Originally posted by Newjak
You do seem to vehemently attack people you do not agree with. So it's easy to see why people could think you hate them.

Hate is a strong word, especially on the internet, but on the internet it is used to much for marginalize someones opinion.

Its the same way liberals use "racism, sexism."

Its identity politics at its finest.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Hate is a strong word, especially on the internet, but on the internet it is used to much for marginalize someones opinion.

Its the same way liberals use "racism, sexism."

Its identity politics at its finest.

He does that because he's a man-child.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
What does this have to do with anything, you said you cant see Rubio as President, but you can see Hilary as President.

Rubio>Hilary

First I hated Obama, now I hate Hilary. According to you anyone who I don't agree with, I hate.

On Rubio, it's just not something I see in him as being a president. After being a VP for 8 years, sure. He's well spoken and gets his points across probably better than any of the other ten, but he also comes off as a bit green.

Are we going to pretend that you haven't spent a considerable amount of time in here making it obvious that you despise Hillary Clinton? Okay then.

edit: You called her a "disgusting human being" just today.