CNN Democratic Debate

Started by Q9920 pages
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Her trade deal flip flop, oh Im sure you will use the "she's a politician."

Frankly, I simply don't care that much

Funny you always have an excuse to save your people.

I don't think "I name multiple major policy areas I support and view her as massively better than her opponents," fits any definition of 'excuse.'

Nor do I think, "Much of your accusations are factually wrong," really qualifies as an 'excuse.' The idea that "if someone says accusations are wrong or not all that bad, that's bad and they're just making excuses" is a bad thing is only true if the accusations aren't actually wrong or not all that bad. E-mail server? Not proper procedure, not a security breach, not something that affects national policy. Why do you care so much about it, let alone why should I care?

Benghazi? Non-partisan fact check on the results of Benghazi probes: "Clinton’s number is correct: there were seven previous congressional probes into the Benghazi attack. Saying these committees were led "mostly by Republicans" is also a fair assertion: the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs were the only two committees not led by Republicans. As for her comment that there was no overt wrongdoing, just room for improvement, that’s a rosy assessment. But it is also largely accurate. We rate this claim Mostly True."

So, that's true too. Need for improvement, but it is accurate that 5 Republican and 2 bipartisan probes found no wrongdoing.

Is that an excuse? You may count it as such, but insisting that I treat it as a crime or some horrible thing is more inaccurate.

Overall it is quite worth noting that according to statement fact-checkers who list every single issue they rate so anyone can independent confirm, Hillary's statement accuracy rating is higher than Trump's, Rubio's, or Carson's.

So if in your view I'm making excuses for Clinton, what does that make you? It sounds to me like you're supporting people who do significantly worse in those same areas. Does it only count as 'making excuses' if it's a Democrat, even if they're actually more honest than the Republicans? Are you the one brushing off more and making more excuses?

Simply put, you support your candidates despite their flaws- as do most people, that's normal. "Accusing someone of supporting someone despite them not being perfect," is not much of an accusation, as that's what everyone does, weigh the good and bad.

It's you who decided that if Hillary isn't perfect that she must be horrible and turned against / that everyone who supports her must be ok with everything she does, rather than simply weighing her positives and negatives and noting, oh hey, she's much better on these areas, and those things aren't all that big, and thus she adds up into the positives.

You're trying to say I must follow your standards or that's bad/just making excuses, when really, I'm just following my own consistent standards that I apply to every candidate. Policy first, rating in the order that I care about specific policies, civil rights and economic stance being up front. Scandals only override if they're big and real, though no scandals is preferable.


I love how Obama has basically done nothing for the transgender community yet you don't say shit about it.

Hide, run, deflect, change the story all you want. Wont work. [/B]

"The administration has quietly applied the power of the executive branch to make it easier for transgender people to update their passports, obtain health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, get treatment at Veteran's Administration facilities and seek access to public school restrooms and sports programs - just a few of the transgender-specific policy shifts of Obama's presidency." -CNN

In addition to being flat-out false there, there is the matter that the Republicans are much more actively opposed to transgender rights and support.

One doesn't have to be a shining star to be better than the other side, I'd take even neutral over bad, but, you're wrong, there's been active movement by the administration.

Also in general, "Hah! (Democrat X) isn't perfect on LGBT issues! You should turn against them!" is one of the weakest arguments out there when the other side, y'know, actively supports changes in laws designed to persecute LGBT people. Why would even a Democrat who had done nothing on the subject not be miles better than a Republican?

"Hide, run, deflect, change the story all you want."? More like, call your story out on being false.

You can't change my story, no matter how much you want to. The facts do not support you. Not on Hillary, not on Barack. Your attempt to push a false narrative simply doesn't stand up to the facts.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
My heart would like Bernie to win the nomination, but my mind would prefer someone else, as ultimately (and unfortunately) I don't think he'd have a prayer in the general election.

I would rather have a less-than-ideal democrat in office than any of the Republican candidates, frankly.

Yup, his age, goofy looks and being Jewish will all factor in making him unelectable, when those factors really shouldn't. Add those on top of the "extreme socialist" label and it doesn't look good.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yup, his age, goofy looks and being Jewish will all factor in making him unelectable, when those factors really shouldn't. Add those on top of the "extreme socialist" label and it doesn't look good.

How about some positivity?

Originally posted by Q99
Frankly, I simply don't care that much

I don't think "I name multiple major policy areas I support and view her as massively better than her opponents," fits any definition of 'excuse.'

Nor do I think, "Much of your accusations are factually wrong," really qualifies as an 'excuse.' The idea that "if someone says accusations are wrong or not all that bad, that's bad and they're just making excuses" is a bad thing is only true if the accusations aren't actually wrong or not all that bad. E-mail server? Not proper procedure, not a security breach, not something that affects national policy. Why do you care so much about it, let alone why should I care?

Benghazi? Non-partisan fact check on the results of Benghazi probes: "Clinton’s number is correct: there were seven previous congressional probes into the Benghazi attack. Saying these committees were led "mostly by Republicans" is also a fair assertion: the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs were the only two committees not led by Republicans. As for her comment that there was no overt wrongdoing, just room for improvement, that’s a rosy assessment. But it is also largely accurate. We rate this claim Mostly True."

So, that's true too. Need for improvement, but it is accurate that 5 Republican and 2 bipartisan probes found no wrongdoing.

Is that an excuse? You may count it as such, but insisting that I treat it as a crime or some horrible thing is more inaccurate.

Overall it is quite worth noting that according to statement fact-checkers who list every single issue they rate so anyone can independent confirm, Hillary's statement accuracy rating is higher than Trump's, Rubio's, or Carson's.

So if in your view I'm making excuses for Clinton, what does that make you? It sounds to me like you're supporting people who do significantly worse in those same areas. Does it only count as 'making excuses' if it's a Democrat, even if they're actually more honest than the Republicans? Are you the one brushing off more and making more excuses?

Simply put, you support your candidates despite their flaws- as do most people, that's normal. "Accusing someone of supporting someone despite them not being perfect," is not much of an accusation, as that's what everyone does, weigh the good and bad.

It's you who decided that if Hillary isn't perfect that she must be horrible and turned against / that everyone who supports her must be ok with everything she does, rather than simply weighing her positives and negatives and noting, oh hey, she's much better on these areas, and those things aren't all that big, and thus she adds up into the positives.

You're trying to say I must follow your standards or that's bad/just making excuses, when really, I'm just following my own consistent standards that I apply to every candidate. Policy first, rating in the order that I care about specific policies, civil rights and economic stance being up front. Scandals only override if they're big and real, though no scandals is preferable.

"The administration has quietly applied the power of the executive branch to make it easier for transgender people to update their passports, obtain health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, get treatment at Veteran's Administration facilities and seek access to public school restrooms and sports programs - just a few of the transgender-specific policy shifts of Obama's presidency." -CNN

In addition to being flat-out false there, there is the matter that the Republicans are much more actively opposed to transgender rights and support.

One doesn't have to be a shining star to be better than the other side, I'd take even neutral over bad, but, you're wrong, there's been active movement by the administration.

Also in general, "Hah! (Democrat X) isn't perfect on LGBT issues! You should turn against them!" is one of the weakest arguments out there when the other side, y'know, actively supports changes in laws designed to persecute LGBT people. Why would even a Democrat who had done nothing on the subject not be miles better than a Republican?

"Hide, run, deflect, change the story all you want."? More like, call your story out on being false.

You can't change my story, no matter how much you want to. The facts do not support you. Not on Hillary, not on Barack. Your attempt to push a false narrative simply doesn't stand up to the facts.

I read the first eight words and skipped the rest. Sorry

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
How about some positivity?

I'm positive, I also live in reality.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I read the first eight words and skipped the rest. Sorry

Short version- You were caught lying again (Obama and transgender, most obviously), independent fact-checkers disagree with you on most of the things that you accuse Hillary of, 'excuses' do not work how you think they work if the accusations are false to begin with, and I view policies as the main determining factor of who I support and have clearly and repeatedly stated how I judge candidates, and trying to accuse others of 'changing their story' for not viewing things how you want them to view things rather than how they actually did to begin with, is dumb.

Even shorter version- You hold massive double standards and love to make things up about other people's stances, but the truth of what other people say doesn't match what you project.

And new addum: When someone posts facts with links and stuff, you looov to hide behind pretending you didn't read them so you can profess ignorance of what the real case is ^^

Oh yes the old "you have a difference of opinion then me, so your a liar!"

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm positive, I also live in reality.

You are what you say? It's pretty distasteful and very cowardly to not even have a shill of confidence in Sanders.

At this point I am prolly a bigger fan of his cause that mother ****er has balls.

That which you lack.

Better yet just cast your sign for Hilary and let me take over repping sanders cause you are just sad.

You lack the resolve to be a true fan.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You are what you say? It's pretty distasteful and very cowardly to not even have a shill of confidence in Sanders.

At this point I am prolly a bigger fan of his cause that mother ****er has balls.

That which you lack.

Better yet just cast your sign for Hilary and let me take over repping sanders cause you are just sad.

You lack the resolve to be a true fan.

This is where you're being weird and childish again, as if anything short of being a ranting loon means you don't support a candidate.

Wanting someone to win while having a realistic idea of their chances should go hand-in-hand. Learn it, otherwise you're probably going to implode when Trump doesn't get the nomination.

You are a fareweather supporter, and a weak one.

It's now confirmed I am a bigger sanders fan then you.

I support Sanders, but I also realize the odds don't support his election. Kinda common sense.

Love for him to win though.

Then you don't realize who Sanders is. Go back and watch his highlights. He is brawler.

The gloves will come off tonight then everyone here can join the Sanders fan club that I now am president of.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You are a fareweather supporter, and a weak one.

It's now confirmed I am a bigger sanders fan then you.

That implies that I don't support Sanders at times, when I've told you told I want him to win so far; for some time now. It's also incredibly odd because Sanders is doing better now than when we first had this discussion about who I want to win and Sanders was it.

You really need to work on your trolling skills, as the troll, you're supposed to get the other person upset, worked up, riled etc.

I'm at the gym working out. I'm pretty happy. This stuff makes me laugh and keeps me entertained.

Back on point, you don't have the resolve to support s grassroots candidate. You will just go with what the DNC tells you.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Then you don't realize who Sanders is. Go back and watch his highlights. He is brawler.

The gloves will come off tonight then everyone here can join the Sanders fan club that I now am president of.


You seem to think that "being a brawler" means someone can win on that merit alone.

Tell me, do you think an openly gay Asian woman Hindu could win the Oval Office even is she were the greatest "brawler" of her adversaries?

What's it like to live without a dream like you do?

You obviously don't know who Bernie Sanders is, now I see why you arnt a true fan. He has balls, which you apparently lack.

He can rally people, unlike Hilary who has to troll trump tower to get attention.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Then you don't realize who Sanders is. Go back and watch his highlights. He is brawler.

The gloves will come off tonight then everyone here can join the Sanders fan club that I now am president of.

🤨

I had a dream that Hillary won the Presidency and nutters like you went apeshit with crying foul and doomsday predictions; it was hilarious.

ps She takes all your guns away

Unless you want a civil war in your hands pray that never happens. I guess you are all for presidents shitting all over the constitution hence your fanboism for all things Barack.

No, no, no, in the dream I had she secured enough votes in the senate, house and states to amend the Constitution regarding gun rights. It was completely legal. Sure, many a gun-nutter cried while handing over their guns, but they all ceded in the end. There was no civil war.

ps She tried to have Obama as her VP, but the 22nd Amendment blocked that. Maybe in my next dream she'll amend the 22nd? Who knows.