• Rand Paul to Declare Presidential Bid
    90 replies, posted
I would've rather had Warren or Sanders, but can someone explain the Hillary hate-train to me? I don't understand where it comes from. I've heard some shady/questionable stuff related to Monsanto, but nothing nearly enough to make me despise her beyond "she's such a bitch!" Cruz, Paul, Bush - all absolutely not getting my vote.
Facepunch politics: Let's vote nobody. All Republicans are stupid. Hillary is a joke. Gotta vote for somebody.
Better than Jeb Bush, and a hundred times better than Clinton. He... might actually have my vote. Of course, it's like having to choose on which turd I want for dinner
[QUOTE=.Isak.;47479392]I would've rather had Warren or Sanders, but can someone explain the Hillary hate-train to me? I don't understand where it comes from. I've heard some shady/questionable stuff related to Monsanto, but nothing nearly enough to make me despise her beyond "she's such a bitch!" Cruz, Paul, Bush - all absolutely not getting my vote.[/QUOTE] Basically, she's too corrupt for some peoples liking, from censering her state emails to keeping them off federal records, to insider trading and lucrative backroom deals that netted her a fortune while in offices such as the senate or state department. Then there's the republican bengazi witch trial among other very questionable acts that happened during her tenure as secretary
[QUOTE=Sableye;47480246]Basically, she's too corrupt for some peoples liking, from censering her state emails to keeping them off federal records, to insider trading and lucrative backroom deals that netted her a fortune while in offices such as the senate or state department. Then there's the republican bengazi witch trial among other very questionable acts that happened during her tenure as secretary[/QUOTE] Dont forget she also started the Obama birther shit and she campaigns against the "War on Women" whilst paying female staff less than males.
Rand isnt a real name fuck you how do we know that this isnt just ron using a puppet human to get into the white house without anybody noticing? stay safe everybody obama 2016
[QUOTE=.Isak.;47479392]I would've rather had Warren or Sanders, but can someone explain the Hillary hate-train to me? I don't understand where it comes from. I've heard some shady/questionable stuff related to Monsanto, but nothing nearly enough to make me despise her beyond "she's such a bitch!" Cruz, Paul, Bush - all absolutely not getting my vote.[/QUOTE] People distrust her because she's a politician. They think that she's just interested in her own career and not in the people she serves. But her party platform supports my views; so I'll vote for her because I'm a democrat
I really want Bernie Sanders to run. I'd vote for that guy in a heartbeat.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;47479392]I would've rather had Warren or Sanders, but can someone explain the Hillary hate-train to me? I don't understand where it comes from. I've heard some shady/questionable stuff related to Monsanto, but nothing nearly enough to make me despise her beyond "she's such a bitch!" Cruz, Paul, Bush - all absolutely not getting my vote.[/QUOTE] I don't trust her at all. She's been doing some shady shit, like using her personal email for official business, then wiping her server once it was found out. She REALLY rubs me completely the wrong way. I may hate Obama's political views, but I still trust him more than I trust her, and that's saying a LOT.
[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;47475495]This is fucking great news. I could get behind a new and reformed (and non-shitty) Republican party with libertarian ideals[/QUOTE] Isn't "non-shitty party with libertarian ideals" kind of an oxymoron?
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;47482165]Isn't "non-shitty party with libertarian ideals" kind of an oxymoron?[/QUOTE] Not if you hold libertarian ideals, obviously. What a shitty, antagonizing post.
Why are libertarians some of the most annoying people I know.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;47479392]I would've rather had Warren or Sanders, but can someone explain the Hillary hate-train to me? I don't understand where it comes from. I've heard some shady/questionable stuff related to Monsanto, but nothing nearly enough to make me despise her beyond "she's such a bitch!" Cruz, Paul, Bush - all absolutely not getting my vote.[/QUOTE] i think it's partly cos of that recent scandal where she apparently said some pretty unpleasant things to smear a rape victim back when she was still a lawyer in the 70's. but her job was to defend the rapist who was plainly guilty and it was forty years ago (and conveniently only reported on once the election was close enough) so i guess that depends on how you look at the ethics of the job and i suppose whether you think it's entirely relevant today
[QUOTE=Sniping Robot;47482294]Why are libertarians some of the most annoying people I know.[/QUOTE] have you checked to see if you know anybody that isnt a libertarian?
[QUOTE=Sniping Robot;47482294]Why are libertarians some of the most annoying people I know.[/QUOTE] Well they do care an awful lot about freedom and liberty. I guess you are just annoyed by people that make conscious moral decisions that aren't based around what the government tells them.
[QUOTE=Smoked2Joints;47482552]Well they do care an awful lot about freedom and liberty. I guess you are just annoyed by people that make conscious moral decisions that aren't based around what the government tells them.[/QUOTE] What an incredible straw man you got there. I'm legitimately impressed.
[QUOTE=Dalndox;47482609]What an incredible straw man you got there. I'm legitimately impressed.[/QUOTE] You don't know what a straw man is and it shows.
[QUOTE=MoonlessNight;47482992]You don't know what a straw man is and it shows.[/QUOTE] You mean falsely representing an opponent's argument to make your side look better?
[QUOTE=Dalndox;47483036]You mean falsely representing an opponent's argument to make your side look better?[/QUOTE] Which he never did. Can you specify the argument that was falsely representated?
[QUOTE=MoonlessNight;47483096]Which he never did. Can you specify the argument that was falsely representated?[/QUOTE] [quote]I guess you are just annoyed by people that make conscious moral decisions that aren't based around what the government tells them.[/quote] Right there, ie; the majority of the post. Falsely representing the other side as being mindless government drones who need to be told how to feel.
[QUOTE=Dalndox;47483147]Right there, ie; the majority of the post. Falsely representing the other side as being mindless government drones who need to be told how to feel.[/QUOTE] Specifically a straw man occurs when someone falsely represents an opponents argument, and then refutes it. He never did that. Fallacies at all don't really come into play here as there were no formal arguments. Sniping Robot stated that libertarians are some of the most annoying people he knowns and Smoked2Joints suggested (read: "guess") that he is annoyed by libertarians because they make conscious moral decisions.
[QUOTE=MoonlessNight;47483259]Specifically a straw man occurs when someone falsely represents an opponents argument, and then refutes it. He never did that. Fallacies at all don't really come into play as there are no formal arguments. Sniping Robot stated that libertarians are some of the most annoying people he knowns and Smoked2Joints suggested (read: "guess") that he is annoyed by libertarians because they make conscious moral decisions.[/QUOTE] It really doesn't matter if there's an argument or not you ungodly pedant. Making the assumption that someone dislikes libertarians because they "don't make concious moral decisions" is complete shit and is more an attack on that person than anything else. It's implying that the person is incapable of thinking for themselves. Libertarians are some of the most annoying cunts on the Internet because they all do shit like this whenever I've debated anything with them. The second they work out you're not a libertarian, you're deemed a "sheeple" (for lack of a better term). Unrelated to your post, Holy shit how are there people who have Internet access that think this guy is remotely good for the country? Yes, let's deny a ton of people rights based on his religious and moral beliefs. But hey! As long as he doesn't impede my precious constitution why should I care!
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;47478881]Rand Paul is hardly 'libertarian.' He just uses the word because his father, a real libertarian, gained a lot of support for his beliefs. That being said, Rand is no Ron.[/QUOTE] Pretty much, he somewhat panders to the Libertarians, however a lot of them do not support him whatsoever. I am a Libertarian, may get involved more with the party for 2016, and see what we can accomplish. I'm still campaigning for Johnson, even if he won't have a chance to win. The way I see it, I can't stand Liberals, and I can't stand Conservatives. I'm a registered Republican, but I have wizened up over the years.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;47483320]It really doesn't matter if there's an argument or not you ungodly pedant.[/QUOTE] Well it does, if you're citing fallacies.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;47483320]It really doesn't matter if there's an argument or not you ungodly pedant. Making the assumption that someone dislikes libertarians because they "don't make concious moral decisions" is complete shit and is more an attack on that person than anything else. It's implying that the person is incapable of thinking for themselves. Libertarians are some of the most annoying cunts on the Internet because they all do shit like this whenever I've debated anything with them. The second they work out you're not a libertarian, you're deemed a "sheeple" (for lack of a better term). Unrelated to your post, Holy shit how are there people who have Internet access that think this guy is remotely good for the country? Yes, let's deny a ton of people rights based on his religious and moral beliefs. But hey! As long as he doesn't impede my precious constitution why should I care![/QUOTE] Arguing that it's a straw man, uses textbook definition of ad-hominem, then immediately uses the same fallacy (ad hominem) a few words later. Dude, please take a step back for a few seconds and clear your head. I know that you're damn sure capable of better arguments than that.
all these posts are guilty of the wet nipple fallacy
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Nzj3d9j.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47483558]Arguing that it's a straw man, uses textbook definition of ad-hominem, then immediately uses the same fallacy (ad hominem) a few words later. Dude, please take a step back for a few seconds and clear your head. I know that you're damn sure capable of better arguments than that.[/QUOTE] Moonless night did nothing but create a horrible strawman of an argument, an empty piece of assumptive crap. There's no refutation needed.
I understand that what with the events like the rape trial in her past, as well as cleaning the server once people where interested in the contents are understandably suspect on a personal level about Hillary Clinton, but I don't see how it negates policy at all. I don't really ever see people disagreeing on policy or agenda, maybe something about gun control every blue moon, but it's mostly about her character. Because of the trial and emails would you really prefer to vote in a person who is incredibly anti-gay and proudly discusses how his religion impacts his political decisions; wants to ban abortion in all circumstances including rape and health of the mother; supports allowing people to not vaccinate their children despite the dangers; and thinks that all we need to get the economy working better is to just tax the rich less and let it 'Trickle down.' I understand if you might be suspicious on a personal level about her--but would you really rather vote in someone with such toxic beliefs and policy? Is because she was mean to a person in a trial many decades ago reason to instead vote in a person who is okay with the idea of taking rights from millions and making people second-class citizens because 'Ew gay people are icky.' Plus I think that probably part of the reason Hillary Clinton gets so much crap is because we've had years and years to look over her life. She was a First Lady for two terms when Bill was in office, U.S. senator, the leading Democratic presidential candidate until Obama appeared in 2008, and once again seems the frontrunner in 2016. If most politicians spent that much time so keenly in the eye of the media, you could probably uncover a lot about any of them.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47485572]Moonless night did nothing but create a horrible strawman of an argument, an empty piece of assumptive crap. There's no refutation needed.[/QUOTE] Again, accusations of fallaciousness without motivation. If you help me out by pointing out the original argument and my false representation of said argument (i.e. the straw man) I promise you I will try to do better.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.