• Large child Donald "Trump" claims unbreakable party unity as major GOP figures turn against him
    93 replies, posted
[QUOTE=archangel125;50824170]Do you understand why people make that comparison? This isn't just godwin's law. Donald, like Adolf, is a man who is attempting to rise to power on a platform of singling out minority scapegoats and trying to blame them for the country's problems. He's a good speaker, a good showman, but offers no real problems to the country's solutions, just rhetoric. His ideas are in fact incredibly dangerous. The parallels should be obvious to anyone who has had the most basic education in world history.[/QUOTE] Trump is nothing like Hitler or Mussolini. I don't hear of Trump supporters lining up in the American streets to beat up any non-Trump voter, or Trump supporters marching on Washington in a demand to be given parliamentary power immediately. Plus the political and economical situation in America isn't anywhere at all near the shitshows that were early 1920s Italy and 1920s-1930s Germany either. Those aren't as simple situations as most people assume it to be at first sight, and going ''Trump is literally Hitler or Mussolini'' is pretty shortsighted if you'd ask me, and really doesn't add much towards any discussion.
[QUOTE=Silent-Bob;50824296]See? Anyone can pretend they know what they're talking about without explaining their opinion beyond popular rhetoric. But your bellyfeel is doubleplus good, anything that isn't leftist is obviously crimethink.[/QUOTE] Wow cool you used some words from 1984, that's real impressive.
[QUOTE=Silent-Bob;50824296]I read the Democrat platform, it's [B]lizard infiltrator garbage[/B] and is extremely unlikely to help the common human in any way whatsoever. See? Anyone can pretend they know what they're talking about without explaining their opinion beyond popular rhetoric. But your bellyfeel is doubleplus good, anything that isn't leftist is obviously crimethink.[/QUOTE] Spend less time on 4chan. I know what you're getting at, but you're either deliberately ignorant or have been hiding under a rock if you think there haven't been point by point deconstructions of Trump's ideas or policies using credible sources including his own words.
[video=youtube;zDAmPIq29ro]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDAmPIq29ro[/video] RNC right now
[QUOTE=Luni;50824202]Show me sources showing that (1) Clinton wants to drag us into more worthless money-sink conflicts, involving [b]nuclear weapons[/b][/quote] Maybe not nuclear weapons (though I wouldn't put it past her) but she was absolutely all for the Iraq war and the giant, useless money-sink conflict that was: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/[/url] [quote] (2) Clinton has suggested abandoning NATO allies in eastern Europe or the Balkans at the instant they need our support the most[/quote] No but she abandoned Benghazi leading to unnecessary deaths, and almost single-handedly turned it into an ISIS safe zone, leading to further unnecessary deaths. So far her track record is objectively worse than your Trump speculation. [quote] (3) Clinton has publicly railed against the Geneva Conventions because not slaughtering the families of suspected terrorists is hamstringing our American might[/quote] As if Clinton cares about human rights.. she continually victim-shames every woman that her husband has sexually assaulted: [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/us/politics/90s-scandals-threaten-to-erode-hillary-clintons-strength-with-women.html?_r=0[/url] Or a 12 year old rape victim: [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-stands-by-her-defense-of-1975-rape-suspect/[/url] Yeah, it's not an ideal stance and infringes several human rights, but if you read up on Putin's actions in Chechnya, you'll see how quickly it squelched terrorism. [quote] (4) Clinton has repeatedly lied to her supporters, and responded to each controversy by making ever-more-outrageous claims [/quote] Really? That's an easy one.. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI[/media] [quote] (5) Clinton has publicly pledged to destroy parts of the federal government that she doesn't like (the EPA) [/quote] No, instead she'll do wonderful things that impact every American, like telling us what's in Area 51... [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-vows-to-investigate-ufos_us_5687073ce4b014efe0da95db[/url] It's hilarious that you think she gives a shit about the EPA anyway, her pockets are being lined by a Russian uranium company that illegally sells to overseas markets: [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html[/url] Of course, let's not forget how well Bill handled environmental pollution: [url]http://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/21/us/1992-campaign-candidate-s-record-arkansas-water-pollution-looms-campaign-issue.html?pagewanted=all[/url] [quote] (6) the President himself has declared Clinton unfit for office [/quote] Oh yes, infallible Obama! If he says it, it HAS to be true... [url]http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/obama-hillary-w.html[/url] [quote] (7) world leaders have declared Clinton a repulsive person unfit for office [/quote] Ah, so now we take heed in what other world leader's think, because they're all doing a MAGNIFICENT job of keeping their countries under control. The United States has a track record of not giving a flying fuck what other leaders think, we didn't become a super power by waiting for the rest of the world to tell us what to do. [quote] (8) and so on... [/quote] Please, prove me wrong. I truly want you to because obviously I must be missing something here.
[QUOTE=Silent-Bob;50824046]First page of the SH, ctrl+f for "Trump". 15 matches, 14 of which are separate threads on how Trump is worse than Hitler because of X reason. Please show me these posts where people are showing that they "love the guy." [editline]3rd August 2016[/editline] The only two threads on Clinton are ones where Trump is mentioned in a negative fashion. You must really be blind to miss the bias here.[/QUOTE] Most people on FP hate trump. Trump is often in the news. Many threads about Trump are posted in SH. Trump is mentioned negatively in Hillary threads. All are facts that I can agree with, but the conclusion that there is a bias requires a better justification. The fact that most people on FP dislike Trump isn't an indication of anything. Trump is unpopular amongst non-conservatives and basically anyone who doesn't live in America or Russia. For all I know, there might not be anyone active on FP who likes Trump. That still wouldn't mean there's a bias to the point that it becomes a problem worth addressing. Bias like that becomes a problem when people are dishonest, filter out positive news on purpose, twist evidence, use deceptive wording or any of that shit. At that point the problem would be better described by dishonesty than bias or hive mindedness. Really, I think most active posters on FP could start a post with [i]"Trump is a massive douchebag, but I agree with him on this point"[/i] If a news article were to pop up with him saying something they agree with.
[QUOTE=Silent-Bob;50824209]A simple "Trump Outlines Plan" search in Google will show you how silly your statement is.[/QUOTE] Like his economic plans that are certain to drive us much deeper into debt? Or how about his statement that debt doesn't matter because he just won't pay it. You know what happens if we default on our debt? An economic collapse like we've never felt before.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50824481]Like his economic plans that are certain to drive us much deeper into debt? Or how about his statement that debt doesn't matter because he just won't pay it. You know what happens if we default on our debt? An economic collapse like we've never felt before.[/QUOTE] Once again, rhetoric with no evidence. If you're going to make a statement like this, back it up or it means nothing. [editline]3rd August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=FPtje;50824475]Most people on FP hate trump. Trump is often in the news. Many threads about Trump are posted in SH. Trump is mentioned negatively in Hillary threads. All are facts that I can agree with, but the conclusion that there is a bias requires a better justification. The fact that most people on FP dislike Trump isn't an indication of anything. Trump is unpopular amongst non-conservatives and basically anyone who doesn't live in America or Russia. For all I know, there might not be anyone active on FP who likes Trump. That still wouldn't mean there's a bias to the point that it becomes a problem worth addressing. Bias like that becomes a problem when people are dishonest, filter out positive news on purpose, twist evidence, use deceptive wording or any of that shit. At that point the problem would be better described by dishonesty than bias or hive mindedness. Really, I think most active posters on FP could start a post with [I]"Trump is a massive douchebag, but I agree with him on this point"[/I] If a news article were to pop up with him saying something they agree with.[/QUOTE] You're right on the point of demographic, but the reason I bring it up is because anyone else who has any sort of differing opinion here gets jumped on immediately by the rabid wolves. I honestly think that a lot of this is dishonest, biased, and missing a lot of fact simply for the point of pushing a view or idea. I bring up hive-mindedness over the users who will blow up a dishonest/misleading/useless rhetoric type post with tons of ratings, and the average reader thinks "well gee that must be right, look how many people agree with it." Of course that's a flaw inherent in the forum's rating system that I won't get into (and the reason why most ratings are gone on this board to begin with, they were abused in the first place). It would be much better if people posted why they agree rather than hiding behind a rating, but then again, the world's not perfect.
[QUOTE=Silent-Bob;50824095] There is FAR worst things going on with Clinton and I have yet to see those articles posted here.[/QUOTE] Then post them. Half the Trump threads are posted by Trump supporters. I don't see what you are whining about.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50824585]Then post them. Half the Trump threads are posted by Trump supporters. I don't see what you are whining about.[/QUOTE] Way less than half of the threads are supporting Trump, so I really doubt Trump supporters are posting half of them, that's my point. I haven't claimed I support him, I'm making a point here because this is absolutely silly and I don't understand how any of you expect people to take your stances seriously when your posting habits are on a junior-high level.
Your behavior is quite junior-high.
[QUOTE=Silent-Bob;50824602]Way less than half of the threads are supporting Trump, so I really doubt Trump supporters are posting half of them, that's my point. I haven't claimed I support him, I'm making a point here because this is absolutely silly and I don't understand how any of you expect people to take your stances seriously when your posting habits are on a junior-high level.[/QUOTE] says the guy using double think like he just finished 1984 in his 11th grade english class?
[QUOTE=Swebonny;50824614]Your behavior is quite junior-high.[/QUOTE] What, backing up my points with factual evidence? Yeah how immature of me.
[QUOTE=Silent-Bob;50824619]What, backing up my points with factual evidence? Yeah how immature of me.[/QUOTE] Benghazi wasn't Hilaries fault no matter how you twist so acting like she created an ISIS safe zone by her inaction in that event is a falsehood you've bought and sold hook line and sinker.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50824617]says the guy using double think like he just finished 1984 in his 11th grade english class?[/QUOTE] So we're only allowed to reference things that weren't covered in school? K.
[QUOTE=Silent-Bob;50824619]What, backing up my points with factual evidence? Yeah how immature of me.[/QUOTE] You're so full of yourself.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50824627]Benghazi wasn't Hilaries fault no matter how you twist so acting like she created an ISIS safe zone by her inaction in that event is a falsehood you've bought and sold hook line and sinker.[/QUOTE] Oh but Obama himself said it could have been prevented: [URL]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/15/obama-bungled-benghazi-could-have-prevented-attack/[/URL] And Hillary herself takes responsibility: [URL]http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/10/clinton-takes-responsibility-benghazi-attack-151022211612239.html[/URL] You're very talented in being that willfully ignorant. [editline]3rd August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Swebonny;50824635]You're so full of yourself.[/QUOTE] And you're a shit poster, I thought mods were supposed to be above that. What are you contributing to the thread?
Keeping your crazy ass in check.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;50824655]Keeping your crazy ass in check.[/QUOTE] I fail to see how I've done anything that's considered breaking rules, other than having an opinion that you don't like. [editline]3rd August 2016[/editline] However you'd do well to read the rules yourself: - No low-content threads or posts. This includes image macros. - No content? Don't reply. - Don't go off-topic. And this one is frequently broken but nobody seems to care (especially since I'm crazy and full of myself): - Don't personally attack or flame other members you are debating a topic with.
[QUOTE=Silent-Bob;50824602]Way less than half of the threads are supporting Trump, so I really doubt Trump supporters are posting half of them, that's my point. I haven't claimed I support him, I'm making a point here because this is absolutely silly and I don't understand how any of you expect people to take your stances seriously when your posting habits are on a junior-high level.[/QUOTE] Why would I take your stance seriously when all you are doing is crying about billionaire playboy Republican nominee for president Donald Trump getting an unfair shake on Facepunch. [editline]3rd August 2016[/editline] Were you in a coma during the FBI's decision not to indict and the DNC leaks? When there were 12 Clinton threads a day? The only reason it looks a little unbalanced right now is because she came out strong after the DNC where as Trump and his campaign are making successive fumbles.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50824687]Why would I take your stance seriously when all you are doing is crying about [B]billionaire playboy Republican nominee for president[/B] Donald Trump getting an unfair shake on Facepunch.[/QUOTE] How does anyone take you seriously when you can't even turn off your opinion for two seconds to see someone else's side of an argument? How can anyone take you seriously when you think that political experience is required for presidency? Do some studying on: Ulysses S. Grant Grover Cleveland Woodrow Wilson Dwight D. Eisenhower They had close to no political background and each achieved great things in their respective presidencies.
That wasn't a point against him being president, it was a point about him coming from a severely privileged position and not requiring shitposters on FP to find the first Trump thread they can find to rail against the "liberal hivemind" and call us all stupid.
Does Trump really want to be president? No I'm not Joking anymore, he is not fixing himself, not gaining more supporters, still stuck in Primary mode, and there is talk of a [B]TrumpTV[/B].
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50824717]That wasn't a point against him being president, it was [B]a point about him coming from a severely privileged position[/B] and not requiring shitposters on FP to find the first Trump thread they can find to [B]rail against the "liberal hivemind" and call us all stupid.[/B][/QUOTE] So did the Roosevelts and Kennedys, what's your point? Not going to point out the hipocracy here, but you seem to have a complex, please show me where I called anyone stupid.
[QUOTE=Silent-Bob;50824737]So did the Roosevelts and Kennedys, what's your point? Not going to point out the hipocracy here, but you seem to have a complex, please show me where I called anyone stupid.[/QUOTE] And you seem to have a reading comprehension problem because I wasn't criticizing Trump for being privileged either. Your first post in this thread basically insinuated that SH as a liberal hivemind is too dumb to realize what the media is selling, when in reality it might be, it could just possibly be, get this, [U][B]Trump actually says some stupid shit sometimes.[/B][/U] [editline]3rd August 2016[/editline] Answer me this Silent-Bob: What is wrong with this threads premise? The idea that Trump says he is unifying the party while in reality it's openly splintering. Is this not accurate?
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50824724]Does Trump really want to be president? No I'm not Joking anymore, he is not fixing himself, not gaining more supporters, still stuck in Primary mode, and there is talk of a [B]TrumpTV[/B].[/QUOTE] So he's a demagogue when he panders to voters, but if he doesn't flip-flop his positions he's not "fixing" himself? Also, Trump is doing quite well in the polls, I don't see where you're getting that he's not gaining more supporters. What does "stuck in Primary mode" even mean? Also, he just wrapped up July by raising $80m dollars for his campaign: [url]http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/donald-trump-raises-80-million-in-july-has-37-million-war-chest.html[/url] You're very uninformed.
[QUOTE=Silent-Bob;50824646]Oh but Obama himself said it could have been prevented: [URL]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/15/obama-bungled-benghazi-could-have-prevented-attack/[/URL] And Hillary herself takes responsibility: [URL]http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/10/clinton-takes-responsibility-benghazi-attack-151022211612239.html[/URL] You're very talented in being that willfully ignorant. [editline]3rd August 2016[/editline] And you're a shit poster, I thought mods were supposed to be above that. What are you contributing to the thread?[/QUOTE] She can take responsibility all she wants but literally in your first source it states: [quote]The main report doesn’t mention her and instead places blame for the security lapses on those further down the chain of command."[/quote] Also in the ALJZ source [quote]"But "I was not going to second-guess" the security professionals who made decisions on what to do in Libya prior to the attacks, she added.[/quote] [quote]Even some Republicans have questioned the committee's intentions: A Republican representative from California, Kevin McCarthy, was forced to drop from the speaker’s race after suggesting the purpose of the committee was to hurt Clinton's poll numbers.[/quote] According to your source the only people accusing Hillary of being incompetent regarding Benghazi are Republicans. If the report itself doesn't mention or accuse her of anything then any accusations you make are pure speculation and won't be taken seriously.
[QUOTE=Silent-Bob;50824768] Also, Trump is doing quite well in the polls[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Silent-Bob;50824768]You're very uninformed.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50824757]And you seem to have a reading comprehension problem because I wasn't criticizing Trump for being privileged either. Your first post in this thread basically insinuated that SH as a liberal hivemind is too dumb to realize what the media is selling, when in reality it might be, it could just possibly be, get this, [U][B]Trump actually says some stupid shit sometimes.[/B][/U] [editline]3rd August 2016[/editline] [B]Answer me this Silent-Bob: What is wrong with this threads premise[/B]? The idea that Trump says he is unifying the party while in reality it's openly splintering. Is this not accurate?[/QUOTE] Read the headline and the thick rhetoric/bias, why not just say "Major GOP Party Members Abandoning Trump"? That would be accurate. The circle jerk is "giant man-baby Hitler spoiled playboy fascist Trump". You mentioned Trump's financial background several times so yes, you are criticizing him for it, don't back-pedal. [editline]3rd August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=spekter;50824771]She can take responsibility all she wants but literally in your first source it states: Also in the ALJZ source According to your source the only people accusing Hillary of being incompetent regarding Benghazi are Republicans. If the report itself doesn't mention or accuse her of anything then any accusations you make are pure speculation and won't be taken seriously.[/QUOTE] As Secretary of State, it's LITERALLY her job to second-guess and oversee what security forces are doing there.
[QUOTE=Silent-Bob;50824710]How does anyone take you seriously when you can't even turn off your opinion for two seconds to see someone else's side of an argument? How can anyone take you seriously when you think that political experience is required for presidency? Do some studying on: Ulysses S. Grant Grover Cleveland Woodrow Wilson Dwight D. Eisenhower They had close to no political background and each achieved great things in their respective presidencies.[/QUOTE] "great things" Wilson was one of the worst presidents we've ever had, ask the entirety of south america
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.