Clinton and Trump's debate preparations are going exactly as you'd expect - Polidicks

Also, If Presidential commision caved, and got a slightly pro-trump moderator, what would you think would happen besides widespread anger? Because that is a new worry. What's going on is the moderator announcement just has been delayed till after labor day.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50959997]i'm not sure here exactly but you strike me as being somebody who's made frequent use of this term before. even then the use of cuck in this way is a really recent invention - i would not be surprised that he hadn't heard the term before because it was heavily restricted in use to a small demographic until recently - one mostly used to portray people who don't agree with them as those who allow black men to degrade their girlfriends and wives in front of them as a sexual fetish also this whole cuck meme bullshit is much just signalling by the alt-right so that they can warn people about certain (((individuals)))[/QUOTE] I used the term maybe once or twice because someone I know uses it, but why is this a big deal? If people wanna use a damn word then let them, don't be so anal about it dude. And it's not just limited to the alt-right, never assume shit you don't know. Shaming people for disagreeing with them? Maybe you should start using it seeing how that's all I ever really see you do.

[QUOTE=space1;50960637]I used the term maybe once or twice because someone I know uses it, but why is this a big deal? If people wanna use a damn word then let them, don't be so anal about it dude. And it's not just limited to the alt-right, never assume shit you don't know. Shaming people for disagreeing with them? Maybe you should start using it seeing how that's all I ever really see you do.[/QUOTE] You can say Cuck all you want but don't feign ignorance as to who's been using it and why. And don't expect anyone to take you seriously. Have you been hiding under a rock or something? Cuck in its current use is used almost exclusively by the alt-right as a catch-all term denigrating anyone who they perceive as weak* *read: not a close-minded bigot who tries to veil their racism behind fraudulent statistics.

[QUOTE=space1;50960637]I used the term maybe once or twice because someone I know uses it, but why is this a big deal? If people wanna use a damn word then let them, don't be so anal about it dude. And it's not just limited to the alt-right, never assume shit you don't know. Shaming people for disagreeing with them? Maybe you should start using it seeing how that's all I ever really see you do.[/QUOTE] It's a pretty stupid term to use, it implies something deeply personal and brings sexual deviancy into the picture in contexts that really, really do not need it. The entire origin of the word "cuck" being used in a political context stems from /pol/ shaming dudes who were cheated on, and then started applying it to anybody that doesn't hate colored people (because if you don't hate colored people, you secretly want them to bone your wife?). It's lowkey racist in 90% of the contexts its being used in and at best it's just a stupid /pol/ meme. And it definitely is limited to the alt-right.. The number of liberals who use "cuck" as a genuine insult is ridiculously low compared to the number of conservatives.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50959420]I mean shit, ad hominems are part of the fun.[/QUOTE] No, they're not "part of the fun". This is politics. This is literally about choosing who you want to run and represent your whole country. This shouldn't be about showmanship or insulting people or acting like a jackass at a podium, you should be setting an example and showing that you're a capable leader, not someone who mocks others in an attempt to get their point across.

Oh man I can't wait for this motherfuckin' shit to go down. I hope Johnson makes it in, I really want to know if he'd really be able to "wipe the floor with them" as the prophecy is written. [QUOTE=DiscoMelon;50959356]That would rely on Hillary stooping to Trump's level of ad hominem in the first place[/QUOTE]... I have to ask is this your first election where you paid attention because that was her whole campaign in 2008 toward Obama. Fuck it's been her campaign just in general, have you been paying attention at all? [editline]28th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;50960744]No, they're not "part of the fun". This is politics. This is literally about choosing who you want to run and represent your whole country. [B]This shouldn't be about showmanship or insulting people or acting like a jackass at a podium,[/B] you should be setting an example and showing that you're a capable leader, not someone who mocks others in an attempt to get their point across.[/QUOTE]Oh boy. Are you sitting down? There's some stuff we need to talk about, I don't think you're going to like it.

[QUOTE=srobins;50960680]It's a pretty stupid term to use, it implies something deeply personal and brings sexual deviancy into the picture in contexts that really, really do not need it. The entire origin of the word "cuck" being used in a political context stems from /pol/ shaming dudes who were cheated on, and then started applying it to anybody that doesn't hate colored people (because if you don't hate colored people, you secretly want them to bone your wife?). It's lowkey racist in 90% of the contexts its being used in and at best it's just a stupid /pol/ meme. And it definitely is limited to the alt-right.. The number of liberals who use "cuck" as a genuine insult is ridiculously low compared to the number of conservatives.[/QUOTE] Literally all lefties I know who say cuck say it to mock alt-righters' weird projected power complexes/sexual insecurities.

[QUOTE=srobins;50960680]It's a pretty stupid term to use, it implies something deeply personal and brings sexual deviancy into the picture in contexts that really, really do not need it. The entire origin of the word "cuck" being used in a political context stems from /pol/ shaming dudes who were cheated on, and then started applying it to anybody that doesn't hate colored people (because if you don't hate colored people, you secretly want them to bone your wife?). It's lowkey racist in 90% of the contexts its being used in and at best it's just a stupid /pol/ meme. And it definitely is limited to the alt-right.. The number of liberals who use "cuck" as a genuine insult is ridiculously low compared to the number of conservatives.[/QUOTE] So you're okay with people being called pussies, dicks, cunts, etc. but if you call them a cuck it's somehow bad? Is calling someone a dick implying that they're a giant throbbing phallus? By your logic calling people these same profanities are sexist. PLEASE don't try to police the language of others, especially of words you're ignorant to. EVEN if that shit is true, it's only a tiny niche community in which that happened and isn't how it is generally used. This isn't some sort of racial slur, it's shaming people on their shitty "holier than thou" attitudes. Cuck is short sweet and to the point, whereas "regressive" only really applies to the crazy leftists/prohillary/jillstein crowd. And NEVER assume I'm a "right-winger" as I'm a left leaning libertarian classic liberal for informal purposes about the general nature of my viewpoints, but don't stick any preconceived notion about what you think that is as I really don't pick a side. I try to find the best answers on my own and not with the help of some senseless ideologue on any side of the spectrum who denounces everything the other side does simply because they are on the other side.

[QUOTE=Dutch Flowers;50959355]It seems like American politics are all about showmanship.[/QUOTE] And the thing called corruption in many (most?) other countries. Candidates are sponsored by various companies :v:

[QUOTE=space1;50961507]So you're okay with people being called pussies, dicks, cunts, etc. but if you call them a cuck it's somehow bad? Is calling someone a dick implying that they're a giant throbbing phallus? By your logic calling people these same profanities are sexist. PLEASE don't try to police the language of others, especially of words you're ignorant to. EVEN if that shit is true, it's only a tiny niche community in which that happened and isn't how it is generally used. This isn't some sort of racial slur, it's shaming people on their shitty "holier than thou" attitudes. Cuck is short sweet and to the point, whereas "regressive" only really applies to the crazy leftists/prohillary/jillstein crowd.[/quote] barely anyone has heard of the term "cuck" in a political context and its used almost exclusively by manbabies with sexual insecurities who think that being outside of their view of orthodoxy somehow makes them a weak pushover that allows black men to fuck their partners don't pretend it has a wide and useful application, it doesn't. at best you're just lazy and it makes you look like a child when the best you can do in political discourse is to yell "cuck" at people. when you say "cuck is short sweet and to the point" that's actually a bad thing because when it comes to objecting to something or talking about how you don't like this person, you don't need to bother compiling some kind of sentence with structure together - just use cuck. it takes a few seconds less to think about - which is useful for brains of limited processing abilities [quote]And NEVER assume I'm a "right-winger" as I'm a left leaning libertarian classic liberal for informal purposes about the general nature of my viewpoints, but don't stick any preconceived notion about what you think that is as I really don't pick a side. I try to find the best answers on my own and not with the help of some senseless ideologue on any side of the spectrum who denounces everything the other side does simply because they are on the other side.[/QUOTE] he didn't assume you were? i don't think he even cares about whatever confused ideology you hold [QUOTE=space1;50960637]I used the term maybe once or twice because someone I know uses it, but why is this a big deal? If people wanna use a damn word then let them, don't be so anal about it dude. And it's not just limited to the alt-right, never assume shit you don't know. Shaming people for disagreeing with them? Maybe you should start using it seeing how that's all I ever really see you do.[/QUOTE] i can't control the english language, but if you start using a word which few other people understand without you looking like an idiot in the process it's generally not wise to use that word for the purposes of communication plus it's even more childish to think somebody is ignorant of american politics for never having heard of your niche and specialist term that nobody cares about.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50959296]I like winging debates and presentations. If you prepare too much and rehearse your points, you don't sound genuine when you present them. Even though you have a general idea of what will be asked during the debates, there will always be oddball questions or ones aimed directly at a specific candidate. There's not much you prepare for in this case. Both candidates have been spewing the same policies, goals, and attacks for over a year. I don't see what they could do to prepare that would make them perform better on the stage. [editline]27th August 2016[/editline] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Bv8bbiC.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] So uh how does Trumps rim taste? [editline]28th August 2016[/editline] Thd only people who call others cucks are the sort of virgins who'd never get the chance to be cuckolded in the first place

[QUOTE=Doozle;50962066]So uh how does Trumps rim taste? [editline]28th August 2016[/editline] Thd only people who call others cucks are the sort of virgins who'd never get the chance to be cuckolded in the first place[/QUOTE] I call people cucks because I've grown tired of using "asshole" and "cocksucker". Though I only do it in a "competitive" sense.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50962026]barely anyone has heard of the term "cuck" in a political context and its used almost exclusively by manbabies with sexual insecurities who think that being outside of their view of orthodoxy somehow makes them a weak pushover that allows black men to fuck their partners [/QUOTE] I've never actually seen it used this way, so where are you reading all these shitposts? Do you actively read 4chan or something? [QUOTE]don't pretend it has a wide and useful application, it doesn't. at best you're just lazy and it makes you look like a child when the best you can do in political discourse is to yell "cuck" at people.[/QUOTE] It's less of a mouthful and more specific to a certain kind of person than calling them "holier than thou", and you don't really throw around these insults at people who don't actually understand them. It's moreso used in casual conversation with people of like mind to talk down x "cuckservative" or something. [QUOTE]when you say "cuck is short sweet and to the point" that's actually a bad thing because when it comes to objecting to something or talking about how you don't like this person, you don't need to bother compiling some kind of sentence with structure together - just use cuck. it takes a few seconds less to think about - which is useful for brains of limited processing abilities [/QUOTE] Okay mister "I only use words with 4+ syllables". Seriously, you overthink such trivial things so much to fit your viewpoint it's ridiculous. Using bigger words, etc. usually means you don't understand something well enough to talk about it in the first place, or are just being pretentious. [QUOTE]he didn't assume you were? i don't think he even cares about whatever confused ideology you hold[/QUOTE] I believe it was kind of implied in the bit where they assumed I use the word regularly. [QUOTE]i can't control the english language, but if you start using a word which few other people understand without you looking like an idiot in the process it's generally not wise to use that word for the purposes of communication plus it's even more childish to think somebody is ignorant of american politics for never having heard of your niche and specialist term that nobody cares about. [/QUOTE] Well I'm not really using it around people who don't understand me?? It's use is usually limited to communities/people with non-mainstream viewpoints, and that's all I was really trying to get you to understand. I mean yea it would be childish to do that, but it certainly isn't a smart thing to put down other people for using a word you do not fully understand yourself.

[QUOTE=space1;50961507]So you're okay with people being called pussies, dicks, cunts, etc. but if you call them a cuck it's somehow bad? Is calling someone a dick implying that they're a giant throbbing phallus? By your logic calling people these same profanities are sexist. PLEASE don't try to police the language of others, especially of words you're ignorant to. EVEN if that shit is true, it's only a tiny niche community in which that happened and isn't how it is generally used. This isn't some sort of racial slur, it's shaming people on their shitty "holier than thou" attitudes. Cuck is short sweet and to the point, whereas "regressive" only really applies to the crazy leftists/prohillary/jillstein crowd. And NEVER assume I'm a "right-winger" as I'm a left leaning libertarian classic liberal for informal purposes about the general nature of my viewpoints, but don't stick any preconceived notion about what you think that is as I really don't pick a side. I try to find the best answers on my own and not with the help of some senseless ideologue on any side of the spectrum who denounces everything the other side does simply because they are on the other side.[/QUOTE] You both need to simmer the fuck down

lmao is this another cuck debate [editline]28th August 2016[/editline] whata buncha fuckin cucks

I remember staying up to 4AM just to watch Obama and Romney debate each other. Can't wait for this debate to happen. HIGH ENERGY.

[QUOTE=space1;50961507]So you're okay with people being called pussies, dicks, cunts, etc. but if you call them a cuck it's somehow bad? Is calling someone a dick implying that they're a giant throbbing phallus? By your logic calling people these same profanities are sexist. PLEASE don't try to police the language of others, especially of words you're ignorant to. EVEN if that shit is true, it's only a tiny niche community in which that happened and isn't how it is generally used. This isn't some sort of racial slur, it's shaming people on their shitty "holier than thou" attitudes. Cuck is short sweet and to the point, whereas "regressive" only really applies to the crazy leftists/prohillary/jillstein crowd. And NEVER assume I'm a "right-winger" as I'm a left leaning libertarian classic liberal for informal purposes about the general nature of my viewpoints, but don't stick any preconceived notion about what you think that is as I really don't pick a side. I try to find the best answers on my own and not with the help of some senseless ideologue on any side of the spectrum who denounces everything the other side does simply because they are on the other side.[/QUOTE] I'm not policing anything, I'm just saying using the word cuck is a stupid meme that makes you look like a closet racist most of the time. If you really love the word so much, have at it, but I'm still going to judge you for using a dumb /pol/ meme as a serious insult.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50959560]Wow so just like every other presidential candidate in the last x amount of years?[/QUOTE] Yes, I understand that. All politicians do it to a certain degree. However, there is stark differences on how different canidates do it. In one of debates against Sanders, when asked if fracking is bad, hillary gave a full paragraph explanation without actually answering the question, while Sanders just said "yes I believe fracking is bad" Hillary is basically the stereotype of the common politician. Thats not entirely bad, especially when trump is the oppodent, but one should not forget that.

[QUOTE=da space core;50962990]Yes, I understand that. All politicians do it to a certain degree. However, there is stark differences on how different canidates do it. In one of debates against Sanders, when asked if fracking is bad, hillary gave a full paragraph explanation without actually answering the question, while Sanders just said "yes I believe fracking is bad" Hillary is basically the stereotype of the common politician. Thats not entirely bad, especially when trump is the oppodent, but one should not forget that.[/QUOTE] Her position on fracking seemed pretty clear in the debates; that she sees why certain places would be against it but favors regulation over outright bans.

[QUOTE=da space core;50962990]Yes, I understand that. All politicians do it to a certain degree. However, there is stark differences on how different canidates do it. In one of debates against Sanders, when asked if fracking is bad, hillary gave a full paragraph explanation without actually answering the question, while Sanders just said "yes I believe fracking is bad" Hillary is basically the stereotype of the common politician. Thats not entirely bad, especially when trump is the oppodent, but one should not forget that.[/QUOTE] So you're saying Hillary gave a detailed explanation of her position while Bernie said "FRACKING BAD" with no detail? [editline]28th August 2016[/editline] Like to me that's a knock towards Sanders, honestly. I want my politicians to have more to say than "THIS THING = BAD" or "THIS THING = GOOD"

[QUOTE=hoodoo456;50963500]So you're saying Hillary gave a detailed explanation of her position while Bernie said "FRACKING BAD" with no detail? [editline]28th August 2016[/editline] Like to me that's a knock towards Sanders, honestly. I want my politicians to have more to say than "THIS THING = BAD" or "THIS THING = GOOD"[/QUOTE] He stated his position clearly while Hillary went with a long winded answer designed to appease both sides of the argument.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50963770]He stated his position clearly while Hillary went with a long winded answer designed to appease both sides of the argument.[/QUOTE] And it's frustrating that people assume the simple position is the better one. I'm generally opposed to fracking without more research, even though I understand it's a positive to help us become more economically independent from oil states in the Middle East, but thinking that "yes" or "no" is the best position doesn't help - there's a lot of nuance and complexity in positions like this, and oversimplifying things to [i]no not ever[/i] or [i]always every time yes[/i] is just dumb when there will always be exceptions to that rule. Free trade's a good example - people want Hillary to go "all free trade is good" when clearly that isn't her position and it's more nuanced. Trying to check off political positions as only "good" or "bad" ignores the millions of possible positions in between the two. I guarantee you Bernie would support fracking if we somehow lost access to foreign oil and the average American had to pay $17 a gallon to drive to work.

[QUOTE=hoodoo456;50963500]So you're saying Hillary gave a detailed explanation of her position while Bernie said "FRACKING BAD" with no detail? [editline]28th August 2016[/editline] Like to me that's a knock towards Sanders, honestly. I want my politicians to have more to say than "THIS THING = BAD" or "THIS THING = GOOD"[/QUOTE] You misread my post. She didn't give a detailed explanation at all. She just used a lot of words to say nothing, please do not strawman

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50961277]Oh boy. Are you sitting down? There's some stuff we need to talk about, I don't think you're going to like it.[/QUOTE] I agree that it's totally unrealistic to expect that from the USA, but if both the culture and voting system support it, then politics with very little posing and/or ad hominem use are definitely possible and stable.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50963863]I guarantee you Bernie would support fracking if we somehow lost access to foreign oil and the average American had to pay $17 a gallon to drive to work.[/QUOTE] Yes Isak, in an alternate universe where the fundamental structure of our economy was completely different from what exists in reality, this might be true. However, back in reality, opposing fracking is a reasonable position and failing to leave a door open for back tracking on environmental policy to suit corporate interests in the future shouldn't be frowned upon. It shouldn't be a bad thing to take a firm stance on something.

[QUOTE=srobins;50964125]Yes Isak, in an alternate universe where the fundamental structure of our economy was completely different from what exists in reality, this might be true. However, back in reality, opposing fracking is a reasonable position and failing to leave a door open for back tracking on environmental policy to suit corporate interests in the future shouldn't be frowned upon. It shouldn't be a bad thing to take a firm stance on something.[/QUOTE] I don't think it's a bad thing, but people are implying that it's a bad thing to [i]not[/i] have a firm stance on it. It isn't. There's much more nuance in these policy choices than the media presents - I mentioned in the post (which you ignored) that I'm opposed to fracking, but I can understand reasonable arguments in favor of it and I don't think it's somehow [i]inherently bad[/i] and that having any position other than full unrelenting opposition is [i]bad[/i]. Again, having a nuanced and complex opinion on policy isn't any better than having a simple one, but having a simple stance on a policy is often worse than having a complex one. If someone said "all free trade is always good, no matter what," they're an idiot. If someone says "all government is inherently bad always, no matter what," they're an idiot, too.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50963770]He stated his position clearly while Hillary went with a long winded answer designed to appease both sides of the argument.[/QUOTE] Also known as compromising

Yeah I don't know what debate space core is referencing specifically but I found this [video=youtube;gPVhPqy_Z6U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPVhPqy_Z6U[/video] How can you sit there and objectively say Clinton's answer was worse? [editline]28th August 2016[/editline] When Cooper brings up the democratic governors who say that fracking can be done safety (entirely, objectively, demonstrably true) Sanders just says they are wrong with absolutely nothing backing it up then launches into his anti-establishment branding, as if that just makes him right.

Can someone tell me when the first of the debates is going to take plece?

[QUOTE=Ctrl;50964881]Can someone tell me when the first of the debates is going to take plece?[/QUOTE] This is the current schedule: Sept. 26, 9 P.M. EDT, at Hofstra University, New York Oct 4, 9 P.M. EDT, at Longwood University, Farmville, Virginia (VP Debate) Oct. 9, 9 P.M. EDT, at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri Oct. 19, 9 P.M. EDT, at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas