Re: Loose, here is the civil conversation you desire (re: Trump and Clinton)

by **NigelUno** Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:15

Hey Loose? Would you care to comment on Hillary and Obama being called "Hitler"? Or.... Loose, here is the civil conversation you desire (re: Trump and Clinton) - Page 3 1f648

Loose, here is the civil conversation you desire (re: Trump and Clinton) - Page 3 1f648

by Guest Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:18

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:they never faced anything close to the consistent drumbeat of accusations about racism, sexism, demagoguery or fascism, as Trump has.

From gooses own article. And then a bunch of random people say bad things about Romney and bush. But that really doesn't prove a point like at all since trump has actually said or done these things. It wasn't like this. I was alive.

Like blah blah politicians have said bad things about each other. That's what your link tells me.

Goose's got some dodgeball principles goin on tBin
1) Dodge
2) Duck
3) Dip
4) Dive
5) Dodge

Again you miss my point.

Show me where I've said Trump isn't a slimeball? My point earlier is that the attacks haven't stuck because they do this every time. Remember Mitt Romney HATED 47% of America? Still waiting on the 2020 bet. I know damn well it'll happen even if the R's nominate a Quaker.

by **Turtleneck** Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:18

Loose tells us all we have a partisan bias and cannot offer objective thoughts...then backs his claims about Trump with an article from Ann Coulter. You know, the person who recently wrote...

Loose, here is the civil conversation you desire (re: Trump and Clinton) - Page 3 51d1qgc0F7L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_

Loose, here is the civil conversation you desire (re: Trump and Clinton) - Page 3 51d1qgc0F7L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_

by Guest Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:19

NigelUno wrote:Hey Loose? Would you care to comment on Hillary and Obama being called "Hitler"? Or....

lol, sort of like the IRS tax shit. 450 tea party groups, 9 liberal groups. So it's all equal.

by Guest Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:19

Turtleneck wrote:Loose tells us all we have a partisan bias and cannot offer objective thoughts...then backs his claims about Trump with an article from Ann Coulter. You know, the person who recently wrote...

Did you bother to read it?

Who are you claiming is non-partisan?

I pointed out she was a Trump supporter, so what's your point? Unlike the people that claim to be neutral and aren't.

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:20

LooseGoose wrote:
Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:they never faced anything close to the consistent drumbeat of accusations about racism, sexism, demagoguery or fascism, as Trump has.

From gooses own article. And then a bunch of random people say bad things about Romney and bush. But that really doesn't prove a point like at all since trump has actually said or done these things. It wasn't like this. I was alive.

Like blah blah politicians have said bad things about each other. That's what your link tells me.

Goose's got some dodgeball principles goin on tBin
1) Dodge
2) Duck
3) Dip
4) Dive
5) Dodge

Again you miss my point.

Show me where I've said Trump isn't a slimeball? My point earlier is that the attacks haven't stuck because they do this every time. Remember Mitt Romney HATED 47% of America? Still waiting on the 2020 bet. I know damn well it'll happen even if the R's nominate a Quaker.

M

You acted like the only reason trump is viewed so negatively because it's what democrats do. Not because he is a slimeball. Am I the only fucking one seeing this spin? What the hell are toy smoking over there goose? I almost forgot what the topic was!

by Guest Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:21

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Again you miss my point.

Show me where I've said Trump isn't a slimeball? My point earlier is that the attacks haven't stuck because they do this every time. Remember Mitt Romney HATED 47% of America? Still waiting on the 2020 bet. I know damn well it'll happen even if the R's nominate a Quaker.
M

You acted like the only reason trump is viewed so negatively because it's what democrats do. Not because he is a slimeball. Am I the only fucking one seeing this spin? What the hell are toy smoking over there goose? I almost forgot what the topic was!

you obviously don't read most of what I post. So why fucking bother.

by **Turtleneck** Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:21

LooseGoose wrote:
Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:they never faced anything close to the consistent drumbeat of accusations about racism, sexism, demagoguery or fascism, as Trump has.

From gooses own article. And then a bunch of random people say bad things about Romney and bush. But that really doesn't prove a point like at all since trump has actually said or done these things. It wasn't like this. I was alive.

Like blah blah politicians have said bad things about each other. That's what your link tells me.

Goose's got some dodgeball principles goin on tBin
1) Dodge
2) Duck
3) Dip
4) Dive
5) Dodge

Again you miss my point.

Show me where I've said Trump isn't a slimeball? My point earlier is that the attacks haven't stuck because they do this every time. Remember Mitt Romney HATED 47% of America? Still waiting on the 2020 bet. I know damn well it'll happen even if the R's nominate a Quaker.

This is some poor logic Loose. You're right. It does happen every time. And it is never an accurate portrayal of their politics. But that does not mean it is not true in case of Trump.

by Guest Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:22

Turtleneck wrote:Loose tells us all we have a partisan bias and cannot offer objective thoughts...then backs his claims about Trump with an article from Ann Coulter. You know, the person who recently wrote...

And as usual for Turtle - he doesn't like the message so he attacks the messenger.

Did you bother to read either article or watch the videos?

by **Turtleneck** Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:23

Hey dipshit, I already posted the Catholics4Trump info she references. Maybe you should take your own advice and read what other's post.

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:23

LooseGoose wrote:
Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:M

You acted like the only reason trump is viewed so negatively because it's what democrats do. Not because he is a slimeball. Am I the only fucking one seeing this spin? What the hell are toy smoking over there goose? I almost forgot what the topic was!

you obviously don't read most of what I post. So why fucking bother.

I think I read it all.

by **NigelUno** Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:25

LooseGoose wrote:
NigelUno wrote:

You didn't answer my question. Do I need to ask again?

Are you suggesting he wasn't mocking that guy? Did Trump just have a seizure of some sort at that exact moment?

I'll ask again anyway...what the fuck was Trump doing?

Tell you what. After saying I wouldn't I went and got the links. Now - take the time to read this:

Media Invented Lie About Trump Mocking Disabled Reporter

And yes, that's Ann Coulter who's a Trump supporter. You didn't expect Joe Biden to write it did you?

Then go to this website, read it and watch the videos

Now, as I said it may not be 100% persuasive but it certainly casts a LOT of doubt on the media narrative you obviously internalized as unquestionably truthful.

The True Story: Donald Trump Did Not Mock a Reporter’s Disability

This has been out there since July and none of you had heard a word that maybe the whole story wasn't true. Which should tell you a lot.

So, you believe Trump wasn't mocking him, because he was mocking him incorrectly?

Do you know how idiotic that makes you sound? I mean...I don't think you do, so I'm going to just tell you. It makes you sound incredibly idiotic. Beyond any normal idiocy. Epically idiotic. Possibly the most idiotic thing ever said on this great board. So, if you were going for that...congrats.

by **Turtleneck** Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:25

I'm really enjoying our civil discussion, Loose.

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:26

I read this.

Me: Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:
Goose it's not really about who signed the letter. It's about the content and the fact that trump has shown exactly what they explain. You deflect in defense of trump. Again. Goose is not republican.

You: OTPT honey? 4 years ago people were saying the same shit about Romney. 8 years ago it was McCain. 12 years ago it was Bush. You can go find the examples or I can dig them up for you. This is nothing new. EVERY fucking person the R's nominate is Hitler until they LOSE. Then......they're ok guys. Just as McCain was better than Romney and now Romney is better than Trump. It's so fucking predictable.

^^^^ Goose I read it can you

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:28

No one is going to think trump is a good guy after he loses tomorrow. FTR. Probably libs or dems fault as well. Ya know the sexist shit he has said or banning religions isn't what does it. It's just what THE DEMS do!!!

by **NigelUno** Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:29

Turtleneck wrote:I'm really enjoying our civil discussion, Loose.

He absentee or early voted for Trump. There is no other reason for this ridiculous foolishness.

by Guest Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:30

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:No one is going to think trump is a good guy after he loses tomorrow.

In 2020 he will be favorably compared to the R nominee.

by Guest Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:30

NigelUno wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:I'm really enjoying our civil discussion, Loose.

He absentee or early voted for Trump. There is no other reason for this ridiculous foolishness.

Nope, voting Darrell tomorrow. I'll selfie it. Can't stand Trump.

by **NigelUno** Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:32

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:No one is going to think trump is a good guy after he loses tomorrow. FTR. Probably libs or dems fault as well. Ya know the sexist shit he has said or banning religions isn't what does it. It's just what THE DEMS do!!!

What about all the high level Republicans that don't support Trump? I guess Loose forgot about them.

by **NigelUno** Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:33

LooseGoose wrote:
NigelUno wrote:

He absentee or early voted for Trump. There is no other reason for this ridiculous foolishness.

Nope, voting Darrell tomorrow. I'll selfie it. Can't stand Trump.

You make a lot of excuses for a guy you can't stand.

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:34

LooseGoose wrote:
Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:No one is going to think trump is a good guy after he loses tomorrow.

In 2020 he will be favorably compared to the R nominee.

Ugh. I'm done. You're awful.

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:36

NigelUno wrote:
Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:No one is going to think trump is a good guy after he loses tomorrow. FTR. Probably libs or dems fault as well. Ya know the sexist shit he has said or banning religions isn't what does it. It's just what THE DEMS do!!!

What about all the high level Republicans that don't support Trump? I guess Loose forgot about them.

Loose smoking some heavy indica tonight.

by Guest Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:37

NigelUno wrote:So, you believe Trump wasn't mocking him, because he was mocking him incorrectly?

Do you know how idiotic that makes you sound? I mean...I don't think you do, so I'm going to just tell you. It makes you sound incredibly idiotic. Beyond any normal idiocy. Epically idiotic. Possibly the most idiotic thing ever said on this great board. So, if you were going for that...congrats.

As usual you confuse me. Either you're incredibly dumb or playing it that way here.

Let's take it slow here just for you.

Step 1.
The point of all of those videos was that he uses the SAME impersonation no matter who he was mocking. Can we agree to that?

IF so, let me walk you to step 2.

Step 2.
Yes he was mocking the reporter. The reporter happens to be disabled. But Trump was mocking him EXACTLY like he mocks EVERYONE. So Trump was treating him exactly equally. Isn't that the goal of disability activists?

The point that was made over and over, and I doubt you missed it, is that the reporters arms DO NOT flail like Trump's were. So Trump was making fun of the reporter, NOT his disability.

Conclusion
As I said prior to posting that, it's not 100% persuasive and yes the way the media played the story it looked bad. But you could see it the way Trump's defenders do. That he's done that "impression" for a decade or more and had nothing to do specifically with that reporter.

by Guest Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:38

NigelUno wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Nope, voting Darrell tomorrow. I'll selfie it. Can't stand Trump.

You make a lot of excuses for a guy you can't stand.

Name an excuse? You're so blind you read many things that I don't post.

Send me a quote.

by **Turtleneck** Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:38

LooseGoose wrote:
NigelUno wrote:

He absentee or early voted for Trump. There is no other reason for this ridiculous foolishness.

Nope, voting Darrell tomorrow. I'll selfie it. Can't stand Trump.

I read they are not allowed in Michigan. Please do not upset Dear Leader Trump.

by Guest Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:39

Turtleneck wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Nope, voting Darrell tomorrow. I'll selfie it. Can't stand Trump.

I read they are not allowed in Michigan. Please do not upset Dear Leader Trump.

They're illegal but I'm a subversive SOB.

by **Turtleneck** Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:40

LooseGoose wrote:
Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:No one is going to think trump is a good guy after he loses tomorrow.

In 2020 he will be favorably compared to the R nominee.

Is the R nominee going to be satan?

Kids, this is your brain on raw milk.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:41

Turtleneck wrote:Hey dipshit, I already posted the Catholics4Trump info she references. Maybe you should take your own advice and read what other's post.

Goose doesn't read what other people post turtleneck. He assumes he knows what it says and goes from there. I had to repeat myself time and time again just the other day while he argued against the point I was explicitly not making.

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:42

Turtleneck wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

In 2020 he will be favorably compared to the R nominee.

Is the R nominee going to be satan?

Kids, this is your brain on raw milk.

Loose, here is the civil conversation you desire (re: Trump and Clinton) - Page 3 502811600

by **Travis of the Cosmos** Mon 7 Nov 2016 - 23:42

LooseGoose wrote:
Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:No one is going to think trump is a good guy after he loses tomorrow.

In 2020 he will be favorably compared to the R nominee.

I have no doubt that you republicans will continue your downward spiral of absolute fucking lunacy that you've had over the last four or so years.... so yeah, maybe.

by Guest Tue 8 Nov 2016 - 0:25

Like the lunacy of Bush to McCain to Romney?

As I said earlier they could nominate a Quaker and the Dems will demonize them - as hating our troops.

I think Hills will win but I think it could be very close. It will be very interesting to watch NH - PA & MI early in the night. And if they're tight then CO and NV later in the night.

The most interesting theory I've read of what could happen tomorrow night is an accelerated timeline of the great demographic shift that's been predicted. The states with Hispanic populations start turning Blue (FL/NV/AZ) - but the unanticipated consequence are some northern states turning Red - (PA/MI/WI/MN). It'll be fun seeing the results and whether any of that is actually happening.

And I know Turtleneck hates Hot Air because they hold a different point of view than he does - but here's their final article from tonight. IF you're a Trump backer it gives you hope, if you're for Hills then you buckle up and hang on.
Keep in mind that Allahpundit is no Trump fan, in fact he's kind of a curmudgeon there. I don't see what's unbalanced about this article, it seems to lay the various scenarios out pretty evenly.

They're relying on the RCP average of polls - which is at least similar to what 538 and the Upshot do.

Final-ish map of RCP state averages has Trump on brink of 270 electoral votes

I’m not sure that this is in fact the final map, as there may still be state polls trickling in this evening. But here’s how things stand on the eve of the election, after 5 p.m. ET. Let me remind you: The RCP state averages called the winner of 49 out of 50 states correctly in 2012, missing only Florida. This map has it … Clinton 272, Trump 266. Flip any battleground state, even a small one like New Hampshire, and Trump wins.

Trump leads in Florida by a minuscule 0.2 percent as I write this; in New Hampshire, it’s Clinton by 0.6 percent, and that’s helped along by the dubious 11-point lead she had in the WMUR poll of the state that was released this morning. The long and short of this is that if literally one more poll of NH were to drop showing Trump ahead by a few points, the average would shift and that state would probably also favor him very narrowly. And in that case, he’d be at … 270 electoral votes. He’s that close to being a perilously slight favorite to win the election per RCP’s polling averages. And note that RCP’s miss on Florida in 2012 involved a larger margin than either FL or NH are experiencing now. That year, Romney finished 1.5 points ahead in the Florida average and lost the state on Election Day by less than a point. Trump would be president with a more modest miss than that in New Hampshire this year.

That said, there’s a question mark on this map. Observers of Nevada’s early voting like Jon Ralston swear that Dems have piled up enough ballots there to put the state all but out of reach for Trump, notwithstanding his lead in the polls. If that’s true then flipping NH on the map above doesn’t win it for him after all. We end up with Clinton winning 274/264. And it’s not obvious which remaining blue state Trump could flip to tilt the election back to him.

by **Turtleneck** Tue 8 Nov 2016 - 0:34

I hate Hot Air because they do shitty work. I could care less about view. I read plenty of conservative journals. They just happen to be much better than Hot Air. I also hate when people like you pretend such sites are non-partisan.

So far you have not refuted anything I said. You have not shown us that Trump is not a demagogue. You have not shown us that he is not an inherent threat to our political institutions. You have not shown us that his populist politics do not have fascist tendencies. You could not even string together an argument that, even if these were all true, he would be held in place by an assertive Congress.

Instead, you deny any of the above is true on the basis of what people said about Romney and McCain. So, you judge Trump not on his own merit or even on a conservative standard, but instead what a small number of people said about two completely different people. I do not understand how one reaches the conclusion that such a process makes sense.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** Tue 8 Nov 2016 - 0:37

No, like the lunacy of McCain to the tea party to trump.

by **Watch Out Pylon!** Tue 8 Nov 2016 - 8:14

This thread is not a fun read.

by **NigelUno** Tue 8 Nov 2016 - 8:15

LooseGoose wrote:
NigelUno wrote:So, you believe Trump wasn't mocking him, because he was mocking him incorrectly?

Do you know how idiotic that makes you sound? I mean...I don't think you do, so I'm going to just tell you. It makes you sound incredibly idiotic. Beyond any normal idiocy. Epically idiotic. Possibly the most idiotic thing ever said on this great board. So, if you were going for that...congrats.

As usual you confuse me. Either you're incredibly dumb or playing it that way here.

Let's take it slow here just for you.

Step 1.
The point of all of those videos was that he uses the SAME impersonation no matter who he was mocking. Can we agree to that?

IF so, let me walk you to step 2.

Step 2.
Yes he was mocking the reporter. The reporter happens to be disabled. But Trump was mocking him EXACTLY like he mocks EVERYONE. So Trump was treating him exactly equally. Isn't that the goal of disability activists?

The point that was made over and over, and I doubt you missed it, is that the reporters arms DO NOT flail like Trump's were. So Trump was making fun of the reporter, NOT his disability.

Conclusion
As I said prior to posting that, it's not 100% persuasive and yes the way the media played the story it looked bad. But you could see it the way Trump's defenders do. That he's done that "impression" for a decade or more and had nothing to do specifically with that reporter.

It really sounds like you've convinced yourself.

by **Robert J Sakimano** Tue 8 Nov 2016 - 8:19

Turtleneck wrote:I'm really enjoying our civil discussion, Loose.

by **xsanguine** Tue 8 Nov 2016 - 8:30

What personal liberties do we possibly stand to lose after Jan 1st? With Hillary I'm anticipating 2nd amendment rights as well as an outside chance at some 1st amendment rights. Trump I'd say Muslim looking fellers will be hassled more and long term possibly screw with our pocket books when he pisses off trade partners with his arrogant "deal making". What else?

by Guest Tue 8 Nov 2016 - 9:25

Turtleneck wrote:I hate Hot Air because they do shitty work. I could care less about view. I read plenty of conservative journals. They just happen to be much better than Hot Air. I also hate when people like you pretend such sites are non-partisan.

Again you're making things up. Show me once where I've represented Hot Air as non partisan? Christ you're an idiot when you make accusations like that. The site was founded though no longer owned by Michelle Malkin, so no it's not and has never pretended to be non partisan. I do think they try to be fairly balanced in some of their stories like the horse race link I put here earlier.

by Guest Tue 8 Nov 2016 - 9:26

NigelUno wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

As usual you confuse me. Either you're incredibly dumb or playing it that way here.

Let's take it slow here just for you.

Step 1.
The point of all of those videos was that he uses the SAME impersonation no matter who he was mocking. Can we agree to that?

IF so, let me walk you to step 2.

Step 2.
Yes he was mocking the reporter. The reporter happens to be disabled. But Trump was mocking him EXACTLY like he mocks EVERYONE. So Trump was treating him exactly equally. Isn't that the goal of disability activists?

The point that was made over and over, and I doubt you missed it, is that the reporters arms DO NOT flail like Trump's were. So Trump was making fun of the reporter, NOT his disability.

Conclusion
As I said prior to posting that, it's not 100% persuasive and yes the way the media played the story it looked bad. But you could see it the way Trump's defenders do. That he's done that "impression" for a decade or more and had nothing to do specifically with that reporter.

It really sounds like you've convinced yourself.

It's pretty apparent you can't read.

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** Tue 8 Nov 2016 - 9:26

Voting for Hillary because of people like loose. We must not regress.

by Sponsored content