NationStates

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

Hetalia Dakota 2 II wrote:He's too left for the establishment which is why he is outside of it. Don't get me wrong I like the man and his policy he simply isn't my pick and I feel he's be dead on arrival in the general election.

There isn't a single current poll that shows him losing in the general. There's one where he's in a statistical tie with one GOP candidate, but that's it. Everything else shows him winning against the major candidates.

Deuxtete wrote:Wiser, you're barely literate.
And since we're all fine with everything who we might for for had done, and I don't see claim to have a dog in the fight...you not voting this election? Not got that card mailed in yet Grandpa?
Maybe after your balls drop, dude.
Little tip for you junior, grown men don't type shit like "sound of door slamming shut".

The Guaranteed Eternal Sanctuary Man wrote:You write "Might for for have done" and claim others to be illiterate. As I said you are a hypocrite. Your ignorance is only eclipsed by your ugliness and, oh yeah, the hypocrisy.

Maybe you might wanna run along home about now before you are on the outside looking in, if it's not too late already.

Hetalia Dakota 2 II wrote:

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
There isn't a single current poll that shows him losing in the general. There's one where he's in a statistical tie with one GOP candidate, but that's it. Everything else shows him winning against the major candidates.

Either way, he seems to be the only candidate people talk about these days. I've never seen it like this before.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

Deuxtete wrote:All of them, per your standard.
Including that he will arbitrarily use nuclear weapons, and what position he has shifted on beyond conventional wisdom.

He serious claim of building a 250 ft tall 2000 mile long wall.

All of them, again if you can't go back and source every single claim you made, I hardly feel obliged to myself...its your standard after all.

Okay.

I already stated that the nuclear weapons comment was hyperbole, a rhetorical device used to make a point, not meant to be taken seriously. I thought that this was obvious from the context. I was wrong. As it's something that you are unable to detect, I will refrain from using it in the future. The same goes for "250 feet". Again, I thought that you would be able to detect exaggeration for the sake of effect, and this was obviously unfair of me. It was a reference to a joke regarding Donald Trump, a fisherman, and an immigrant. I apologize for both, and will not attempt to use humor or exaggeration in order to drive home a point with you again.

However, my serious claims stand, particularly regarding his absolutely atrocious immigration plan.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

Hetalia Dakota 2 II wrote:Either way, he seems to be the only candidate people talk about these days. I've never seen it like this before.

That's true online. I'd like to see him hit the mainstream media a bit more, but we're cracking that nut.

Deuxtete wrote:

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
Okay.

I already stated that the nuclear weapons comment was hyperbole, a rhetorical device used to make a point, not meant to be taken seriously. I thought that this was obvious from the context. I was wrong. As it's something that you are unable to detect, I will refrain from using it in the future. The same goes for "250 feet". Again, I thought that you would be able to detect exaggeration for the sake of effect, and this was obviously unfair of me. It was a reference to a joke regarding Donald Trump, a fisherman, and an immigrant. I apologize for both, and will not attempt to use humor or exaggeration in order to drive home a point with you again.

However, my serious claims stand, particularly regarding his absolutely atrocious immigration plan.

Serious claim. Singular.
Because the immigration thing is the only thing you sourced.
That and Hillary's time interview piece, with a hardly detailed plan.

Anything on that claim of her competence...besides your word I mean?

Hetalia Dakota 2 II wrote:

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
That's true online. I'd like to see him hit the mainstream media a bit more, but we're cracking that nut.

Am I a bad person for feeling put off if someone is in my favs and shared all over with me constantly to the point of me not wanting anything to do win them. I can't see myself voting for Sanders.

Hetalia Dakota 2 II wrote:

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
That's true online. I'd like to see him hit the mainstream media a bit more, but we're cracking that nut.

Am I a bad person for feeling put off if someone is in my favs and shared all over with me constantly to the point of me not wanting anything to do win them. I can't see myself voting for Sanders.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

Hetalia Dakota 2 II wrote:Am I a bad person for feeling put off if someone is in my favs and shared all over with me constantly to the point of me not wanting anything to do win them. I can't see myself voting for Sanders.

It's understandable. I've found a number of my fellow supporters to be absolutely insufferable. However, I'd recommend basing your final judgment on policies, not on the excesses of some followers.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

Deuxtete wrote:Serious claim. Singular.
Because the immigration thing is the only thing you sourced.
That and Hillary's time interview piece, with a hardly detailed plan.

Anything on that claim of her competence...besides your word I mean?

The immigration thing is what he's running on. I don't think that he has much of an economic plan other than vague allusions to having done business with various countries. I'm unaware of any racial justice platform. There's nothing regarding unions, but considering his history, I can't imagine that he looks upon them favorably. There's a number of claims that he'll do grand things, but no details as to how.

What source would you accept as evidence of Clinton's competence? The first four items here would seem to speak well of her accomplishments as Secretary of State (The last one is amusing, but irrelevant), she was a reasonably effective Senator, and despite some missteps regarding her desire to radically shake up healthcare out of the gate, she was probably the most active and effective First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt, though she made some stumbles that she seems to have learned from.

Deuxtete wrote:

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
The immigration thing is what he's running on. I don't think that he has much of an economic plan other than vague allusions to having done business with various countries. I'm unaware of any racial justice platform. There's nothing regarding unions, but considering his history, I can't imagine that he looks upon them favorably. There's a number of claims that he'll do grand things, but no details as to how.

What source would you accept as evidence of Clinton's competence? The first four items here would seem to speak well of her accomplishments as Secretary of State (The last one is amusing, but irrelevant), she was a reasonably effective Senator, and despite some missteps regarding her desire to radically shake up healthcare out of the gate, she was probably the most active and effective First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt, though she made some stumbles that she seems to have learned from.

I'm rather fond of his revised tax brackets, increased taxes on investment gains, reduced corporate tax...

But yeah, no plan. I'm making it up as I go.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

Deuxtete wrote:Serious claim. Singular.
Because the immigration thing is the only thing you sourced.
That and Hillary's time interview piece, with a hardly detailed plan.

Anything on that claim of her competence...besides your word I mean?

The immigration thing is what he's running on. I don't think that he has much of an economic plan other than vague allusions to having done business with various countries. I'm unaware of any racial justice platform. There's nothing regarding unions, but considering his history, I can't imagine that he looks upon them favorably. There's a number of claims that he'll do grand things, but no details as to how.

What source would you accept as evidence of Clinton's competence? The first four items here would seem to speak well of her accomplishments as Secretary of State (The last one is amusing, but irrelevant), she was a reasonably effective Senator, and despite some missteps regarding her desire to radically shake up healthcare out of the gate, she was probably the most active and effective First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt, though she made some stumbles that she seems to have learned from.

Deuxtete wrote:http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/87613 doesn't sound impressive...let me check another source.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
The immigration thing is what he's running on. I don't think that he has much of an economic plan other than vague allusions to having done business with various countries. I'm unaware of any racial justice platform. There's nothing regarding unions, but considering his history, I can't imagine that he looks upon them favorably. There's a number of claims that he'll do grand things, but no details as to how.

What source would you accept as evidence of Clinton's competence? The first four items here would seem to speak well of her accomplishments as Secretary of State (The last one is amusing, but irrelevant), she was a reasonably effective Senator, and despite some missteps regarding her desire to radically shake up healthcare out of the gate, she was probably the most active and effective First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt, though she made some stumbles that she seems to have learned from.

I'm rather fond of his revised tax brackets, increased taxes on investment gains, reduced corporate tax...

But yeah, no plan. I'm making it up as I go.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

Deuxtete wrote:Serious claim. Singular.
Because the immigration thing is the only thing you sourced.
That and Hillary's time interview piece, with a hardly detailed plan.

Anything on that claim of her competence...besides your word I mean?

The immigration thing is what he's running on. I don't think that he has much of an economic plan other than vague allusions to having done business with various countries. I'm unaware of any racial justice platform. There's nothing regarding unions, but considering his history, I can't imagine that he looks upon them favorably. There's a number of claims that he'll do grand things, but no details as to how.

What source would you accept as evidence of Clinton's competence? The first four items here would seem to speak well of her accomplishments as Secretary of State (The last one is amusing, but irrelevant), she was a reasonably effective Senator, and despite some missteps regarding her desire to radically shake up healthcare out of the gate, she was probably the most active and effective First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt, though she made some stumbles that she seems to have learned from.

Deuxtete wrote:https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/hillary_clinton/300022 hmm she missed nearly five times the number of roll call votes as her contemporaries, not looking super competent ...let me check another source.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/87613 doesn't sound impressive...let me check another source.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
The immigration thing is what he's running on. I don't think that he has much of an economic plan other than vague allusions to having done business with various countries. I'm unaware of any racial justice platform. There's nothing regarding unions, but considering his history, I can't imagine that he looks upon them favorably. There's a number of claims that he'll do grand things, but no details as to how.

What source would you accept as evidence of Clinton's competence? The first four items here would seem to speak well of her accomplishments as Secretary of State (The last one is amusing, but irrelevant), she was a reasonably effective Senator, and despite some missteps regarding her desire to radically shake up healthcare out of the gate, she was probably the most active and effective First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt, though she made some stumbles that she seems to have learned from.

I'm rather fond of his revised tax brackets, increased taxes on investment gains, reduced corporate tax...

But yeah, no plan. I'm making it up as I go.

Deuxtete wrote:

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
Okay.

I already stated that the nuclear weapons comment was hyperbole, a rhetorical device used to make a point, not meant to be taken seriously. I thought that this was obvious from the context. I was wrong. As it's something that you are unable to detect, I will refrain from using it in the future. The same goes for "250 feet". Again, I thought that you would be able to detect exaggeration for the sake of effect, and this was obviously unfair of me. It was a reference to a joke regarding Donald Trump, a fisherman, and an immigrant. I apologize for both, and will not attempt to use humor or exaggeration in order to drive home a point with you again.

However, my serious claims stand, particularly regarding his absolutely atrocious immigration plan.

Serious claim. Singular.
Because the immigration thing is the only thing you sourced.
That and Hillary's time interview piece, with a hardly detailed plan.

Anything on that claim of her competence...besides your word I mean?

Great Nazi Germania wrote:all of them are faggots

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

Hetalia Dakota 2 II wrote:Am I a bad person for feeling put off if someone is in my favs and shared all over with me constantly to the point of me not wanting anything to do win them. I can't see myself voting for Sanders.

It's understandable. I've found a number of my fellow supporters to be absolutely insufferable. However, I'd recommend basing your final judgment on policies, not on the excesses of some followers.

Atlanticatia wrote:http://www.thenation.com/article/can-hillary-clinton-win-over-the-left/

Interesting article I read: Can Hillary Clinton Win Over the Left?

Northern Davincia wrote:

Atlanticatia wrote:http://www.thenation.com/article/can-hillary-clinton-win-over-the-left/

Interesting article I read: Can Hillary Clinton Win Over the Left?

Not if Biden runs, and as much as I want him to, it's becoming increasingly unlikely.

Pot4toes wrote:Oh my God, Hillary Clinton killed Kenny!
YOU BASTARDS!

Gauthier wrote:

Pot4toes wrote:Oh my God, Hillary Clinton killed Kenny!
YOU BASTARDS!

That was Vince Foster's middle name?

Corrian wrote:I think one of my biggest issues with Hillary is that watching her speak, I feel like I'm watching a scripted actor, compared to Bernie Sanders who actually acts passionate about what he's talking about.