US Gen. Election Thread V: The Hunt for Red October Surprise

[The Mesozoic Era]

You projected when you complimented me for dodging a question, despite no questions being asked of me. Try to keep up.

I didn't ask a question. "Back at ya" was to your, "Nice juke."

As if I had said, "Nice juke" right back at you.

Get it?

[Cannot think of a name]

Aw, see? You can learn from your mistakes. There is hope! Now, go back and read carefully all the responses to your reaching misinterpretation and see if you can't unwind what you got wrong there and you'll have accomplished two things...it'll be a super productive afternoon for you.

Maybe if you're snarky enough, all the facts will back you up instead!

You're an adorable little scamp. You were invited to talk of substance. You could have pointed to something, anything, that would have bolstered your paranoid version of what she was saying by pointing to a public position that she held that was in deep contrast to what she actually did. If this were the epidemic problem you want us to truly believe it to be then in her 30 years of public service there would be a litany if instances where this would demonstrably be the case.

These, for point of reference, would be things that are commonly referred to as 'facts.' There are things where you can point to things she said in contrast to things she did. Concrete shit. Thirty years of public service, even if she didn't understand nuance and where to use it there would be at least a few instances where what she stated in public would run afowl of shit she had to do because there are a myriad of factors that play into individual decisions. It would be a spirited discussion of policy and the actual direction we decide to go as a country.

You have chosen not to do that. You have chosen to stomp your foot on the ground and insist that she is saying something she is not and then whine that no one believes you.

One of these approaches provokes substantive considered responses. One the forum equivalent of roughing your hair and going, "Sure...sure...run along now ya little scamp."

[Thermodolia]

Yes, and Hillary hasn't and won't for the same reason.

So why is this even a relevant point?
It's like arguing that both candidates have the same position on the colour of the sky.

Well if Trump said that the sky is blue I'd have to see for myself.

[The Mesozoic Era]

So why is this even a relevant point?
It's like arguing that both candidates have the same position on the colour of the sky.

So you are admitting that your own point doesn't matter?

Never even said I was going with Trump. My point still stands. Her faults are still her faults, it doesn't matter if they're shared.

[The Mesozoic Era]

You're an adorable little scamp. You were invited to talk of substance. You could have pointed to something, anything, that would have bolstered your paranoid version of what she was saying by pointing to a public position that she held that was in deep contrast to what she actually did. If this were the epidemic problem you want us to truly believe it to be then in her 30 years of public service there would be a litany if instances where this would demonstrably be the case.

These, for point of reference, would be things that are commonly referred to as 'facts.' There are things where you can point to things she said in contrast to things she did. Concrete shit. Thirty years of public service, even if she didn't understand nuance and where to use it there would be at least a few instances where what she stated in public would run afowl of shit she had to do because there are a myriad of factors that play into individual decisions. It would be a spirited discussion of policy and the actual direction we decide to go as a country.

You have chosen not to do that. You have chosen to stomp your foot on the ground and insist that she is saying something she is not and then whine that no one believes you.

One of these approaches provokes substantive considered responses. One the forum equivalent of roughing your hair and going, "Sure...sure...run along now ya little scamp."

You never presented any facts yourself, just made silly comments. I posted the email of her speech, the one where she tells her donors about her private policies and how she lies to the majority of people with her public policy.

[Camicon]

You projected when you complimented me for dodging a question, despite no questions being asked of me. Try to keep up.

I didn't ask a question. "Back at ya" was to your, "Nice juke."

As if I had said, "Nice juke" right back at you.

Get it?

So you don't understand what a juke is?

A juke is a move in football, whereby the player with the football deceives a tackler into missing them, thus "dodging" them.

You dodged Ctoan's questions. My tongue-in-cheek post playfully needled you for doing so. Your reply "Back at ya" complimented me for doing something that I hadn't done, but that you had; textbook projection.

[Cannot think of a name]

You projected when you complimented me for dodging a question, despite no questions being asked of me. Try to keep up.

I didn't ask a question. "Back at ya" was to your, "Nice juke."

As if I had said, "Nice juke" right back at you.

Get it?

Good grief dude.

[Alvecia]

So why is this even a relevant point?
It's like arguing that both candidates have the same position on the colour of the sky.

So you are admitting that your own point doesn't matter?

Never even said I was going with Trump. My point still stands. Her faults are still her faults, it doesn't matter if they're shared.

If they were shared then why did you single out Hillary for it?

[Cannot think of a name]

You're an adorable little scamp. You were invited to talk of substance. You could have pointed to something, anything, that would have bolstered your paranoid version of what she was saying by pointing to a public position that she held that was in deep contrast to what she actually did. If this were the epidemic problem you want us to truly believe it to be then in her 30 years of public service there would be a litany if instances where this would demonstrably be the case.

These, for point of reference, would be things that are commonly referred to as 'facts.' There are things where you can point to things she said in contrast to things she did. Concrete shit. Thirty years of public service, even if she didn't understand nuance and where to use it there would be at least a few instances where what she stated in public would run afowl of shit she had to do because there are a myriad of factors that play into individual decisions. It would be a spirited discussion of policy and the actual direction we decide to go as a country.

You have chosen not to do that. You have chosen to stomp your foot on the ground and insist that she is saying something she is not and then whine that no one believes you.

One of these approaches provokes substantive considered responses. One the forum equivalent of roughing your hair and going, "Sure...sure...run along now ya little scamp."

You never presented any facts yourself, just made silly comments. I posted the email of her speech, the one where she tells her donors about her private policies and how she lies to the majority of people with her public policy.

Stompstompstomp

[Occupied Deutschland]

Never even said I was going with Trump. My point still stands. Her faults are still her faults, it doesn't matter if they're shared.

If they were shared then why did you single out Hillary for it?

'Nobody else is interested in doing so', would seem to be the obvious answer by the dogpile of 'Omergerds' pointing such out has engendered.

[The Mesozoic Era]

If they were shared then why did you single out Hillary for it?

Her overwhelming support.

[Lady Scylla]

If they were shared then why did you single out Hillary for it?

Her overwhelming support.

Logic shot itself in the head apparently, on the brightside, the walls need to be repainted now.

[The Mesozoic Era]

Stompstompstomp

Still you say nothing.

Aw, see? You can learn from your mistakes. There is hope! Now, go back and read carefully all the responses to your reaching misinterpretation and see if you can't unwind what you got wrong there and you'll have accomplished two things...it'll be a super productive afternoon for you.

Maybe if you're snarky enough, all the facts will back you up instead!

What question was being asked that I juked?

[Thermodolia]

So why is this even a relevant point?
It's like arguing that both candidates have the same position on the colour of the sky.

So you are admitting that your own point doesn't matter?

Never even said I was going with Trump. My point still stands. Her faults are still her faults, it doesn't matter if they're shared.

What does voting for Trump have to do with this? I never said that you where nor assumed that you did in fact support Trump.

My point is that if both Trump and Hillary won't do something why are making such an scene when Hillary isn't going to do that thing?

[Lancaster of Wessex]

If they were shared then why did you single out Hillary for it?

Her overwhelming support.

Ain't nobody here proclaiming she's a saint. You're outraged because she says one thing and perhaps does another. That's politics. I don't condone it. You find me 500 honest politicians to fill Congress and the White House then, please.

[Cannot think of a name]

Stompstompstomp

Still you say nothing.

Maybe if you're snarky enough, all the facts will back you up instead!

What question was being asked that I juked?

What public policy has she stated that she as then done something else entirely? What, in her 30 year record, has demonstrated your thesis? Not the wikileak, actual things that actually happened.

Or, you can continue to complain that people aren't nice to you. I don't give a shit either way. You're low hanging fruit.

[The Mesozoic Era]

What does voting for Trump have to do with this? I never said that you where nor assumed that you did in fact support Trump.

My point is that if both Trump and Hillary won't do something why are making such an scene when Hillary isn't going to do that thing?

Because you all seem to think we are somehow better off with her.

[Thermodolia]

If they were shared then why did you single out Hillary for it?

Her overwhelming support.

Wowers!

[Philjia]

What does voting for Trump have to do with this? I never said that you where nor assumed that you did in fact support Trump.

My point is that if both Trump and Hillary won't do something why are making such an scene when Hillary isn't going to do that thing?

Because you all seem to think we are somehow better off with her.

Because we are.

[Thermodolia]

What does voting for Trump have to do with this? I never said that you where nor assumed that you did in fact support Trump.

My point is that if both Trump and Hillary won't do something why are making such an scene when Hillary isn't going to do that thing?

Because you all seem to think we are somehow better off with her.

Compared to Trump yes.

[Trumpostan]

I'm not active in these threads whatsoever, but I just wanted to hear why there seems to be so much Hillary support here on NationStates, or rather this thread in particular. I assume the majority have already seen the Project Veritas clips, and the several emails released by Guccifer and WikiLeaks. Does any of the evidence brought to light bother the HRC supporters?

None of that is "evidence".

Alt-right and conspiracy BS is not "evidence", never has been and never will be. tell me why hasn't anyone ever succesfully sued the Clintons over anything? Say for example about the right wing accusations of rape and all that? Reason: it was all manufactured by Newt Gingrich and the vast right wing smear machine. I would so enjoy watching these assholes getting their behinds kicked again. Please make it so fellow voters! Give me more Karl Rovian meltdowns. Or perhaps some seditionous calls for uprisings from GOP members of Congress or governors so they can be arrested and charged with a criminal conspiracy.

Speaking of court cases, you know who is actually going to court? Scam artist Donald Trump will have to face judge Curiel next month, and in december there's another case coming: pedophilic rape.

[Thermodolia]

Because you all seem to think we are somehow better off with her.

Because we are.

Shocker!! The world is going to end!!

[Cannot think of a name]

What does voting for Trump have to do with this? I never said that you where nor assumed that you did in fact support Trump.

My point is that if both Trump and Hillary won't do something why are making such an scene when Hillary isn't going to do that thing?

Because you all seem to think we are somehow better off with her.

Vastly.

[Camicon]

Because you all seem to think we are somehow better off with her.

Vastly Bigly.

Ftfy.

[Cannot think of a name]

Vastly Bigly.

Ftfy.

Fuck. I've been missing easy ones a lot lately, losing my touch man...