Anyone still undecided?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-09-2016, 08:40 PM
RE: Anyone still undecided?
(19-09-2016 07:13 AM)WillHopp Wrote:  He may have criticized her, but he never said she wasn't qualified to be president. She may have done things he was railing against, but that hardly makes her disqualified.
He actually did say that. I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were ignorant of that fact rather than trying to rewrite history.




(19-09-2016 07:13 AM)WillHopp Wrote:  And he is telling his supporters why she is qualified and why he is supporting her. If they trust him and his opinion, that should be enough.
When did he do that? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm legitimately curious.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2016, 09:09 PM
RE: Anyone still undecided?
(19-09-2016 08:40 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(19-09-2016 07:13 AM)WillHopp Wrote:  He may have criticized her, but he never said she wasn't qualified to be president. She may have done things he was railing against, but that hardly makes her disqualified.
He actually did say that. I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were ignorant of that fact rather than trying to rewrite history.




(19-09-2016 07:13 AM)WillHopp Wrote:  And he is telling his supporters why she is qualified and why he is supporting her. If they trust him and his opinion, that should be enough.
When did he do that? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm legitimately curious.

Well, a couple of things here: First, your video shows him using air quotes, which in America means he doesn't really mean she isn't qualified but that she did some things he disapproved of and is rubbing it in her face after the less than flattering remarks she made about him in an earlier interview. Almost immediately after he made this speech you highlighted, he walked back his "qualified" rhetoric and said "of course she is qualified."

Here is a link from WAY back in April. So, not sure if you're ignorant to this news tidbit, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that he said she was indeed qualified.

Also, the fact that he endorsed her and has been stumping for her pretty hard may not be a direct quote of him saying "She is qualified," but if you loosen your pedantic purse springs a tad you'll come to the conclusion he obviously wouldn't do this for someone he knew was unqualified. His support for her means his supporters, if they trust him and are loyal, just swallow the pill and vote for her. He carefully explains all of the reasons they should vote for her, and THAT is him explaining why.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2016, 09:27 PM
RE: Anyone still undecided?
(19-09-2016 09:09 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Well, a couple of things here: First, your video shows him using air quotes, which in America means he doesn't really mean she isn't qualified but that she did some things he disapproved of and is rubbing it in her face after the less than flattering remarks she made about him in an earlier interview.
No offense, but I'm not interested in reading your personal interpretation of his words and actions. You claimed that he never said she wasn't qualified to be president, but that's exactly what he did in that video. An acknowledgment of that fact would go a long way towards showing you're open to being corrected when you're in the wrong.

(19-09-2016 09:09 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Almost immediately after he made this speech you highlighted, he walked back his "qualified" rhetoric and said "of course she is qualified."

Here is a link from WAY back in April. So, not sure if you're ignorant to this news tidbit, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that he said she was indeed qualified.
You forgot to post the link; there's no URL in your post.

(19-09-2016 09:09 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Also, the fact that he endorsed her and has been stumping for her pretty hard may not be a direct quote of him saying "She is qualified," but if you loosen your pedantic purse springs a tad you'll come to the conclusion he obviously wouldn't do this for someone he knew was unqualified. His support for her means his supporters, if they trust him and are loyal, just swallow the pill and vote for her. He carefully explains all of the reasons they should vote for her, and THAT is him explaining why.
I think he endorsed her and is stumping for her because Trump's presidency and his picks for the Supreme Court would set back his progressive agenda by decades. As far as I'm concerned, that's all there is to his support for her.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2016, 09:54 PM
RE: Anyone still undecided?
Oops, sorry.

http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-s...ied-445485

And yes, I agree with you that he said it; I was wrong that the words did escape his mouth. My interpretation aside, when someone takes back what they say, does that mean the intent is taken back, too? To me, he was being sarcastic, because otherwise there is no reason to walk back the comment. If he truly believes she is qualified, then his rhetoric was just that and if his supporters can't understand that then maybe they shouldn't vote after all.

As for your last couple of lines, Vosur, no offense, but I have no interest in your personal interpretations of why you think Sanders is stumping for her, the fact is he is stumping for her and telling his supporters to vote for her. Smartass

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2016, 10:02 PM
RE: Anyone still undecided?
I'd like to make a case for not voting for Johnson/Weld. If your concern is having someone who seems to be in touch with what we are going through as a country and someone who is prepared and will be prepared on Day 1, then you clearly can't vote for this ticket. The man had no idea what Aleppo was. But even if you give him a pass and just say it was a brain fart, though I have no idea how he could not know that, he then today said in an interview that he was grateful that no one got hurt in the New York/New Jersey bombings over the weekend. Seriously? 29 people went to the hospital. While I know he meant to say no one was killed and everyone looks to be recovering fully, the weed has fried his brain. He probably doesn't realize it yet, but he is lucky he didn't qualify for the debates because he would be made to look like the idiot he is. Also, Carl Bernstein reported Weld is considering dropping out because he is afraid their ticket might actually be the reason Trump could win. That they would serve as a catalyst to his campaign. While they have denied this, Bernstein doesn't report lightly and he took down Nixon for Zeus' sake. Far too many things wrong with this ticket.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2016, 12:55 AM
RE: Anyone still undecided?
I'm still undecided. With all the damage "Us v. Them" has done in the political arena of this country in the last 20-some years, we stand to get more divisive and less capable of compromise as we move ahead. We now talk about entire sessions of "lame duck" congresses, and it's growing more and more impossible to see the concept of patriotism over politics taking hold anytime soon. Trump getting elected may just be the thing necessary to burn our current concept of national politics down. From the ashes, we might learn to value compromise and maybe even get a third and fourth viable party that blends the current social ideals of one party with the fiscal ideals of another, such that one doesn't need to accept the socioreligious viewpoints of the Republicans to vie for fiscal conservatism, or accept the concept of Big Government to maintain social freedoms. Maybe Trump would condense the decades of pain necessary to affect real change and condense it into four short years of chaos and hell.

Then again, using dynamite to clean the carpets may not be the brightest idea. So, which is better - 4-8 more years of no real change going down the road of unsustainable debt and political infighting and the "K Street White House (which, by the way, I assign blame to both parties)," or four years of utter chaos followed by what will undoubtedly be a massive shift in the relationship between the American voter and national politics? Trump may be a catalyst of real change by the nature of how horrible he will be as president - offset by the possibility that the powderkeg might be so large that we do irreparable harm.

I readily agree that virtually nothing about Trump suggests that he will be a good or effective president, but the potential for change is tempting...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like mrgr8avill's post
20-09-2016, 02:59 AM
RE: Anyone still undecided?
(19-09-2016 01:48 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  My (in)decision continues.

The only thing I know for certain is Trump doesn't deserve my vote. Since I don't live in a swing state, it's unlikely my vote matters much anyway.

In our current political system not every vote matters.

This is why the winner-take-all method used by most states should have been history a long time ago. Nebraska and one or two others award electors proportionally. It enables more votes to count. Should be a no-brainer for other states.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like tomilay's post
20-09-2016, 03:34 AM
RE: Anyone still undecided?
(19-09-2016 05:51 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  I'd rather not vote for an imbecile, or a sheisty lady, so would it be better for me to throw my vote into a Johnson/Weld ticket, or just not vote?

Who do you think is going to pick better replacement Supreme Court Justices?

Clinton and Trump are the only two viable candidates. Any vote not for one of them, is directly or indirectly a vote for the other. Voting third party is both a vote both for your conscious, and a vote for the person you most want to keep out of that same office.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
20-09-2016, 04:13 AM
RE: Anyone still undecided?
(19-09-2016 02:13 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(19-09-2016 01:53 PM)Loom Wrote:  I'm more concerned on where I'm going to want to live over who I want to vote for.

Seriously debating whether to move to Canada or somethin...

Consider

Canada is too cold for me.

I may say duck it and move to Mexico.

move to Vancouver it's pretty warn there all year round (the housing markets due to crash and day now ) and far fewer drug cartels(thou there quite a few triads there)

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2016, 04:28 AM
RE: Anyone still undecided?
really what are you really deciding really weather trump will

1. turn half the world against the united states and spark ww3

2.will split the united states up sparking a second civil war

3.will be a lame duck loud mouth who will betray his supporters and spend the next 4 years running a freak show to stroke his inflated ego till eventually he's voted out then rights a book blaming everyone else for his mistakes

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes OrdoSkeptica's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: