Anyone still undecided?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-09-2016, 04:31 AM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2016 04:37 AM by Banjo.)
RE: Anyone still undecided?
(18-09-2016 09:19 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(18-09-2016 06:22 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  My problem with Bernie supporters is most of them are acting like petulant children. They spout off their undying love and loyalty for this guy and after he loses they show their loyalty was paper thin. The guy gets most of the platform he wants and tells his supporters they have one candidate to choose to get as close to what they want as possible. If they trusted him in the primaries, why do they now tell him to fuck off when he says you must vote for Hillary? SMH.
It might have something to do with him saying that you shouldn't listen to him when he tells you to vote a certain way earlier this year. He said that you should make these decisions for yourself and that it's up to Hillary to convince his supporters of her merits (see below). Another contributing factor could be that the changes Bernie was able to make to the Democratic platform are in no way binding. Many of his supporters see it as an empty victory because nothing obligates Hillary to enact those changes once elected. They trust Bernie, but they don't trust Hillary and rightly so. She's been lying to the American people about her e-mail scandal for over a year. You would have to be very gullible to believe anything she promises you on the campaign trail.



Hard to know how to respond to a right wing German after last century. Tongue




NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
20-09-2016, 05:06 AM
RE: Anyone still undecided?
(19-09-2016 09:54 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  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.
He didn't take it back, at least not in the videos the article linked as its sources. I don't know if you watched them, but I couldn't find the quote the writer was using to justify his remark that Sanders "seems" to have walked back his comments.





(19-09-2016 09:54 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  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
Maybe you think that repeatedly mimicking someone's words like a parrot is cutesy, but I simply find it irritating. If you've got some sort of point to make, just say it.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2016, 05:25 AM
RE: Anyone still undecided?
(20-09-2016 04:28 AM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  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

Those are not mutually exclusive options

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
20-09-2016, 05:38 AM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2016 05:44 AM by Chas.)
RE: Anyone still undecided?
(20-09-2016 05:06 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(19-09-2016 09:54 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  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
Maybe you think that repeatedly mimicking someone's words like a parrot is cutesy, but I simply find it irritating. If you've got some sort of point to make, just say it.

Actually, it's an effective rhetorical device. The use of parallel syntax emphasizes the contrast between the two positions.

Maybe you think that repeatedly repeating someone's words is like an irritating parrot, but I find it effective. He had some sort of point to make, and said it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
20-09-2016, 05:39 AM
RE: Anyone still undecided?
(20-09-2016 05:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  Actually, it's an effective rhetorical device.
Care to say why you think so?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2016, 05:47 AM
RE: Anyone still undecided?
(20-09-2016 05:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-09-2016 05:06 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Maybe you think that repeatedly mimicking someone's words like a parrot is cutesy, but I simply find it irritating. If you've got some sort of point to make, just say it.

Actually, it's an effective rhetorical device. The use of parallel syntax emphasizes the contrast between the two positions.

Maybe you think that repeatedly repeating someone's words is like an irritating parrot, but I find it effective. He had some sort of point to make, and said it.

What irritates him is that it was effective.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
20-09-2016, 08:14 AM
RE: Anyone still undecided?
(20-09-2016 05:39 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(20-09-2016 05:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  Actually, it's an effective rhetorical device.
Care to say why you think so?

The use of parallel syntax emphasizes the contrast between the two positions.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
20-09-2016, 08:45 AM
RE: Anyone still undecided?
I'm an undecided voter. I'm planning to vote Johnson but I live in a state that could matter, and part of me is thinking I should vote Clinton to keep Fuckface von Clownstick out of office. I'm not sure I can bring myself to do that.

The debates will have no impact on me. The only influence is where the polls on PA sit come November. If it really looks to be close, I may hold my nose and vote for the criminal to beat the fascist /narcissist.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like BnW's post
20-09-2016, 01:20 PM
RE: Anyone still undecided?
(20-09-2016 05:06 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(19-09-2016 09:54 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  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.
He didn't take it back, at least not in the videos the article linked as its sources. I don't know if you watched them, but I couldn't find the quote the writer was using to justify his remark that Sanders "seems" to have walked back his comments.





(19-09-2016 09:54 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  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
Maybe you think that repeatedly mimicking someone's words like a parrot is cutesy, but I simply find it irritating. If you've got some sort of point to make, just say it.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-p...ied-221709

I'm not being cutesy, I'm busting your balls because you did the same thing as I did and you tried to take me to task for it. I interpreted his air quotes, which everyone here knows why he was using them, because he didn't really mean it. You in turn interpreted why you think he is stumping for her and endorsing her, so I told you that your interpretation means nothing. The fact is, he has endorsed her and he is putting his full weight behind her. You don't do that if you think she isn't qualified.

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, 03:44 PM
RE: Anyone still undecided?
(20-09-2016 01:20 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-p...ied-221709
Thanks, that seems to be the right video.

(20-09-2016 01:20 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  I'm not being cutesy, I'm busting your balls because you did the same thing as I did and you tried to take me to task for it.
I didn't do the same thing you did. You claimed that Bernie never said she isn't qualified when he actually did and decided to interpret his words to mean the opposite of what he said instead of admitting that you were wrong after I initially pointed out your error. I never asserted that Sanders doesn't support Clinton or that he isn't stumping for her, I countered your opinion that he wouldn't support her if he didn't think she was qualified (an opinion you repeated further down below) by offering an alternative explanation for why he would still do it. It would be one thing if you used my words against me in the proper context, but your repetitious use of them in the wrong context only serves to annoy me.

(20-09-2016 01:20 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  I interpreted his air quotes, which everyone here knows why he was using them, because he didn't really mean it.
As far as I can tell, you're the only one aside from me who has voiced his opinion on the matter in this thread. It's probably a good idea to refrain from speaking for everyone in a situation like that and to be content with only speaking for yourself.

(20-09-2016 01:20 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  You in turn interpreted why you think he is stumping for her and endorsing her, so I told you that your interpretation means nothing. The fact is, he has endorsed her and he is putting his full weight behind her. You don't do that if you think she isn't qualified.
That's an opinion, not a fact. As I've said before, the damage a Trump presidency would inevitably cause to the goals of his progressive movement could be enough to convince him to back her even if he thinks that she isn't qualified.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: