For The "Bernie or Busters"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-06-2016, 04:17 PM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
(11-06-2016 03:53 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  I told you I would not address it. Again, this is NOT the "I hate Hillary" thread. Do I need to say it really slow?
You need to realize that there is a difference between criticism and hate. All I did was post a link to a newspaper article that points out something negative about Clinton. I don't know what kind of mental gymnastics you have to go through to think that posting a link constitutes "hate." This entire thread is about the "Bernie or Bust" movement which made it its goal not to vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. Her faults are obviously very relevant to this thread. You also didn't seem to have much of a problem with going off-topic to discuss why I get involved with US politics (a discussion that you started by asking me about it, by the way). It was only after I criticized your favorite candidate that you decided off-topic discussions were not okay.

(11-06-2016 03:53 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  Try posting that where it's appropriate..... Oh, gee, I get it, that's a good deflection, except it isn't. Changing the subject and then getting bent because I won't play is sad, very sad. Guess you'll have to play with yourself now. Thumbsup
Well, yeah, that actually is a good deflection. If you simply had no interest in talking about it, you could have said "I don't want to talk about Clinton in this thread", but no, you wanted to have your cake and eat it too. You wanted to avoid talking about the topic while, at the same time, trying to discredit the article by calling it "proven lies." You made sure that you would never have to defend your baseless claim by resorting back to the "This is not the thread to talk about it" excuse every time someone challenged it. A very convenient, very transparent and very dishonest tactic. How much money do you want to bet that you won't defend your claim if I post it in the 'appropriate' "Why I Dislike Hillary Clinton" thread either? Let me do that right now. Laugh out load

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2016, 04:39 PM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
(11-06-2016 04:17 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(11-06-2016 03:53 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  I told you I would not address it. Again, this is NOT the "I hate Hillary" thread. Do I need to say it really slow?
You need to realize that there is a difference between criticism and hate. All I did was post a link to a newspaper article that points out something negative about Clinton. I don't know what kind of mental gymnastics you have to go through to think that posting a link constitutes "hate." This entire thread is about the "Bernie or Bust" movement which made it its goal not to vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. Her faults are obviously very relevant to this thread. You also didn't seem to have much of a problem with going off-topic to discuss why I get involved with US politics (a discussion that you started by asking me about it, by the way). It was only after I criticized your favorite candidate that you decided off-topic discussions were not okay.

(11-06-2016 03:53 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  Try posting that where it's appropriate..... Oh, gee, I get it, that's a good deflection, except it isn't. Changing the subject and then getting bent because I won't play is sad, very sad. Guess you'll have to play with yourself now. Thumbsup
Well, yeah, that actually is a good deflection. If you simply had no interest in talking about it, you could have said "I don't want to talk about Clinton in this thread", but no, you wanted to have your cake and eat it too. You wanted to avoid talking about the topic while, at the same time, trying to discredit the article by calling it "proven lies." You made sure that you would never have to defend your baseless claim by resorting back to the "This is not the thread to talk about it" excuse every time someone challenged it. A very convenient, very transparent and very dishonest tactic. How much money do you want to bet that you won't defend your claim if I post it in the 'appropriate' "Why I Dislike Hillary Clinton" thread either? Let me do that right now. Laugh out load

I was having a discussion with you about something else entirely and you changed the subject and then got bent because I did not agree to the change. That's on you.

Here's the reality, no matter what you want, I do not have to comply. You have tried to engage me in a discussion on Hillary several times in a variety of threads and I have refused, once with you was enough. No. I will not discuss it with you in that thread or this thread or any other thread. I have made myself clear on this numerous times. Please stop asking.

You cannot and will not force me to do so. I will not be harassed or coerced into it. Just, no. This is the last time I will state it. Just so everyone here, not just you, knows I will not have any conversation on Hillary or anything else that you want to drag me into, because you do not just discuss, when you don't get your way or someone does not agree you, you use ad homs and denigration and I do not consent to it. Just like you used above when I would not comply with your subject change. Just like you used in this post I'm replying to.

I have the right to refuse to converse with you on certain subjects that I find you to be too volatile on or any subjects, for that matter. If you don't like that you are perfectly within your right not to engage me at all.


That is all. Thx

[Image: dnw9krH.jpg?4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Heatheness's post
11-06-2016, 04:55 PM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
(11-06-2016 11:51 AM)Heatheness Wrote:  
(11-06-2016 11:39 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Because disagreeing about the best way to address the issues facing a country doesn't immediately mean that those voting for someone less likely to win are doing so to assuage their ego.

They may well actually believe that their candidate has a better approach, and aren't willing to compromise their voice just for the comfort of knowing they voted for the winner.

What if, at the end of October, Trump were to have a thirty-point lead over Clinton? Would you not vote at all? Would you still vote Clinton? (I know better than to ask if you'd vote for Trump Smile ).

I get this part (bolded above) but if your candidate has no chance, then what point is your vote but to (as you put it, which I would not but...) feed your ego? That is the part I do not understand. It seems to me that it is doing just that, in actuality, if not in intent.

No, I probably would not vote at all if I truly thought it was already a done deal. I have never felt that so I honestly don't know.

I don't wait until just before polls close and try to vote the winner but I do vote the winner of the party I most identify with, even if that candidate is not the one I want most.

EDIT*** I would like to see a 5 party required system. Not just people wanting more than a two party system but at least 5 parties offered and represented by law. I do not think we will ever get away from the 2 party system until this is law.

Voting third-party when they're certain to lose will still be counted as a vote for a third party. The two majors certainly track their voting returns, and I would think that a third-party siphoning votes from them would be a cause for concern. If there are enough independent voters, they may actually have to review their stances.

It's not about ego, for me. It is practical.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2016, 05:08 PM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
(11-06-2016 04:55 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(11-06-2016 11:51 AM)Heatheness Wrote:  I get this part (bolded above) but if your candidate has no chance, then what point is your vote but to (as you put it, which I would not but...) feed your ego? That is the part I do not understand. It seems to me that it is doing just that, in actuality, if not in intent.

No, I probably would not vote at all if I truly thought it was already a done deal. I have never felt that so I honestly don't know.

I don't wait until just before polls close and try to vote the winner but I do vote the winner of the party I most identify with, even if that candidate is not the one I want most.

EDIT*** I would like to see a 5 party required system. Not just people wanting more than a two party system but at least 5 parties offered and represented by law. I do not think we will ever get away from the 2 party system until this is law.

Voting third-party when they're certain to lose will still be counted as a vote for a third party. The two majors certainly track their voting returns, and I would think that a third-party siphoning votes from them would be a cause for concern. If there are enough independent voters, they may actually have to review their stances.

It's not about ego, for me. It is practical.

Okay, I guess if you feel your vote doesn't count any other way then I get that.

[Image: dnw9krH.jpg?4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Heatheness's post
11-06-2016, 05:15 PM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
(11-06-2016 04:39 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  
(11-06-2016 04:17 PM)Vosur Wrote:  You need to realize that there is a difference between criticism and hate. All I did was post a link to a newspaper article that points out something negative about Clinton. I don't know what kind of mental gymnastics you have to go through to think that posting a link constitutes "hate." This entire thread is about the "Bernie or Bust" movement which made it its goal not to vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. Her faults are obviously very relevant to this thread. You also didn't seem to have much of a problem with going off-topic to discuss why I get involved with US politics (a discussion that you started by asking me about it, by the way). It was only after I criticized your favorite candidate that you decided off-topic discussions were not okay.

Well, yeah, that actually is a good deflection. If you simply had no interest in talking about it, you could have said "I don't want to talk about Clinton in this thread", but no, you wanted to have your cake and eat it too. You wanted to avoid talking about the topic while, at the same time, trying to discredit the article by calling it "proven lies." You made sure that you would never have to defend your baseless claim by resorting back to the "This is not the thread to talk about it" excuse every time someone challenged it. A very convenient, very transparent and very dishonest tactic. How much money do you want to bet that you won't defend your claim if I post it in the 'appropriate' "Why I Dislike Hillary Clinton" thread either? Let me do that right now. Laugh out load

I was having a discussion with you about something else entirely and you changed the subject and then got bent because I did not agree to the change. That's on you.

Here's the reality, no matter what you want, I do not have to comply. You have tried to engage me in a discussion on Hillary several times in a variety of threads and I have refused, once with you was enough. No. I will not discuss it with you in that thread or this thread or any other thread. I have made myself clear on this numerous times. Please stop asking.

You cannot and will not force me to do so. I will not be harassed or coerced into it. Just, no. This is the last time I will state it. Just so everyone here, not just you, knows I will not have any conversation on Hillary or anything else that you want to drag me into, because you do not just discuss, when you don't get your way or someone does not agree you, you use ad homs and denigration and I do not consent to it. Just like you used above when I would not comply with your subject change. Just like you used in this post I'm replying to.

I have the right to refuse to converse with you on certain subjects that I find you to be too volatile on or any subjects, for that matter. If you don't like that you are perfectly within your right not to engage me at all.


That is all. Thx
You remember what I said about you being predictable? I would be a couple bucks richer right about now if someone had taken me up on that bet. You can stick your fingers in your ears, shout "Lalalalala, I can't hear you!" whenever someone criticizes Hillary and refuse to defend your claims all day long for all I care, that won't stop me from publicly calling you out every time you lie in defense of Clinton. Here's a tip for you: Stop lying and there will be no need for anyone to call you out. It's that simple.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2016, 05:33 PM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
I'd rather give change a chance rather than go along with the current system, irretrievably broken as it seems to be.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
11-06-2016, 05:52 PM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
(11-06-2016 05:15 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(11-06-2016 04:39 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  I was having a discussion with you about something else entirely and you changed the subject and then got bent because I did not agree to the change. That's on you.

Here's the reality, no matter what you want, I do not have to comply. You have tried to engage me in a discussion on Hillary several times in a variety of threads and I have refused, once with you was enough. No. I will not discuss it with you in that thread or this thread or any other thread. I have made myself clear on this numerous times. Please stop asking.

You cannot and will not force me to do so. I will not be harassed or coerced into it. Just, no. This is the last time I will state it. Just so everyone here, not just you, knows I will not have any conversation on Hillary or anything else that you want to drag me into, because you do not just discuss, when you don't get your way or someone does not agree you, you use ad homs and denigration and I do not consent to it. Just like you used above when I would not comply with your subject change. Just like you used in this post I'm replying to.

I have the right to refuse to converse with you on certain subjects that I find you to be too volatile on or any subjects, for that matter. If you don't like that you are perfectly within your right not to engage me at all.


That is all. Thx
You remember what I said about you being predictable? I would be a couple bucks richer right about now if someone had taken me up on that bet. You can stick your fingers in your ears, shout "Lalalalala, I can't hear you!" whenever someone criticizes Hillary and refuse to defend your claims all day long for all I care, that won't stop me from publicly calling you out every time you lie in defense of Clinton. Here's a tip for you: Stop lying and there will be no need for anyone to call you out. It's that simple.

I never said I wouldn't discuss it with anyone... just not you. Ad homs, ^^^, I know you love'em!

[Image: dnw9krH.jpg?4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2016, 09:16 PM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
While the sand slipped through the opening
And their hands reached for the golden ring
With their hearts they turned to each other's heart for refuge
In the troubled years that came before the deluge.





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
11-06-2016, 09:24 PM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
(11-06-2016 05:52 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  I never said I wouldn't discuss it with anyone... just not you. Ad homs, ^^^, I know you love'em!

Since when? I've butted heads with Vosur quite vociferously on multiple occasions, and I don't remember him ever jumping to ad hominem attacks.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
11-06-2016, 11:54 PM
RE: For The "Bernie or Busters"
(11-06-2016 09:24 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(11-06-2016 05:52 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  I never said I wouldn't discuss it with anyone... just not you. Ad homs, ^^^, I know you love'em!

Since when? I've butted heads with Vosur quite vociferously on multiple occasions, and I don't remember him ever jumping to ad hominem attacks.

He has done so with me, and then complained about being repaid in kind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: