Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Who Will Be The 2016 Republican Nominee? (It's Donald Trump) Who Will Be The 2016 Republican Nominee? (It's Donald Trump)

02-12-2016 , 08:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlelou
Using your post to add clarity to my position. There is nothing wrong with using the courts to resolve disputes. That isn't what Trump is doing. He is using the power of the courts to harass people. He is not the type of person you should give more power too given his willingness to abuse that power.
Maybe Cruz should just stop lying and cheating?
02-12-2016 , 08:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Rata
ted cruz makes really great ads, and that makes me hate him a tiny bit less.

this one on trump is good

the one he pulled because of the porn star was also pretty good though they botched the ending

and that new one with "damn it feels good to be a clinton" was great!
The EMINENT DOMAIN ad is cute
02-12-2016 , 08:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by awval999
Maybe Cruz should just stop lying and cheating?

Maybe democracy is a bad idea.
02-12-2016 , 09:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shark Sandwich
Not sure what's inconsistent here.

-there's a vocal contingent of republicans who want to overturn Roe
-the party as a whole knows this issue is a huge loser for them that would lock them out of power for years
-Roe won't get overturned

If there's one goal the Republican Party exists for, it's to perpetuate itself. Overturning Roe v Wade would accomplish the opposite of this. They'd much rather rage about godless liebrals while having an issue that galvanizes their base.
The 'Republican party' isn't a monolith. It's a coalition of interests. Many of which want to overturn RvW. Sure, there are Republicans that don't care, or don't want to overturn it. Nevertheless, if the right Republican is elected POTUS, and is able to appoint 1-2 seats on the SC, it'll be overturned. And it'd take over a decade to overturn that decision, well over a decade.
02-12-2016 , 09:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlelou
Using your post to add clarity to my position. There is nothing wrong with using the courts to resolve disputes. That isn't what Trump is doing. He is using the power of the courts to harass people. He is not the type of person you should give more power too given his willingness to abuse that power.
Cruz asked for it.
02-12-2016 , 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALLTheCookies
Cruz asked for it.

Well he does have a face you want to frivolously sue.
02-12-2016 , 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlelou
Maybe democracy is a bad idea.
Adjust your sarcasm meter. It's off.
02-12-2016 , 09:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by awval999
Adjust your sarcasm meter. It's off.

Olds. Whatcha gonna do?
02-12-2016 , 09:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalledDownLight
My firmware is fine. I think people who think all abortions should be legal no matter the circumstance are just as bad as the ones that think all of them should be illegal no matter the circumstance. The best line is certainly inbetween imo.
I'm with the others man, the term in question here isn't "all" it's "circumstances." Those who agree with the phrase abortion should be legal in all circumstances are using the word in the sense that the current debate is built around, namely whether all women should have the right to abort if they so choose, or only under certain circumstances such as rape, incest, and health of the mother.

If people are asked the question and they interpret the word circumstances as above, then anyone who thinks that a perfectly healthy woman who wants an abortion simply because she does not want to have a child should be able to have one, would answer the question with "Yes I think a woman should have the right to an abortion under any circumstances."

The word circumstances here does not invoke an interpretation of timeframe, but of situation.
02-12-2016 , 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
TRUMP is early Gus Hansen. He's a bad LAG but everyone else is so scared and nitty he bulldozes them without resistance. Right down to the "sooner or later somebody will get him for being so reckless!" mentality.
Exactly, but with some Jerry Yang 10x preflop raises mixed in with the Jamie Gold arrogance.
02-12-2016 , 09:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aflametotheground
I will guarantee with the greatest possible certainty that zero statements that you oppose from me here is wrong. But now suddenly you start to talk "as if" the expired tax cuts are "tax increases". Let me say this: they had already expired and had nothing to do with what is disucced here and Obamas action.

You come with your "nope" as if something I have written is wrong, but in this you are surely mistaken. My source is Grover Norquist that states that there was zero tax increases, only tax cuts, which is the _only thing I have stated_ and I have stated nothing more.
Lol....Grover Norquist is an utter crackpot who has a huge incentive to lie about this and say it isn't a tax increase. His entire reputation was built on a ludicrous pledge to never raise taxes on anyone, that he had to now find a way to worm out of in order to not look like a total idiot or irrelevant after republicans helped pass the compromise bill. Reputable people with no incentive to lie (Paul Krugman, pretty much all unbiased media) had no problem saying taxes were raised on people making over 400k. The taxes they paid in 2013 were lower than they would be going forward. That's a tax increase regardless of whether this would have also happened if the bush cuts expired with nothing new passing in its place.

Quote:
However, I will be greater than yourself and bring constructive meaning to this debate. I will accept that there may have been good will and spirit in Obamas mind to help the poorer people get by, althought I cant say this with any certainty. So here Obama is potentially not "corrupt" (although he certainly and without doubt is on the topic of healthcare that was discussed).
Haha....next time try taking the high road BEFORE you base your argument on a biased crackpot and act like a jerk. Eat that etc.

But thanks.....you're correct about everything but the healthcare part now. I'll take that as a victory.

Last edited by dessin d'enfant; 02-12-2016 at 09:34 PM.
02-12-2016 , 09:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlelou
Maybe democracy is a bad idea.
Maybe political speech is too important to allow candidates and their PACs to lie in advertising
02-12-2016 , 10:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dessin d'enfant
Reputable people with no incentive to lie (Paul Krugman, .
you had been doing so well
02-12-2016 , 10:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dessin d'enfant
Lol....Grover Norquist is an utter crackpot who has a huge incentive to lie about this and say it isn't a tax increase. His entire reputation was built on a ludicrous pledge to never raise taxes on anyone, that he had to now find a way to worm out of in order to not look like a total idiot or irrelevant after republicans helped pass the compromise bill. Reputable people with no incentive to lie (Paul Krugman, pretty much all unbiased media) had no problem saying taxes were raised on people making over 400k. The taxes they paid in 2013 were lower than they would be going forward. That's a tax increase regardless of whether this would have also happened if the bush cuts expired with nothing new passing in its place.



Haha....next time try taking the high road BEFORE you base your argument on a biased crackpot and act like a jerk. Eat that etc.

But thanks.....you're correct about everything but the healthcare part now. I'll take that as a victory.
I will tell you what, you have exactly zero victories at this point. No taxes were raised, exactly like I have claimed all along. The tax cuts had already expired, therefore these were ALL New tax cuts, like I have claimed.

If you cant submit to this then you dont fit into a political discussion. Maybe you can fit better into something where reality is much more simpler defined, like e.g Math, but you have too poor of a understanding to participate in more complex matters. I tried being nice to you but you blew it.

I suggest forwarding to 10:02 and 11:00.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgyhajURdW4
02-12-2016 , 11:48 PM
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/l...lant-to-mexico

Something like this going viral only helps Trump

Trump hates the Mexicans taking the jobs

Last edited by Onlydo2days; 02-12-2016 at 11:58 PM.
02-12-2016 , 11:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onlydo2days
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/l...lant-to-mexico

Something like this going viral only helps Trump

Trump hates the Mexicans taking the jobs
What ****** wrote the script that guy was reading from?
02-13-2016 , 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayo
Everyone in this thread casually dismissing the commitedness and fervency of the pro-life movement is legitimately shocking to me. It makes me think that most of you haven't spent much time in the red states, particularly the south.
100% correct. I've spent a decent deal of time in Bible Belt red states - not to mention I live in the South of the North, Staten Island - and the hardcore pro lifers are quite committed to the idea of legalized abortion going the way of the dodo.
02-13-2016 , 12:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aflametotheground
I will tell you what, you have exactly zero victories at this point. No taxes were raised, exactly like I have claimed all along. The tax cuts had already expired, therefore these were ALL New tax cuts, like I have claimed.

If you cant submit to this then you dont fit into a political discussion. Maybe you can fit better into something where reality is much more simpler defined, like e.g Math, but you have too poor of a understanding to participate in more complex matters. I tried being nice to you but you blew it.
I suggest forwarding to 10:02 and 11:00.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgyhajURdW4
Uh oh, don't wanna mess with this guy.
02-13-2016 , 12:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by campfirewest
What ****** wrote the script that guy was reading from?
Yeah, no idea.

Was surprised there wasn't more outrage. Maybe they knew it was coming.
02-13-2016 , 12:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
I was pleased when I woke up to find that there had been so much poasting in the Who will be the 2016 Republican Nominee? thread. I settled in for some enjoyable reading.

Imagine my horrible disappointment.
#FullblownAIDS
02-13-2016 , 12:30 AM
Albeit a decade old, still informative. God bless the liberal Northeast.

http://www.reproductiverights.org/si...tifroefell.pdf
02-13-2016 , 12:59 AM
Donald Trump
44 %
Marco Rubio
23 %
Ted Cruz
17 %
Jeb Bush
12 %

we got a favorite but it really is anybody's ballgame. this debate tomorrow should be pretty interesting. marco has a lot of pressure and he can't calm his mind by thinking "well i know my lines, I will just stick to em!". he should be ok, but there is a chance for some sick obsessive compulsive wackiness.

Ted must go after Trump. the p word and he wimped out with a chance to attack last debate...but i will confine my discussion to debate thread...
02-13-2016 , 02:00 AM
The real question is how did he not call Bush the p word?
02-13-2016 , 02:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by campfirewest
The real question is how did he not call Bush the p word?
because as a sterotypical bully, trump knows everyone already thinks jeb is a "pussy" whereareas cruz is more like a question mark in the "pusys" category. trump has to beat down everyone!
02-13-2016 , 02:14 AM


JEB fighting back. Like 6 months late, but still elite

      
m