Jeb would have won this election by the way.
Anchors chastised crowd for applauding Trump. Anchors said nothing when the crowd applauded Clinton.
They really should never allow the media to run the debates.
"That darn media! It fooled us again!!!"
Are you suggesting that the media is fair and balanced in these debates?
would you keep going back to them expecting different results?
You're simply whining, which is what you and the other right-wing simpletons do here. The perpetual victims, along with your favored politicians.
When you whine about the media, you sound weak. Instead of sounding like wimps, why not be aggressive? Instead, you give us cries of "dirty pool!"
(no message)
That's all you guys do here.
You geniuses couldn't get this through your thick skulls when I noted this before, but you continually imply, and really state, that if we just elect the right people to office, things will be corrected and good again. Thus I'm amused when folks like you guys go on about how you don't look to government. In fact, you buy into the underlying premise that those dreaded "liberals" believe.
I prefer a system in which we can elect the wrong people, and the system still works. That is the libertarian approach. The statist approach is what you mention, which is the opposite of what I support. I don't want a system dependent on electing the right people. Not sure what this has to do with my initial post that you found to be funny whining. In the words of Chris94, you are all over the place. You like to criticize at random, without offering your own version what you like. What kind of system would you support? Don't complain about systemic issues (that is whining), but don't complain about the wrong people in the system (that is whining), so what do you support?
Complaining about how the media is mistreating Republicans for the 5,706,098th time is whining.
When am I allowed to offer an opinion?
But seriously, all you do is whine about people's posting strategies. Give it a rest. Offer your own view some time.
I offer it all the time, Ned. Go read the Football Board. And I give them here. What you and the other brain surgeons dislike is that I don't fit into your neat little boxes and you can't comprehend that. Watch as one of the other idiots accuses me of being a Hillary supporter.
You have this forum all the time to spread your views and attacks. Man up and take the same a little bit. If you can't handle that, perhaps internet forums aren't the best place for a sensitive soul like yourself.
(no message)
You're too busy putting on the clown makeup, yourself.
Of course there is a bias against Republicans in the media. This is like Democrats complaining about the reception they get from the NRA. What would you think if a liberal Democrat kept incessantly complaining that the NRA doesn't treat them fairly?
(no message)
(no message)
Remind what your "substance" was in this discussion again? Is that what you call your whining about LIBERAL MEDIA? That's "substance?"
Even now, you dismiss the point of the discussion as being nonexistent, even though it was apparently important enough for you to go 20 posts deep, while at the same point avoiding discussing it for fear you open yourself to criticism.
Or, was the only thing important to you was your attacks on me and LT?
Either way, it is kind of weird.
(no message)
Do you like doing this to yourself? Are you a masochist?
bias.
(no message)
(no message)
...and anyone who complains about it is a whining right-wing simpleton. Just do it, GOP, and don't anyone complain about it.
That's kind of weird, but ok.
It is admittedly very difficult for me to extract your opinion from you over many, many posts. You can attribute that to me being an idiot. I can attribute it to you trying to be difficult and not wanting to get pinned into a corner, because you enjoy criticizing others for their posts, but you fear others being able to criticize your own opinions (assuming you have opinions).
To the substance of your point, and to answer your question: If the Democrats went to the NRA to help their campaigns, I would think they should stop doing that. But, if I did voice that opinion regarding the Democrats and the NRA (like I did above regarding the GOP and the media), I suspect that you would criticize me for a being a left-wing simpleton?
I love having people object to my opinions. I hate it when I'm around people who agree with me. Why do you think I'm here?
That actually dovetails nicely with my point about Republicans and the media: enjoy it. Have fun roasting them. Instead, you guys whine about it and look like wimps.
(no message)
I wish you could get your stories straight on the clown party bus. Maybe it's best if you just regurgitate the accusations you hear from similarly unimaginative and dull minds. It suits you.
support. I don't have any stories regarding the bus. It was simply locker room talk. You folks want to make that the issue in lieu of the issues important to the country.
If you watch the full tape, it's a couple dorky guys trying to impress each other, not unlike what happens here quite often as dorky guys judge the looks of women and imply that they have records of success with hotties.
(no message)
So, did I state your opinion correctly? GOP should not try to stop using biased organizations?
Why do you believe that? Why do you want the GOP to accept a systemic bias against them?
Let's see if you can agree with the above, or correct my statement, and answer my questions, without insulting me. It will be hard, but I will consider it to be good progress if you can post without insulting the person you are talking to.
You're too dense to acknowledge this. Plus, about all you have at this point is to keep repeating something that isn't true. Are you sure you aren't a committed Trumpster?
If you were continually and consistently wronged by someone would you keep going back to them expecting different results?
The Republican nominee cannot not show up for debates.
That question, which you asked me above, seemed to imply that it is insanity to do the same thing over and over again, and expect different results. But, it seems that is what you are expecting the GOP to do.
Debates have been unilaterally canceled by parties in the past. They could do it again, but that is not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that in 2020, they plan debates that won't have biased media moderator...or, have dual moderators, with one chosen by one party, and one chosen by the other. They could do it like an arbitration: The two moderators selected by the parties could then select a third moderator, if the parties decide it is still important to have the media involved as an independent party. Then, questions and format would be decided by a majority of moderators.
I don't think moderators are needed, though. If the parties threw a debate, the media cameras would come, regardless of whether there are moderators or not.
Thanks for the non-insulting post, by the way. I appreciate it.
I have no idea where the "insulting" complaint came into this thread. You seem to be one of those guys here who has a need to make online friends and feel good about other posters. There are others like that. I've always thought it's weird.
I've handed out my fair share of insults. Admittedly, I have recently decided to try to do better. We'll have to see if I succeed, or surrender to my base emotions.
I just raised it, because I was trying to extract your opinion from you, and you just kept responding with insults, and consistently tried to avoid stating your opinion in a clear manner. I assumed that was because you knew that stating an opinion involves taking a risk: others may critique you, the way you critique them. I was just trying to get you to step up to the plate and make a substantive point, and not an ad hominem attack. Believe me, I have very little personal investment in my board moniker. I could walk away from here tomorrow, and not feel any loss.
You misunderstand what the ad hominem fallacy is, like most people. An ad hominem argument is not when you call me a name or I call you a name. An ad hominem is when someone says, for instance, "Ned is doorknob, therefore his argument about capital gains tax cuts is illogical."
The simple fact is that most people can't deal with being called a name, and it's only getting worse with Generation Snowflake.
I'm not offended by the name calling itself. I was weirded out by your dogged attack on something that I thought was a throwaway post idea. And, I wanted to challenge you to avoid the insult, and stick to substance...something I've noticed you have a hard time doing.
And I agree with your "Generation Snowflake" comment......although I wonder if I made that point, you would attack me for always whining about Millenials.
We have along history in this country of eloquent, intelligent people who mix in some artfully done insults with thoughtful analysis. That should be celebrated. As David Berlinski said, "it sharpens the debate." t also quickly weeds out those who are not up to the task in the first place.
I didn't wish to argue it, but I'm willing to do so. The bottom line is this: You sought to diminish my stature in the eyes of our audience with your insults, and therefore make it easier for people to believe what you say, and harder for them to believe what I said. (Although, I certainly hope people gave up on this sub-thread in the first few posts.) In that way, you used your insults as an ad hominem. That, coupled with the fact that it took 10 posts to get you to address the point rather than personally attack, or misdirect with attacks on others, or points I didn't raise, or attacking me as a member of a group rather than me personally...all of these were fallacies you employed. Fallacies can be effective ways to argue, but they will never lead to a win on the merits.
(no message)
You couldn't count on him to uphold conservative principles like you could with Trump, who is a rock.
(no message)
Even by the modern definition - lowering taxes, opposing abortion, etc., he was a stalwart candidate. Meanwhile, you support a boob who changes his positions monthly and thus can no more be said to be conservative than liberal. For instance, not long ago he stated he would consider raising taxes on the wealthy. Tonight I learned he will not.
Ah, but I forgot that since he is the GOP nominee, you must support him. And you know...Hillary and all...
You both are real men of principles.
that this is over your head, but Trump is not my ideal candidate. However, given the 2 choices he is by far the lesser of the two evils.
1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
3. A strong military is essential.
4. Special interests must be eliminated.
5. Gun ownership is sacred.
6. Government must be downsized.
7. The national budget must be balanced.
8. Deficit spending must end.
9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
14. English as our core language is required.
15. Traditional family values are encouraged.
This is a trainwreck.
(no message)
(no message)
sat in the corner and held his breath.
Brilliant strategy. This is the way you assuage concerns from many that you are unstable.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
You just know that he was going to be hostile to the Republican Donnie.
but Speaker Ryan didn't show.
(no message)
(no message)
What a question.
(no message)
And doggone it, I'll be a spaceman if I didn't amuse myself again.
(no message)