Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 08 Nov '16 13:11
    Back in August I predicted that Trump would withdraw before today. I was wrong and I give him credit. I don't believe that he is natively stupid so he must have some character asset that I'm missing that keeps him going in what I expect is a hopeless cause.
    Now lets hope he gets the beating he has so thoroughly earned, and as well, lets hold Paul Ryan's feet to the fire. I saw him yesterday field a question about how he could support someone so manifestly unfit.
    He told us again how bad Clinton was. On other words, he didn't answer the question: How do you support someone so clearly unfit to be President?
  2. 08 Nov '16 14:41
    Originally posted by stevemcc
    Back in August I predicted that Trump would withdraw before today. I was wrong and I give him credit. I don't believe that he is natively stupid so he must have some character asset that I'm missing that keeps him going in what I expect is a hopeless cause.
    Now lets hope he gets the beating he has so thoroughly earned, and as well, lets hold Paul Ryan's fe ...[text shortened]... rds, he didn't answer the question: How do you support someone so clearly unfit to be President?
    Unfit? Chris Christy is not even running.
  3. 08 Nov '16 16:32
    Judging by the polls it looks like Trump will almost certainly do better than McCain and quite likely better than Romney. Even though Trump is facing a much weaker candidate than they did, this is still bad news for the decent human being-wing of the GOP, because it means that even if Trump loses we will likely see a Trump-lite candidate for the GOP in 2020.
  4. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    08 Nov '16 16:51
    Originally posted by stevemcc
    Back in August I predicted that Trump would withdraw before today. I was wrong and I give him credit. I don't believe that he is natively stupid so he must have some character asset that I'm missing that keeps him going in what I expect is a hopeless cause.
    Now lets hope he gets the beating he has so thoroughly earned, and as well, lets hold Paul Ryan's fe ...[text shortened]... rds, he didn't answer the question: How do you support someone so clearly unfit to be President?
    You'd have to ask the Democrats how they could possibly support a candidate who is not only unfit to be POTUS, she is unfit to be a human being.
    The single most patently obvious corrupt person to run for office, ever.
  5. 08 Nov '16 16:57
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    You'd have to ask the Democrats how they could possibly support a candidate who is not only unfit to be POTUS, she is unfit to be a human being.
    The single most patently obvious corrupt person to run for office, ever.
    How about you add in a rant about how Clinton wants to destroy the (flat) United States?
  6. 08 Nov '16 17:15
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    the decent human being-wing of the GOP,
    The decent human being-wing of the GOP has largely remained silent, so they have only themselves to blame.
  7. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    08 Nov '16 19:01
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    You'd have to ask the Democrats how they could possibly support a candidate who is not only unfit to be POTUS, she is unfit to be a human being.
    The single most patently obvious corrupt person to run for office, ever.
    Bloody hell, you just open your trap and poop forth your inbred paranoid rubbish, don't you?
  8. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    08 Nov '16 19:32
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    How about you add in a rant about how Clinton wants to destroy the (flat) United States?
    Wants to destroy?
    She certainly doesn't care if she destroys, but I don't know that we can say she necessarily wants to destroy.
    Her actions over the course of 30 plus years indicate she cares about one thing: herself.
    How many career politicians have their wealth expressed in the hundreds of millions--- without ever being gainfully employed or in any way, shape or form been involved in business?
    Compare her worth to another career politician, say, Bernie Sanders...
    weird, huh.
  9. Standard member checkbaiter
    By God's Grace
    08 Nov '16 19:43
    Originally posted by stevemcc
    Back in August I predicted that Trump would withdraw before today. I was wrong and I give him credit. I don't believe that he is natively stupid so he must have some character asset that I'm missing that keeps him going in what I expect is a hopeless cause.
    Now lets hope he gets the beating he has so thoroughly earned, and as well, lets hold Paul Ryan's fe ...[text shortened]... rds, he didn't answer the question: How do you support someone so clearly unfit to be President?
    My view is the exact opposite of your post. On every point.
  10. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    08 Nov '16 20:43
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Bloody hell, you just open your trap and poop forth your inbred paranoid rubbish, don't you?
    Paranoid?
    So, let's see if I got this straight, numbnuts.
    Wikileaks, in the course of a decade of releasing millions of documents, has gotten exactly 0% wrong.
    Sorry: 0.00% wrong.
    As in: nothing wrong.
    Why?
    Because they're releasing the actual electronic records of the people involved.
    Not analysis.
    Not conjecture.
    Hell: not even a single subjective piece of information.
    Nothing but the records of the people involved--- from the people involved to the people involved.

    The record shows MASSIVE collusion between Clinton and lobbyists, foreign governments and other businesses.

    So exactly where is the paranoia, numbnuts?
    Since you haven't done your homework, what's say you keep your uninformed opinion to yourself, mkay?

    That's a good boy.
  11. 08 Nov '16 21:17
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    The record shows MASSIVE collusion between Clinton and lobbyists, foreign governments and other businesses.

    So exactly where is the paranoia, numbnuts?
    I think the paranoia part may be that the record doesn't show any "MASSIVE collusion between Clinton and lobbyists, foreign governments and other businesses."
  12. Standard member HandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    08 Nov '16 21:27
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    I think the paranoia part may be that the record doesn't show any "MASSIVE collusion between Clinton and lobbyists, foreign governments and other businesses."
    Details, details.
  13. 08 Nov '16 21:27
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    My view is the exact opposite of your post. On every point.
    So you do think that Trump is stupid...you know, you might be right...
  14. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    08 Nov '16 21:48
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Paranoid?
    So, let's see if I got this straight, numbnuts.
    Wikileaks, in the course of a decade of releasing millions of documents, has gotten exactly 0% wrong.
    Sorry: 0.00% wrong.
    As in: nothing wrong.
    Why?
    Because they're releasing the actual electronic records of the people involved.
    Not analysis.
    Not conjecture.
    Hell: not even a single subjecti ...[text shortened]... r homework, what's say you keep your uninformed opinion to yourself, mkay?

    That's a good boy.
    Oh dear, Freaky's getting psychotic on top of it all.
    Election fever or did you just forget your medication?

    Where to start?
    Well...let's start here; oh sharpest whittle stick in drawer: really? A politician who's close to wallstreet lobby groups?

    Shock and FFing horror! You mean lobby groups influence politicians? Like the NRA might spend money supporting someone???

    God damn it boy, you better call the wallstreet journal with this little cracker!
  15. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    08 Nov '16 22:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    I think the paranoia part may be that the record doesn't show any "MASSIVE collusion between Clinton and lobbyists, foreign governments and other businesses."
    I guess the Saudi Arabian government's "contributions" to the Clinton Foundation really had nothing to do with the right-after-that multi-billion dollar arms agreement between the US and SA, right?
    That's just ol' trailer trash-hillbilly me gettin' all paranoid, right?
    Or that the Saudi Arabian government was funding and weaponizing ISIS, that's more paranoia, I'm sure.
    Huh.
    Where did Saudi Arabia get those weapons to arm ISIS, one wonders?

    You know... you guys are right: literally nothing to see here, folks.
    Move along.
    Enjoy the movie.