Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    21 Jul '18 17:56
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    While I don't "hate" Hillary, I found the idea of an HRC Presidency profoundly disturbing and I didn't need Vladimir Putin to brainwash me into believing that.
    Wow. Still unapologetic about your wrong vote, eh?
  2. SubscriberTom Wolsey
    Aficionado of Prawns
    Texas
    Joined
    30 Apr '17
    Moves
    3849
    21 Jul '18 17:56
    Originally posted by @lundos
    The most dire consequence is a nuclear war.
    For the record, you've all been warned. If Trump is impeached, nukes will fly. So do the sensible thing and re-elect him in 2020. Thank you, and God bless the United States of America.
  3. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    21 Jul '18 17:57
    Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
    Then, in 2022, voters suffer from a bout of amnesia and vote the Republicans back in. Rinse, repeat, while the U.S.A. falls further and further behind other developed nations.
    The long term demographics are bad for the Republicans plus the American electorate has shifted to the Left on many issues - it's hard to find a single substantive issue where present Republican proposals or policy gain majority support. The Republicans will have to remake themselves to be long term competitive and there seems little appetite for that among the GOP base.
  4. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    21 Jul '18 18:01
    Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
    Wow. Still unapologetic about your wrong vote, eh?
    My vote wasn't "wrong". As I pointed out in June 2016, a Clinton Presidency would have been a disaster for progressives; she would have accomplished nothing with a Republican Congress and the Dems would have been looking at catastrophic losses in this year's mid-terms rather than a very possible smashing victory (at least in the House). If you are ever able to entertain new information regarding this, this article would be a good starting point: https://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-clinton-mitt-romney-and-what-could-have-been

    HRC's loss does also seem to have accelerated the Democrats' turn to more progressive policies which is certainly a "good" thing.
  5. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    21 Jul '18 18:12
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    My vote wasn't "wrong". As I pointed out in June 2016, a Clinton Presidency would have been a disaster for progressives; she would have accomplished nothing with a Republican Congress and the Dems would have been looking at catastrophic losses in this year's mid-terms rather than a very possible smashing victory (at least in the House). If you are ever ...[text shortened]... accelerated the Democrats' turn to more progressive policies which is certainly a "good" thing.
    A HRC presidency would have been unlikely to tackle some of the issues plaguing the U.S. economy, but it also probably wouldn't have set up concentration camps, overtly sided with a hostile military or be as brazenly corrupt as the Trump administration. Not to mention the influence on the most important legislative body in the U.S., the Supreme Court.

    There were only two acceptable courses of action: voting for Hillary Clinton, or not voting.
  6. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    21 Jul '18 18:13
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    The long term demographics are bad for the Republicans plus the American electorate has shifted to the Left on many issues - it's hard to find a single substantive issue where present Republican proposals or policy gain majority support. The Republicans will have to remake themselves to be long term competitive and there seems little appetite for that among the GOP base.
    They've been saying that since the 1960s.
  7. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    21 Jul '18 18:181 edit
    Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
    A HRC presidency would have been unlikely to tackle some of the issues plaguing the U.S. economy, but it also probably wouldn't have set up concentration camps, overtly sided with a hostile military or be as brazenly corrupt as the Trump administration. Not to mention the influence on the most important legislative body in the U.S., the Supreme Court.

    There were only two acceptable courses of action: voting for Hillary Clinton, or not voting.
    So what? In the grand scale of things, those matters are sideshows. Better to get the comedy of a Trump Presidency out of the way (where the GOP President is the most unpopular by net approval in 70 years), then to gamble with the likelihood of a popular right winger smashing HRC in 2020 and having substantial majorities of Republicans in both Houses of Congress and in the States. That eventuality could very well have caused a reversal of every progressive gain in the last 80-100 years.

    And a Trump impeachment or resignation would further tip the scales in a Democratic way in 2020. After Nixon resigned in August 1974 the Republicans got creamed in the mid-terms and then lost the Presidential election in 1976 after Nixon had won every State but one in 1972.
  8. Joined
    07 Feb '09
    Moves
    139076
    21 Jul '18 18:57
    Originally posted by @eladar
    Lol you are such an establishment tool.
    Then most cynical lie out there is that Trump is anti-establishment.

    Really ??
    Who is the tool out there ??
  9. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y3ngvdp2
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    23 Jul '18 02:04
    Originally posted by @sh76
    I think Trump's impeachment would result in less protest than his election did. It's not really in the nature of his supporter base to take to the streets. Note that his support base is much more rural than his opponent base, which makes it less practical for them to make a major fuss.

    Only Chicken Little would worry about Civil War.
    That's why Occupy Wall Street was ultimately an urban phenomenon.
  10. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    23 Jul '18 02:12
    Originally posted by @no1marauder to KazetNagorra
    So what? In the grand scale of things, those matters are sideshows. Better to get the comedy of a Trump Presidency out of the way (where the GOP President is the most unpopular by net approval in 70 years), then to gamble with the likelihood of a popular right winger smashing HRC in 2020 and having substantial majorities of Republicans i ...[text shortened]... and then lost the Presidential election in 1976 after Nixon had won every State but one in 1972.
    Let the record show that No1Marauder apparently still believes that
    President Donald Trump must be a lesser evil than President Hillary Clinton.

    Of course, No1Marauder is not in any of the groups most at risk of
    being harmed by President Trump.
  11. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    23 Jul '18 02:22
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    Let the record show that No1Marauder apparently still believes that
    President Donald Trump must be a lesser evil than President Hillary Clinton.

    Of course, No1Marauder is not in any of the groups most at risk of
    being harmed by President Trump.
    The "record", of course, shows no such thing and you are, as usual, brazenly lying.

    Trump is a worse President than HRC would have been, but that doesn't mean the consequences of a Hillary victory wouldn't have been worse for this country in the medium and long run. Picking a President isn't the same as hiring a plumber as KN seems to think.
  12. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    23 Jul '18 02:442 edits
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    The "record", of course, shows no such thing and you are, as usual, brazenly lying.

    Trump is a worse President than HRC would have been, but that doesn't mean the consequences of a Hillary victory wouldn't have been worse for this country in the medium and long run. Picking a President isn't the same as hiring a plumber as KN seems to think.
    The troll No1Marauder makes another false accusation.

    "So what? In the grand scale of things, those matters are sideshows.
    Better to get the comedy of a Trump Presidency out of the way..."
    --No1Marauder

    Better than what? Apparently, a Hillary Clinton Presidency.
    What else could a Trumo Presidency be better than?

    No1Marauder apparently dismissed various 'matters 'with President Trump
    as mere "sideshows" in the "grand scale of things".

    If that's not what No1Marauder meant, then he should
    not write so nisleadingly
  13. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    23 Jul '18 02:55
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    The troll No1Marauder make a another false accusation.

    "So what? In the grand scale of things, those matters are sideshows.
    Better to get the comedy of a Trump Presidency out of the way..."
    --No1Marauder

    Better than what? Apparently, a Hillary Clinton Presidency.
    No1Marauder apparently dismissed various matters with President Trump
    as "sideshows" in the "grand scheme of things".
    You often break off sentences midway when quoting them in order to leave a false and misleading impression. This is dishonest.

    The full sentence:

    no1: Better to get the comedy of a Trump Presidency out of the way (where the GOP President is the most unpopular by net approval in 70 years), then to gamble with the likelihood of a popular right winger smashing HRC in 2020 and having substantial majorities of Republicans in both Houses of Congress and in the States. That eventuality could very well have caused a reversal of every progressive gain in the last 80-100 years.


    So "better" refers to the consequences outlined not a comparison between four years of Trump and four years of HRC. But you knew that which is why you had to break the sentence in half.

    If you really had any confidence in your arguments, you wouldn't feel it necessary to resort to such deceitful tactics.
  14. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    23 Jul '18 02:58
    Of course, it's likely that a HRC Department of Justice wouldn't have supported the lawsuit against Harvard University to destroy its affirmative action program. But you have very little concern for the blacks and Hispanics that would suffer should that lawsuit be successful.
  15. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    23 Jul '18 03:042 edits
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    You often break off sentences midway when quoting them in order to leave a false and misleading impression. This is dishonest.

    The full sentence:

    no1: Better to get the comedy of a Trump Presidency out of the way (where the GOP President is the most unpopular by net approval in 70 years), then to gamble with the likelihood of a popular right winge ...[text shortened]... onfidence in your arguments, you wouldn't feel it necessary to resort to such deceitful tactics.
    No1Marauder fails to consider that I now am struggling
    to use an awkward devuce (which I don't always use)
    that makes it very hard to type, let alone copy text.
    It took me nearly five minutes for this paragraph.

    On many earlier occasions, No1Marauder expressed a
    preference for a Donald Trump Presidency that would
    fail spectacularly and presumably lead to future Democratic
    vuctories over a Hillary Clinton Presidency that would
    be mediocre status quo and not weaken the Republican
    Party for the future.

    In any case, I wrote of No1Marauder's APPARENT position,
    so I don't mind if he wishes to clarify (or lie) about it.
Back to Top