Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

2020 US Presidential Election (aka: The Trump Coronation)

Options
1…212213215217218…331

Comments

  • Options
    #6422
    PropJoe10
    Registered Users Posts: 5,319 ✭✭✭PropJoe10


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Why do you keep putting up links from that idiot? He is clearly a Democrat, clearly anti-Republican and proven liar.

    At least put up something from somebody who hasn't been caught out.

    And to make it clear I despise the Republican party but I despise liars too.

    What is it about the content of that tweet that you disagree with? Or do you just disregard everything that someone says if you don't like that individual, regardless of the content of what they've said?


  • Options
    #6423
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,578 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    eagle eye wrote: »
    I asked you to tell me what you seen in the video. This response is not that.
    Can you describe all the actions in the video?

    You need me to draw you a pretty crayon doodle? A spade is a spade. Everyone can see the video, which is worth thousands of words. I’ve given you my take if that doesn’t satisfy you there’s a door somewhere.


  • Options
    #6424
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,597 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Why do you keep putting up links from that idiot? He is clearly a Democrat, clearly anti-Republican and proven liar.

    At least put up something from somebody who hasn't been caught out.

    And to make it clear I despise the Republican party but I despise liars too.

    Also re the bolded, this isnthen1st time I have quoted him so I don't know why you claim I "keep putting up links from him"


  • Options
    #6425
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    eagle eye wrote: »
    And just to add, that video adds a lot. I'll have to look at it a few times but it certainly looks worse for the cops. And regardless of their actions, they clearly seen the blood and should have tended to him immediately.
    20 seconds for trained EMT’s to render assistance to the injured guy, in a tense situation with a high possibility of escalation, seems to be a pretty good response time to me.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #6426
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,578 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    eagle eye wrote: »
    There is no bleeding shown in the video I seen. Did you see a different one?
    I'm asking you to look at the video as many times as you need to give a witness account of what you see.

    Are you for real?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6427
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Overheal wrote: »
    Are you for real?

    at the point they posted that they had only seen a censored version shown on US TV. It didnt occur to them to wonder why bits of it were blurred.


  • Options
    #6428
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,578 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Why do you keep putting up links from that idiot? He is clearly a Democrat, clearly anti-Republican and proven liar.

    At least put up something from somebody who hasn't been caught out.

    And to make it clear I despise the Republican party but I despise liars too.

    It’s an easily verified fact. Trump made the announcement at a round table discussion yesterday.


  • Options
    #6429
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 38,589 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Is what he tweeted untrue? As one of Trumps other zealots on here keeps saying, attack the content not the source.
    I don't care if it's true or not. He shouldn't be used as a source by anybody.
    DrumSteve wrote: »
    whats he lying about there?
    Maybe nothing but he is a liar and clearly anti-Republican so that's enough reason to not use him as a source.
    PropJoe10 wrote: »
    What is it about the content of that tweet that you disagree with? Or do you just disregard everything that someone says if you don't like that individual, regardless of the content of what they've said?
    It's not about like, proven liar, proven Republican hater. Nobody should be using him as a source.
    Overheal wrote: »
    You need me to draw you a pretty crayon doodle? A spade is a spade. Everyone can see the video, which is worth thousands of words. I’ve given you my take if that doesn’t satisfy you there’s a door somewhere.
    Overheal wrote: »
    Are you for real?
    Maybe you should read the thread up to date before you post.


  • Options
    #6430
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,597 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    eagle eye wrote: »
    I don't care if it's true or not. He shouldn't be used as a source by anybody.

    Maybe nothing but he is a liar and clearly anti-Republican so that's enough reason to not use him as a source.

    It's not about like, proven liar, proven Republican hater. Nobody should be using him as a source.



    Maybe you should read the thread up to date before you post.

    So we shouldn't post facts because you don't like the source?

    So should we ban all links to fox news? Breitbart? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #6431
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,578 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    at the point they posted that they had only seen a censored version shown on US TV. It didnt occur to them to wonder why bits of it were blurred.

    Leave some stones unturned I guess. Explains the disagreement though. Hopefully we are all on the same page about the excessive force and absolutely anyone who wasn’t a cop that shoved that man and cracked his skull open like that would he in jail for attempted murder and would not be out walking without bail.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6432
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,578 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    eagle eye wrote: »

    Maybe you should read the thread up to date before you post.
    That certainly wouldn’t be necessary if you bothered to view the right source material before posting.


  • Options
    #6433
    DrumSteve
    Registered Users Posts: 10,798 ✭✭✭✭DrumSteve


    eagle eye wrote: »
    I don't care if it's true or not. He shouldn't be used as a source by anybody.

    Maybe nothing but he is a liar and clearly anti-Republican so that's enough reason to not use him as a source.

    It's not about like, proven liar, proven Republican hater. Nobody should be using him as a source.



    Maybe you should read the thread up to date before you post.

    What a strange way of viewing things.

    As an aside, how many right wing viewpoints would be considered "unbiased"?

    There is bias in everything.


  • Options
    #6434
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    DrumSteve wrote: »
    What a strange way of viewing things.

    As an aside, how many right wing viewpoints would be considered "unbiased"?

    There is bias in everything.
    And now the NY Times has moved themselves into clown-show status. Last week they printed a piece from Senator Tom Cotton on the violence we’re seeing in the recent protests. His view is shared by about 56% of the US population. The next day the NT Times defended their decision to print it. A day later the Times succumbed to the woke crowd, the snowflakes who called in sick, and (shudder) some harsh comments... and apologized for printing it. The next day the owner of the NY Times fired the editor who allowed the piece to be printed. What a sad state of affairs at the once great paper... it now has regulated itself to nothing more than an agenda driven rag. Going forward I'll only read it for laughs.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #6435
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,655 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Reel him in like he did clinton


    Instead of #MAGA it will be #KAGA

    Except the last time he didn't really take any voters away from Clinton, her numbers stayed pretty stable all the way through.

    What he did do was gobble up all the "undecided" votes. There was a consistent 8-10% bucket of those in all the polls leading up to the Election , those are the votes he gathered that Clinton didn't.

    His Major problem this time around is that there are almost no "undecided" voters to be seen.

    In every poll, the undecided category is low single digits 2-4% range - Biden's lead is more than that right now including more than a few of the Swing States.

    At no point in the last election did Clinton even get close to 50% support - she was pretty stable in the low 40's all along , Trump closed the gap in the swing States by getting most of those undecided voters. This time around , Biden is currently sitting at 51% in the "Poll of Polls" Average scoring and a significant percentage of that describes themselves as "strongly" supporting him.

    So - There are nowhere near enough "undecided" voters for Trump to close the gap , to win he'll have to convert Voters that say they support Biden today and get them to vote for him - Not something I really see happening.

    Where do you see his votes coming from?

    And as for KAGA , even Trump himself has ditched that campaign slogan...


  • Options
    #6436
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    And now the NY Times has moved themselves into clown-show status. Last week they printed a piece from Senator Tom Cotton on the violence we’re seeing in the recent protests. His view is shared by about 56% of the US population. The next day the NT Times defended their decision to print it. A day later the Times succumbed to the woke crowd, the snowflakes who called in sick, and (shudder) some harsh comments... and apologized for printing it. The next day the owner of the NY Times fired the editor who allowed the piece to be printed. What a sad state of affairs at the once great paper... it now has regulated itself to nothing more than an agenda driven rag. Going forward I'll only read it for laughs.

    i dont suppose you have a source for that 56%


  • Options
    #6437
    DrumSteve
    Registered Users Posts: 10,798 ✭✭✭✭DrumSteve


    notobtuse wrote: »
    And now the NY Times has moved themselves into clown-show status. Last week they printed a piece from Senator Tom Cotton on the violence we’re seeing in the recent protests. His view is shared by about 56% of the US population. The next day the NT Times defended their decision to print it. A day later the Times succumbed to the woke crowd, the snowflakes who called in sick, and (shudder) some harsh comments... and apologized for printing it. The next day the owner of the NY Times fired the editor who allowed the piece to be printed. What a sad state of affairs at the once great paper... it now has regulated itself to nothing more than an agenda driven rag. Going forward I'll only read it for laughs.

    What relevance is that to what I posted?


  • Options
    #6438
    ExMachina1000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭ExMachina1000


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Anyone think this is just a coincidence?

    https://twitter.com/DanRather/status/1270841047988318208?s=19

    Dan Rather is scum though. You will have to move away from cconfirmation bias news sources to get a more realistic take on the comings and goings


  • Options
    #6439
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,597 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    ExMachina1000 wrote: »
    Dan Rather is scum though

    So another person who focuses on the source rather than the content, was anything he said a lie?


  • Options
    #6440
    ExMachina1000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭ExMachina1000


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    So another person who focuses on the source rather than the content, was anything he said a lie?

    The source isn't a factual one. The content is irrelevant in that case.


  • Options
    #6441
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 13,489 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    FVP3 wrote: »
    With the deficit between Biden and Trump being so distant there is no way Trump is getting in. Biden for 4 years, then the republican party nominee is likely to be Don Jr, not sure that the republican central party beat him with whatever centrist candidate they prefer unless they get some criminal charge.

    Biden could win that of course, depends on the economy. Anyway back to normal for a few years.

    Back to normal meaning back to the normal dysfunctional country but with a less crazy president?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6442
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    ExMachina1000 wrote: »
    The source isn't a factual one. The content is irrelevant in that case.

    same content from multiple sources. either trump is holding a rally on the anniversary of a massacre or he isnt. which is it?


  • Options
    #6443
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,578 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    ExMachina1000 wrote: »
    Dan Rather is scum though. You will have to move away from cconfirmation bias news sources to get a more realistic take on the comings and goings

    The f does it matter?? Rather said nothing that isn’t common knowledge at this stage.


  • Options
    #6444
    ExMachina1000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭ExMachina1000


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    same content from multiple sources. either trump is holding a rally on the anniversary of a massacre or he isnt. which is it?

    Who knows. There are only 365 days of the year. Every day is likely to be an anniversary of something else. Why does it matter anyway


  • Options
    #6445
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,655 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    same content from multiple sources. either trump is holding a rally on the anniversary of a massacre or he isnt. which is it?


    To be exact , he's hosting a rally near the SITE of a Racist Massacre on the Anniversary of the abolition of Slavery in the middle of massive public protests about institutional Racism..

    If everyone can hear it, is it still technically a dog whistle??


  • Options
    #6446
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 13,489 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    To be exact , he's hosting a rally near the SITE of a Racist Massacre on the Anniversary of the abolition of Slavery in the middle of massive public protests about institutional Racism..

    If everyone can hear it, is it still technically a dog whistle??

    CNN heaven.


  • Options
    #6447
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    ExMachina1000 wrote: »
    Who knows. There are only 365 days of the year. Every day is likely to be an anniversary of something else. Why does it matter anyway

    maybe it is a coincidence he decided to hold a rally on that date. or maybe it is a massive racist dog whistle


  • Options
    #6448
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,578 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    To be exact , he's hosting a rally near the SITE of a Racist Massacre on the Anniversary of the abolition of Slavery in the middle of massive public protests about institutional Racism..

    If everyone can hear it, is it still technically a dog whistle??

    It’s a dog air raid siren.


  • Options
    #6449
    ExMachina1000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭ExMachina1000


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    maybe it is a coincidence he decided to hold a rally on that date. or maybe it is a massive racist dog whistle

    Which would you prefer it to be


  • Options
    #6450
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    i dont suppose you have a source for that 56%
    I’m curious, what difference does it matter? Does the fact that the majority of Americans support the use of the military to put an end to the violence and mayhem at the protests get you behind it? If your goal was just some sort of insipid gotcha question, then please do your own work going forward. But I was incorrect on the 56% number, I should have said 58%.
    Morning Consult conducted the survey from May 31 to June 1 and found that 58 percent of voters support using the military to deal with protests and demonstrations across the country, alongside the police. Just 30 percent of respondents said they'd oppose such a measure.
    https://www.newsweek.com/majority-americans-support-calling-military-assist-police-during-nationwide-unrest-polling-shows-1508210

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6451
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    To be exact , he's hosting a rally near the SITE of a Racist Massacre on the Anniversary of the abolition of Slavery in the middle of massive public protests about institutional Racism..

    If everyone can hear it, is it still technically a dog whistle??
    Why did you quote me here?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement