RugbyRebels

rowan wrote:

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:

rowan wrote:
Your last one sure looked that way...

Haha, it's not even close. Stop wildly flailing at everything you see. I honestly couldn't give a fuck about either of the pricks, just thought it was odd that Obama is an irrelevance yet, before time, you seem adamant that Clinton or Trump won't be.

What's really odd is that I've made the very same point myself a number of times, long before you got around to it. The common tactic here being to shut down unwanted debate with hostile attacks on the messenger, I interpreted it in that light.

That's the third incorrect assumption you've made about me, and the second within two posts. Speaking of shutting down debate, do you find you get a lot of healthy debate out of people here whilst tossing around the word brainwashed?

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:

rowan wrote:

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:
Haha, it's not even close. Stop wildly flailing at everything you see. I honestly couldn't give a fuck about either of the pricks, just thought it was odd that Obama is an irrelevance yet, before time, you seem adamant that Clinton or Trump won't be.

What's really odd is that I've made the very same point myself a number of times, long before you got around to it. The common tactic here being to shut down unwanted debate with hostile attacks on the messenger, I interpreted it in that light.

That's the third incorrect assumption you've made about me, and the second within two posts. Speaking of shutting down debate, do you find you get a lot of healthy debate out of people here whilst tossing around the word brainwashed?

You've just proved the point you were trying to deny. You thought you were a genius by making a point I'd already made several times myself. When I spelt it out for you, you began ranting about 'wildly flailing at everything.' Your obective was all too evident from the outset - can't deal with the message, attack the messenger. I'm a little too old for that, and if the word brainwashed comes up a lot that is because it is very relevant to the world we live in today - or else how could America be in a permanent state of warfare, bombing the Middle East for decades and killing millions, and now getting ready to elect a war criminal because the alternative is a circus clown?

rowan wrote:

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:

rowan wrote:

What's really odd is that I've made the very same point myself a number of times, long before you got around to it. The common tactic here being to shut down unwanted debate with hostile attacks on the messenger, I interpreted it in that light.

That's the third incorrect assumption you've made about me, and the second within two posts. Speaking of shutting down debate, do you find you get a lot of healthy debate out of people here whilst tossing around the word brainwashed?

You've just proved the point you were trying to deny. You thought you were a genius by making a point I'd already made several times myself. When I spelt it out for you, you began ranting about 'wildly flailing at everything.' Your obective was all too evident from the outset - can't deal with the message, attack the messenger. I'm a little too old for that, and if the word brainwashed comes up a lot that is because it is very relevant to the world we live in today - or else how could America be in a permanent state of warfare, bombing the Middle East for decades and killing millions, and now getting ready to elect a war criminal because the alternative is a circus clown?

Haha. Just wow mate. For what it's worth I don't think I'm the one with an over inflated idea of my own genius.

As I said in our last, utter waste of time encounter, it's got fuck all to do with what you are writing about, and everything to do with how you write it. You make polarising assumptions about people, and relentlessly deal in absolutes, then have the neck to accuse others of shutting down debate. Your tone and presentation does far more damage your own arguments than any of the opposition you rage against. I get the feeling that's the point though. That's the reason I'm playing the man and not the ball, I'm too old not to.

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:

rowan wrote:

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:
That's the third incorrect assumption you've made about me, and the second within two posts. Speaking of shutting down debate, do you find you get a lot of healthy debate out of people here whilst tossing around the word brainwashed?

You've just proved the point you were trying to deny. You thought you were a genius by making a point I'd already made several times myself. When I spelt it out for you, you began ranting about 'wildly flailing at everything.' Your obective was all too evident from the outset - can't deal with the message, attack the messenger. I'm a little too old for that, and if the word brainwashed comes up a lot that is because it is very relevant to the world we live in today - or else how could America be in a permanent state of warfare, bombing the Middle East for decades and killing millions, and now getting ready to elect a war criminal because the alternative is a circus clown?

Haha. Just wow mate. For what it's worth I don't think I'm the one with an over inflated idea of my own genius.

As I said in our last, utter waste of time encounter, it's got fuck all to do with what you are writing about, and everything to do with how you write it. You make polarising assumptions about people, and relentlessly deal in absolutes, then have the neck to accuse others of shutting down debate. Your tone and presentation does far more damage your own arguments than any of the opposition you rage against. I get the feeling that's the point though. That's the reason I'm playing the man and not the ball, I'm too old not to.

No, in reality, you came along and tried to make a silly point which was shot down in flames. & so you couldn't argue the point; you had to attack the messenger instead. That's all there is to it, and the rest is just a smokescreen to diguise your embarrassment at being made to look so ridiculous. Your "haha" amounts to the grin on the face of a boxer who has just been caught with a solid punch.

My god. I actually thought a conversation was about to break out for a moment there. I'm quite interested in a lot of the opinions in here, but how is it so difficult to discuss this stuff without jabbing at anyone who may not see it the same way?

I'd quite like to read more of the thoughts here but there's 20 posts accusing each other of making things personal / "shooting the messenger" for every 1 vaguely interesting opinion.

Mikey Brown wrote:My god. I actually thought a conversation was about to break out for a moment there. I'm quite interested in a lot of the opinions in here, but how is it so difficult to discuss this stuff without jabbing at anyone who may not see it the same way?

I'd quite like to read more of the thoughts here but there's 20 posts accusing each other of making things personal / "shooting the messenger" for every 1 vaguely interesting opinion.

Yeah, that one is on me. Fair point.

rowan wrote:

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:

rowan wrote:
You've just proved the point you were trying to deny. You thought you were a genius by making a point I'd already made several times myself. When I spelt it out for you, you began ranting about 'wildly flailing at everything.' Your obective was all too evident from the outset - can't deal with the message, attack the messenger. I'm a little too old for that, and if the word brainwashed comes up a lot that is because it is very relevant to the world we live in today - or else how could America be in a permanent state of warfare, bombing the Middle East for decades and killing millions, and now getting ready to elect a war criminal because the alternative is a circus clown?

Haha. Just wow mate. For what it's worth I don't think I'm the one with an over inflated idea of my own genius.

As I said in our last, utter waste of time encounter, it's got fuck all to do with what you are writing about, and everything to do with how you write it. You make polarising assumptions about people, and relentlessly deal in absolutes, then have the neck to accuse others of shutting down debate. Your tone and presentation does far more damage your own arguments than any of the opposition you rage against. I get the feeling that's the point though. That's the reason I'm playing the man and not the ball, I'm too old not to.

No, in reality, you came along and tried to make a silly point which was shot down in flames. & so you couldn't argue the point; you had to attack the messenger instead. That's all there is to it, and the rest is just a smokescreen to diguise your embarrassment at being made to look so ridiculous. Your "haha" amounts to the grin on the face of a boxer who has just been caught with a solid punch.

This is highly embarrassing. Perhaps not in the way you think it is.

Mike has a point though. I'll leave this at that.

Keep swinging for the fences champ.

That wasn't aimed particularly at you, or even this thread, to be clear. More the whole politics section in general.

The multi-trillion dollar Military Industrial Complex needs a state of permanent warfare to feed it and the Clinton's are very much tied up in that. There isn't a war Hillary has said 'no' to, in fact. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Sudan, support for the Saudis in Yemen (and despite the fact she knew Saudi was behind ISIS), suppot for the Israelis in Gaza, support for the coups in Ukraine and Honduras. But about half of Americans don't even know this, and the other half just don't care. Moreover, the mainstream media is totally behind Clinton. I don't think there has ever been such one-sided coverage of an election campaign. All the attention is on the Trump scandals, and at least some of the allegations are full of holes. But, even if they were all true, hypothetically-speaking, as undeniably reprehensible as that would be, it simply cannot compare to complicity in the deaths of millions of men, women and children in the Middle East. & I'm only talking about her war crimes here. Let's not even get into the email scandals and her alleged bullying tactics in defending a child rapist during her law career. This isn't an election; it's a complete farce, and everyone can see it. Trump is the fall-guy. Clinton is the deep state's chosen candidate, and she will be their representative just as she is now and always has been since entering the political arena. Meanwhile Clinton's talking up the looming confrontation with Russia and insisting that Assad must go. We could quite conceivably be sleep-walking into WWIII here. For certain, American foreign policy will not improve, and watching this charade to elect a known war criminal unfolding, I'm gaining a real insight into how it was that Hitler came to power...

Any thoughts on round 3?

Again, I think Clinton is wiping the floor with the Donald in terms of ability to construct coherent sentences on the topic being discussed.

Let me tell you. You know it, I know it and everyone knows it.

*various hand gestures*

What a fucking travesty that the future of the world rests on these cunts. A seasoned politician* and an absolute fuckwitted cockwomble (nice adjective MP).

For the avoidance of doubt * = liar, war criminal, federal criminal, Wall Street sympathiser, racketeer, criminal, etc, etc.

Jebus she has a nasally whiney voice.

Having never been to America, do all Americans struggle to speak English and construct sentences? They are generally English words (albeit with a few exceptions in the case of Trump) but the order seems all wrong.

Anyway America is fecked either way.

Don't get me wrong, I despise Trump almost as much as I despise Clinton, but I simply don't regard him as anything more than an actor. He's never come across as a genuine politician to me, and many highly respected commentators have arrived at the same conclusion, including Michael Moore who suggested Trump doesn't even want the presidency. If there is one positive to come out of this election, it is that anyone with a fully-functioning brain must now be able to see that democracy is dead in America and the major corporations with their military industrial complex and mainstream media propaganda departments are running the world's major super power like a dictatorship.

WaspInWales wrote:Any thoughts on round 3?

Again, I think Clinton is wiping the floor with the Donald in terms of ability to construct coherent sentences on the topic being discussed.

Let me tell you. You know it, I know it and everyone knows it.

*various hand gestures*

What a fucking travesty that the future of the world rests on these cunts. A seasoned politician* and an absolute fuckwitted cockwomble (nice adjective MP).

For the avoidance of doubt * = liar, war criminal, federal criminal, Wall Street sympathiser, racketeer, criminal, etc, etc.

In the reality TV world of US politics, I think it went:
Round 1, Clinton.
Round 2, Trump.
Round 3, Clinton.

Bit of a damp squib last performance, really. But the damage has been done over the last few weeks anyway, he doesn't have a chance. In fact, his performances in the debates have been so bad you genuinely wonder whether he wants it - he's a narcissistic f*ckwit but I don't believe he is stupid, and he has had a lot of ammo he either hasn't touched on or just skimmed over in his inane ramblings.

All the evidence seems to be this is still a push for a television network.

jared_7 wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:Any thoughts on round 3?

Again, I think Clinton is wiping the floor with the Donald in terms of ability to construct coherent sentences on the topic being discussed.

Let me tell you. You know it, I know it and everyone knows it.

*various hand gestures*

What a fucking travesty that the future of the world rests on these cunts. A seasoned politician* and an absolute fuckwitted cockwomble (nice adjective MP).

For the avoidance of doubt * = liar, war criminal, federal criminal, Wall Street sympathiser, racketeer, criminal, etc, etc.

In the reality TV world of US politics, I think it went:
Round 1, Clinton.
Round 2, Trump.
Round 3, Clinton.

Bit of a damp squib last performance, really. But the damage has been done over the last few weeks anyway, he doesn't have a chance. In fact, his performances in the debates have been so bad you genuinely wonder whether he wants it - he's a narcissistic f*ckwit but I don't believe he is stupid, and he has had a lot of ammo he either hasn't touched on or just skimmed over in his inane ramblings.

All the evidence seems to be this is still a push for a television network.

If that is the case then its a real shame that the election to the most powerful position in the world is seen in such a manner. The Republican Party must be spitting blood at this given that against a candidate such as Clinton, a candidate of their own who was vaguely credible could easily have won. There is some serious soul searching to be done there, if they can be bothered. As someone (morepork?) pointed out below the current views of the party are their own fault with the company they have been keeping, but if they want to win an election then they need to pull a finger out somewhere.

That's assuming they are separate parties at all any more...

Sandydragon wrote:If that is the case then its a real shame that the election to the most powerful position in the world is seen in such a manner. The Republican Party must be spitting blood at this given that against a candidate such as Clinton, a candidate of their own who was vaguely credible could easily have won. There is some serious soul searching to be done there, if they can be bothered. As someone (morepork?) pointed out below the current views of the party are their own fault with the company they have been keeping, but if they want to win an election then they need to pull a finger out somewhere.

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2016/10/11/t ... -the-fall/

But note well: Donald Trump is not a black swan, an unforeseen event erupting upon an unsuspecting Republican Party. He is the end result of conscious and deliberate choices by the GOP, going back decades, to demonize its opponents, to polarize and obstruct, to pursue policies that enfeeble the political weal and to yoke the bigot and the ignorant to their wagon and to drive them by dangling carrots that they only ever intended to feed to the rich. Trump’s road to the candidacy was laid down and paved by the Southern Strategy, by Lee Atwater and Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove, by Fox News and the Tea Party, and by the smirking cynicism of three generations of GOP operatives, who have been fracking the white middle and working classes for years, crushing their fortunes with their social and economic policies, never imagining it would cause an earthquake. […]

But they don’t control Trump, which they are currently learning to their great misery. And the reason the GOP doesn’t control Trump is that they no longer control their base. The GOP trained their base election cycle after election cycle to be disdainful of government and to mistrust authority, which ultimately is an odd thing for a political party whose very rationale for existence is rooted in the concept of governmental authority to do. The GOP created a monster, but the monster isn’t Trump. The monster is the GOP’s base. Trump is the guy who stole their monster from them, for his own purposes.

I'm amazed the Donald has managed to make it in business. If he negotiates business deals in the same style as he debates a presidential election, it's no surprise he has racked up such losses.

Business competitor:
"Donald you offered $5 million for the takeover last week and now it's down to $27 dollars"

The Donald:
"No I didn't, that's a lie. You did. I know it, you know it and everybody knows it. I'm gonna make the company great again. It's going to be so bigly, it will be tremendous."

Business competitor:
"How will you do that?"

The Donald:
"I'm going to keep you in suspense but it will be awesome!"

In some ways it would be entertaining seeing him as president dealing with other world leaders who are far more intelligent than him.

I'm beginning to change my mind on him.

That orange mutant hasn't succeeded at anything. Given the level of literacy and comprehension on display thus far, I'd be surprised if he finished high school. What a farce.

Donald's success seemingly stems from two points, first his dad made a lot of money, second when your debts run high enough it goes from being your problem to the bank's problem.

jared_7 wrote:

But note well: Donald Trump is not a black swan, an unforeseen event erupting upon an unsuspecting Republican Party. He is the end result of conscious and deliberate choices by the GOP, going back decades, to demonize its opponents, to polarize and obstruct, to pursue policies that enfeeble the political weal and to yoke the bigot and the ignorant to their wagon and to drive them by dangling carrots that they only ever intended to feed to the rich. Trump’s road to the candidacy was laid down and paved by the Southern Strategy, by Lee Atwater and Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove, by Fox News and the Tea Party, and by the smirking cynicism of three generations of GOP operatives, who have been fracking the white middle and working classes for years, crushing their fortunes with their social and economic policies, never imagining it would cause an earthquake. […]

But they don’t control Trump, which they are currently learning to their great misery. And the reason the GOP doesn’t control Trump is that they no longer control their base. The GOP trained their base election cycle after election cycle to be disdainful of government and to mistrust authority, which ultimately is an odd thing for a political party whose very rationale for existence is rooted in the concept of governmental authority to do. The GOP created a monster, but the monster isn’t Trump. The monster is the GOP’s base. Trump is the guy who stole their monster from them, for his own purposes.

All of that.

WaspInWales wrote:I'm amazed the Donald has managed to make it in business. If he negotiates business deals in the same style as he debates a presidential election, it's no surprise he has racked up such losses.

He hasn't made a profit on his Dad's capital. In fact it's estimated he's lost $3bn.

He said "bigly" again a couple of times, the fucking pilchard.

kk67 wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:I'm amazed the Donald has managed to make it in business. If he negotiates business deals in the same style as he debates a presidential election, it's no surprise he has racked up such losses.

He hasn't made a profit on his Dad's capital. In fact it's estimated he's lost $3bn.

Imagine him in charge of America's economy. They'd be downgraded to a developing country within a few weeks!

Vote Trump!

The worrying part is what comes after Trump. He mayn't win, but he's gotten awfully close running a horrible campaign based on fear, which suggests someone could be more successful with a still more extreme message than Trump has carried. I'd like to think the Republicans would set about putting their house in order, mind I'd also like the two parties to try and work together, but in both instances there seems little chance.

Digby wrote:Donald's success seemingly stems from two points, first his dad made a lot of money, second when your debts run high enough it goes from being your problem to the bank's problem.

This, and the ridiculous American tax code which seems to let you trade corporate losses for personal tax rebates.