Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

09/26/16 Presidential Debate

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

    The whole point is that we do not NEED moderators as anything more than ceremonial actors (Introducing the candidates, posing questions -- not selecting them -- and being timekeepers).
    Or we could just give Trump a microphone and let him make a fool of himself for 90 minutes.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #77
      Originally posted by redrover View Post

      It's hard for ae much when you have a hostile republicanny president to change much when you have a republican congress dedicated to block any progress lest Obama credit/
      Block the progress of destroying the country! Though they haven't done a good job at that. You shouldn't be winning, Mr. spoiled brat has successfully gotten away with your favored criminal activity. Mrs. spoiled brat has done the same to date.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #78

        Originally posted by redrover View Post

        Or we could just give Trump a microphone and let him make a fool of himself for 90 minutes.
        Trump has the microphone for 90 minutes at a time quite often and this is the result:

        trump-loveland-575x317.jpg

        Here is the result of Hillary with the microphone all to herself:


        image_15712.jpg

        Attached Files
        Last edited by OldmanDan; 10-04-2016, 04:22 AM.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #79
          Originally posted by redrover View Post

          Or we could just give Trump a microphone and let him make a fool of himself for 90 minutes.
          Well, I can see some people are utterly fixated on particular candidates and elections, rather than setting good rules for ALL candidates and elections.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #80
            Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

            Well, I can see some people are utterly fixated on particular candidates and elections, rather than setting good rules for ALL candidates and elections.
            That sounds good it may not provide the flexibility to insure that the things that matter are addressed.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #81
              Originally posted by redrover View Post

              That sounds good it may not provide the flexibility to insure that the things that matter are addressed.
              It would vastly improve on the current system. Also, under my rules, each candidate would be held accountable for the pool of questions they select (if they select a bunch of questions on questions voters don't give a damn about, that in and of itself is an issue that their opponent can raise against them).

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #82
                Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                It would vastly improve on the current system. Also, under my rules, each candidate would be held accountable for the pool of questions they select (if they select a bunch of questions on questions voters don't give a damn about, that in and of itself is an issue that their opponent can raise against them).
                That would never work with a candidate. who has nothing to offer beyond his inherent wonderfulness. AT this point no one has held Trump accountable for his lack of detailed policies. Why would it be different in a debate.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #83
                  Originally posted by redrover View Post

                  That would never work with a candidate. who has nothing to offer beyond his inherent wonderfulness. AT this point no one has held Trump accountable for his lack of detailed policies. Why would it be different in a debate.
                  Trump has put forth more details than Hillary.
                  Last edited by CYDdharta; 10-05-2016, 09:42 AM. Reason: fixed quote

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by redrover View Post

                    That would never work with a candidate. who has nothing to offer beyond his inherent wonderfulness. AT this point no one has held Trump accountable for his lack of detailed policies. Why would it be different in a debate.
                    No one is holding Trump accountable? I guess you haven't noticed the FACT that Trump is not cruising towards a victory by unanimous vote of every single eligible voter in the country demonstrates that people are holding him (and any other candidate who is not garnering the votes of 100 percent of eligible voters) accountable for something.

                    The only people whose job it is to hold CANDIDATES responsible, are the individual voters. You are perfectly free to hold any candidate you want to any standard you want. The whole point of a democracy is that there is no set of rules governing what is or is not relevant, what candidates should or should not be held accountable for.

                    There was a great scene in the movie The American President, where Michael Douglas's character President Andrew Sheppard lashes out at his staff about his personal life not being any of the American people's business, to which Michael J. Fox responds responds to the effect that the American people tend to decide for themselves what is or is not their business in assessing candidates for office (as is our right). There is nothing more fundamentally condescending in a representative democracy than the notion that everyone should agree with the standards of accountability you have for any particular candidate. Need I remind you, that Hillary was a key member of a campaign some 24 years ago, the surrogates of which argued strongly that "character doesn't matter".

                    I also find this particular bug you have up your butt about details to be a bit silly...If Trump could provide a ten thousand page document choked full of more details than any statute ever passed has had, and it would be irrelevant, because he (like Hillary) is untrustworthy (does anyone other than hapless Sanders supporting rubes really believe she won't work hard to pass and implement the TPP if elected) and also the fact that I can't recall a single time in history that any proposal by a President has ever actually been passed by Congress without some amount of change to the details.

                    Given that reality, I am far more concerned with the ideological principles a candidate holds, including whether or not they view compromise as a pragmatic tool to get us much of their agenda as possible passed, or a good end in and of itself (these would be the Establishment hacks who belief it is better to pass something bad, than be seen as "do nothings").

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                      No one is holding Trump accountable? I guess you haven't noticed the FACT that Trump is not cruising towards a victory by unanimous vote of every single eligible voter in the country demonstrates that people are holding him (and any other candidate who is not garnering the votes of 100 percent of eligible voters) accountable for something.

                      The only people whose job it is to hold CANDIDATES responsible, are the individual voters. You are perfectly free to hold any candidate you want to any standard you want. The whole point of a democracy is that there is no set of rules governing what is or is not relevant, what candidates should or should not be held accountable for.

                      There was a great scene in the movie The American President, where Michael Douglas's character President Andrew Sheppard lashes out at his staff about his personal life not being any of the American people's business, to which Michael J. Fox responds responds to the effect that the American people tend to decide for themselves what is or is not their business in assessing candidates for office (as is our right). There is nothing more fundamentally condescending in a representative democracy than the notion that everyone should agree with the standards of accountability you have for any particular candidate. Need I remind you, that Hillary was a key member of a campaign some 24 years ago, the surrogates of which argued strongly that "character doesn't matter".

                      I also find this particular bug you have up your butt about details to be a bit silly...If Trump could provide a ten thousand page document choked full of more details than any statute ever passed has had, and it would be irrelevant, because he (like Hillary) is untrustworthy (does anyone other than hapless Sanders supporting rubes really believe she won't work hard to pass and implement the TPP if elected) and also the fact that I can't recall a single time in history that any proposal by a President has ever actually been passed by Congress without some amount of change to the details.

                      Given that reality, I am far more concerned with the ideological principles a candidate holds, including whether or not they view compromise as a pragmatic tool to get us much of their agenda as possible passed, or a good end in and of itself (these would be the Establishment hacks who belief it is better to pass something bad, than be seen as "do nothings").
                      Can you produce a clip of her saying Chracter doesn't matter I'd like to hear that? In this morning I see that Rudy says everyone commits adultery. Nice job Rudy keep talking buddy.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by redrover View Post

                        Can you produce a clip of her saying Chracter doesn't matter I'd like to hear that? In this morning I see that Rudy says everyone commits adultery. Nice job Rudy keep talking buddy.
                        No, but plenty of campaign surrogates were out there saying it. And it was not contradicted by either the candidate nor his spouse (from whom the surrogates got their marching orders and talking points, as is the case for all campaign surrogates) so let's not be sophomoric about how every informed person knows these things work. While he is still obnoxious, the one thing you can say for Trump is he is willing to say all of that BS himself (or if you prefer, clearly too undisciplined NOT to say it *grin*), rather than relying on surrogates.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                          No one is holding Trump accountable? I guess you haven't noticed the FACT that Trump is not cruising towards a victory by unanimous vote of every single eligible voter in the country demonstrates that people are holding him (and any other candidate who is not garnering the votes of 100 percent of eligible voters) accountable for something.

                          The only people whose job it is to hold CANDIDATES responsible, are the individual voters. You are perfectly free to hold any candidate you want to any standard you want. The whole point of a democracy is that there is no set of rules governing what is or is not relevant, what candidates should or should not be held accountable for.

                          There was a great scene in the movie The American President, where Michael Douglas's character President Andrew Sheppard lashes out at his staff about his personal life not being any of the American people's business, to which Michael J. Fox responds responds to the effect that the American people tend to decide for themselves what is or is not their business in assessing candidates for office (as is our right). There is nothing more fundamentally condescending in a representative democracy than the notion that everyone should agree with the standards of accountability you have for any particular candidate. Need I remind you, that Hillary was a key member of a campaign some 24 years ago, the surrogates of which argued strongly that "character doesn't matter".

                          I also find this particular bug you have up your butt about details to be a bit silly...If Trump could provide a ten thousand page document choked full of more details than any statute ever passed has had, and it would be irrelevant, because he (like Hillary) is untrustworthy (does anyone other than hapless Sanders supporting rubes really believe she won't work hard to pass and implement the TPP if elected) and also the fact that I can't recall a single time in history that any proposal by a President has ever actually been passed by Congress without some amount of change to the details.

                          Given that reality, I am far more concerned with the ideological principles a candidate holds, including whether or not they view compromise as a pragmatic tool to get us much of their agenda as possible passed, or a good end in and of itself (these would be the Establishment hacks who belief it is better to pass something bad, than be seen as "do nothings").
                          Uh, I am a sanders rube, and most of them know damn well she will pass TPP, or sign it, once the GOP and dems send it to her. Obviously you have not talked to sanders rubes? LOL

                          The reason trump is polling as he is, is because his supporters as well as sanders supporters agree on one thing, if nothing else. Open borders free trade has to be stopped and reversed. When TPA was in congress, they were overwhelmed with both dems, independents and republican voters, saying hell no. And yet, of course, they do not listen. For TPP benefits their big donors, who own them, and that is what drove much of this election cycle. MSM will not report this, but it has been reported elsewhere, by the people who know what the issue is. And that issue is not going away, but will get worse if Clinton wins and of course signs TPP. The gold standard, up until she saw sanders running on it. And he was getting to close and the dems had to start rigging, and commiting anti democratic dirty deeds to beat him. The dem primary was chock full of such stuff. For the wishes and demands of our elites are all that has importance. In both parties, which is why trump beat the hell out of those other treasonous bastards.

                          I have even heard the liars, or the misinformed, declare that sanders was an open borders candidate. But if they would only have listened to what he said when interviewed by WHORE HAY, the Hispanic with Hispanic news, sanders said open borders was what the KOCH boys wanted, to depress wages in sectors that cannot be sent to slave labor. But of course he had a different position on the ones already here, than trump. For he knew if you made them legal, suddenly the wage depression would be corrected, for they would not have to hide, and could not be taken advantage of as easier by criminal businessmen.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                            No, but plenty of campaign surrogates were out there saying it. And it was not contradicted by either the candidate nor his spouse (from whom the surrogates got their marching orders and talking points, as is the case for all campaign surrogates) so let's not be sophomoric about how every informed person knows these things work. While he is still obnoxious, the one thing you can say for Trump is he is willing to say all of that BS himself (or if you prefer, clearly too undisciplined NOT to say it *grin*), rather than relying on surrogates.
                            OK play a clip of a surrogate saying that. Should be easy enough to find if so many were saying it.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by redrover View Post

                              Can you produce a clip of her saying Chracter doesn't matter I'd like to hear that? In this morning I see that Rudy says everyone commits adultery. Nice job Rudy keep talking buddy.
                              Do you know someone who hasn't?

                              "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'

                              But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                                It would vastly improve on the current system. Also, under my rules, each candidate would be held accountable for the pool of questions they select (if they select a bunch of questions on questions voters don't give a damn about, that in and of itself is an issue that their opponent can raise against them).
                                In the VP debate, I was pleased with most of questions as they were for the most part, about important issues, But the moderator didn't attempt to control Kain when he was constantly off topic with the only intention of trying to pull Pence off topic, (so Pence would offer nothing but continuous defense of nonsense). Kaine was so prominently exposed because Pence didn't bite, leaving Kaine too much time to talk with nothing to say, so repetition was his only option. you listened to Kaine, you'd think that Trump,not showing his tax returns, was the reason why we have crime, a bad economy, racism, horrid foreign policy, major conflict with other nations, and if Trump just released his tax returns every voter would know how Trump would lead the country.

                                If the moderator just lets the nonsensical questions be discussed with the other responsible to address the nonsense, the debate would just be a bust for voters. If one harps on the useless question and the other addresses it in short, then it only leaves a gap of time for the attacker to spew unchallenged insults. So the other would have to either use up all his time defending the nonsense, or stop talking leaving people to believe he didn't defend because couldn't, while the lies or insinuation are put out there as fact.
                                Last edited by CYDdharta; 10-07-2016, 08:17 AM. Reason: fixed quote

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X