State of the Union - pre/post election & whatever...

[General Apathy]

General Apathy wrote:
As for Trump, I don't care what other sleaze comes out on him. I haven't defended him, excused him, supported him and won't 'vote for him. If there is bad shit on him, it should come out as well.


Except for quoting just about every piece of BS flying out of Trump camp, no, I'm not defending him.

JJ, buddy, you are sounding JUST LIKE TRUMP and are being dishonest about it.

Aside from calling for her being charged and demonstrating the truth of the items in Clinton Cash,what have I stated that you consider BS?

I haven't defended his position on foreign policy. Haven't supported him on trade. Haven't supported him as a sleaze, I can agree with some of his points without supporting him. Those same points are held by non-Trump individuals as well.

At the same time, I apparently hold some same positions as Hillary, depending on whether are talking about her public position, her private position on the same subject, and whether it isefore or after she was paid more by a different special interest group to switch her long held, strong position on whatever.

[General Apathy]

Mac I've repeatedly told you that isn't my position, so there is nothing to own up to. I've offered to wallpaper you with my actual posts.

You can shovel all the shit you want but without links, your claim of what my position supposedly is amounts to nothing more than more of your Brazilian sewer sludge.

[rebelyell2006]

You haven't proved anything, dickweed.

[General Apathy]

Your say so hardly constitutes proof. Go honor your Confederate ancestors.

[General Apathy]

Mac,

Remember this?

May not be the only but Bill made a big thing at the time about being the first and only. Doesn't matter either way.

.
But maybe you'd like to tell us all her about how global warming's a conspiracy created by evil scientists to keep the Democratic Party in power? I mean, seeing as how you're not scared of debating without having moderator run interference for you.

Why would I do that? I've not claimed that on TMP. Just like you seem to think that anonymous guests MUST be Excrement posting even long after I've used the Boogeyman handle exclusively (do pay attention, please), you apparently think that everyone posting who doesn't swoon at the thought of AGW must also be me. Sorry, but once again, like when you lied earlier today, you are wrong. Just out of curiosity, when is the last time you actually read my posts? You claim my posts sit for days before I get DH'ed but somehow have missed the numerous times I've gotten the same day and a few times within hours.

You talk about Bill allowing me to post politics (main reason I get DH'ed, then perhaps you'd like to explain why he recently shut down all political discussions on the Ultramodern board, now renamed Ultramodern Warfare board.

You want to debate global warming? My position has been for some time that it doesn't matter who is right. All the countries pay lip service but no one is going to cut their country's economic throat to meet that magic number. That was even before the great migration started that is wreaking havoc on national economies. India has in so many words said not only are they not cutting, they are increasing the amount of coal fired plants as their nation needs that power NOW. China has said they'd cut back by 2030, though some projections say their peak will be around 2020. The folks rejoycing a bout that ignore that China isn't known for really worrying about what they've promised, and, by the time they hit their peak, the percentage of CO2 may have already passed the point where scientists say irreparable damage will be done. Germany is replacing the nuke plants they shut down after Fukushima with coal and oil burning plants. I could list a whole lot more, but the world is busy patting itself on the back over the Paris agreement, a non binding unenforceable non- treaty that even if it were complied with would fail completely to achieve the goals started by the.scientists. The IPCC themselves are a joke with their approach to their ever growing carbon footprints.

But what you want me to argue? Sorry, you have me confused with someone else.

JJ

Find those links yet? Lying asshole.

[rebelyell2006]

Your claims of proving stuff mean nothing.

[kyotebue2]

Why should we do your home work JJ ???

[Macunaima nli]

Nice job at selectively cutting and pasting, Excrement. That was the position you took only after it became obvious you were talking shit on global warming. You then educated yourself a bit and took the "Well, it doesn't matter anyway", tack.

So whenever you want to post links about why global warming isn't caused by humans, let me k ow.

[Macunaima]

Aside from calling for her being charged and demonstrating the truth of the items in Clinton Cash,what have I stated that you consider BS?

Let's start withh your authoritarian tone regarding the e-mail scandal. Yes, it is a scandal. Yes, Clinton played fast and loose with regulations -- as has pretty much every American president and cabinet member over the past couple of decades.

There is no concensus among the finest legal minds of the country that she broke the law. Certainly, there is zero legal precedent for that charge. Everyone else ever charged under that law in the hundred years it has been around has demonstrated intent to break it. Clinton hasn't. If she is guilty, Bush, Obama and a series of other figures on both sides of the party line are guilty and should be likewise charged. To make an exception for Clinton would indeed be a politicized decision. Everyone else does it, but only Clinton is investigated or charged? THAT is politics, JJ.

And even if she were charged and found guilty, we are talking about a misdemeanor, ot a felony.

But here you are, screaming the Trump camp's mantra of "jail her!"

And you're no Trumpette, right?

I haven't defended his position on foreign policy. Haven't supported him on trade. Haven't supported him as a sleaze, I can agree with some of his points without supporting him. Those same points are held by non-Trump individuals as well

In the current situation, an extremely sleazy election, where there are only two possible candidates, you have reported pretty much every lie made by one camp as if it were God's own truth, up to and including the out-and-out conspiracy theoretizing about Clinton's health. You have done all of this, urging folks not to vote for Clinton, as if there were any other possible scenario that could result in than a Trump victory.

You exagerate everything Clinton has done and said in the most extreme light possible, following the Trump camp's leading talking points at every opportunity. So you say stupid bullshit like "Oh, Clinton's paid to change her longheld position on...." bleah,, bleah, bleah.

But you make no comment whatsoever on the manifestly proven point that Trump is worse than Clinton on every one of these issues. In the JJ Parus world, Clinton is apparently running against Bernie Sanders and if we don't elect her, we get some sort of superhero as president.

No, JJ. The sad fact of the matter is that it is Clinton or Trump and Trump is the worse candidate in every conceivable measure. This doesn't mean Clinton is pure as the driven snow. She has plenty of problems. Most of these, however, are the problems of her political class at large, Democrat or Republican, and they are problems which Trump certainly shares. I mean, let's talk about flip-flopping on the issues. More than Donnie? Hello? And sexual morality? The worst that can be said about Clinton is that she married a guy like Trump. That would be a stunning condemnation.... were she running against Elizabeth Warren and not Donald Trump.

So you sit here talking shit about Clinton, most of it vastly exagerated, while ignoring the fact that we are four weeks away from an election where the only real choice is her or Trump... Then you wash your hands and say "But I don't support Trump"?

In this context you are, JJ. And that's made obvious by the fact that for all the evil shit Clinton has done which you feel is a game breaker, Trump has done worse and you can't even acknoledge that simple fact.

Hell, even I -- a Clinton supporter -- have posted links like that Stewart video where her problems are gone into at length. But we have yet to see you even really blink at anything Trump has done.

I mean, can anyone imagine the JJ Parus reaction if Clinton had sniffled 96 times during the debate? And another 50 or so the first time? Christ! You'd be on here claiming she has AIDS-related pneumonia and posting links from all across the conspiracy blogosphere showing that "doctors agree".

But Trump does this shit and not a word. Not a shrug. A sick Clinton, that's a threat to the nation. A sick -- or more likely stoned -- Trump? Not a concern. Not even worth a blink of an eye.

So when you are so massively biased against one candidate in a race where there are only two possible outcomes, please don't tell us about how you aren't supporting Trump. Yes you are, very concretely.

Furthermore, I am almost certain you know this. A Trump victory would please you greatly, damn the costs to the nation. But because you don't like being associated with the trailer park set and the alt. right in an election where they are increasingly being revealed as Trump's electoral base, you find it more convenient to bang on the drum of Clinton's supposed unfitness for the presidency while ignoring the obvious corrolary as to what would happen were people to listen to you. Thankfully, this being Frothers, there's no chance of that.

[Mr Moonshine]

Oh I have a few ideas on what would work for all human beings (except the psychopaths).

Oh, go on, do tell - you know want to - what does work on you by the way?

the culture of every European nation is being destroyed

Now who would be doing that and how? - come on don't be shy - you're among friends now - just us, nobody else will ever know. Wouldn't you like to tell someone? We can help you.

Er, I've already been quite clear on that. The globalists are doing it, using unfettered mass immigration as a weapon. When a culture is not allowed to defend its borders from unmanaged influx from all other surrounding cultures, it tends to be completely ruined. What is so difficult for you mind-controlled nob-jockeys to understand about that?

What makes it difficult is that you use the word "culture" as if you understood what it means when you most obviously don't.

There is no American culture. The U.S. is a pluralist n ation that contains many cultures, as are Mexico and Canada. And speaking of Mexico's cultures, a good chunk of the U.S. used to be Mexican and those cultures were there before your (probably) broke-ass bohunk ancestors walked out of steerage and onto Ellis Island.

Your problem is this, Moonunit: you don't like Mexicans, but you know it's politically incorrect to say that, so you wuss out and start using weasel words like "culture" in order to hide your xenophobia and probable racism.

You and me are both Americans. I assure you, our cultures are very, very different. Thankfully, yours si not able to reproduce itself much, anymore, which is why you've resorted to rabble-rousing among the alt-right set. Frankly, most Mexican immigrants I have met are a hell of a lot more "my culture" than the skinheads and broke-ass cowboy wanna-bes that you are pleased to call your people.

MacBill, stop giving us examples of clear brain damage.
I've already told you racist fuckwads that I'm not american. I'm british.
JJ is right about you - your ONLY debate tactic is to choose a position that your opponent doesn't hold, then write a wall of text about it.
Utter useless cunt.